Bring back...

[johnnyboy]

It's not so strange: Before the ban everyone around you who didn't smoke suffered while you enjoyed it in comfort. I think that's much less fair than the situation now.

Suffer? Suffer?

No-one obviously suffered so much that it stopped them from going to the pub or club or bingo hall.

The pubs, clubs and bingo halls have not been flooded with grateful, happy non-smokers since the ban came in. According to the trade newspaper, the Morning Advertiser, "..(a)lmost two million adults go out less since the smoking ban, according to new consumer research conducted by Mintel.

The survey predicts a tough time ahead for wet-led pubs as 16% of adults say they now go out less. Over one in five (22%) said the ban had disrupted their socialising.

"The attitudes of smokers to the ban are not as negative as they could have been," said Mintel's senior leisure analyst Helen Spicer. "But the fact that even a small percentage are going out less now will prove critical to some venues."

As I stated in an earlier post, you are either a pub person or not a pub person. Banning smoking will not get many new people coming into pubs because, as the figures show, people can't have been that bothered by smoking anyway that it turned them away from the pub.

It **IS** strange making someone suffer to have a bit of enjoyment.

I'm starting to tire of your repetitions, for what it's worth I'm not a fan of your xanu labour term either. It doesn't really help your arguments. Back to the argument: I couldn't give two shits about control, I'm just saying I think rooms like the ones you describe are pointless because everyone will be drawn for social reasons if it's comfortable. Then the situation's exactly like before the ban - just more people squashed into a smaller space. I think that'll happen in France too. The resulting crush to get in and out might be much less pleasant for everyone concerned.

It will be much more pleasing for smokers to be able to stay inside when consuming their legal product. Of that, there is no doubt.

As for live and let live. I quite like to go to DRINK and not come out reeking of SMOKE. Whether you sparked up or not nearby meant I had to go and wash my clothes more often and decided which places I could eat if I wanted to make a good impression on someone later on (by not being a smelly tramp). How's that for control? And all because you can't be bothered to get off your arse and smoke outside.

Reeking? Reeking? What an exaggeration!

Your clothes and hair **may** smell slightly of smoke, along with general body odour, perfume/after-shave and splashed drinks.

So we should deny 10-12m people pleasure, landlords the opportunity to make a profit and spend £300m enforcing a "smell" ban? It's ridiculous. It should be UP TO THE LANDLORD what he allows and does not allow on his premises as long as H&S are not affected.

Why should I and 10m others have to go outside? Why can't we have an indoor, sealed-off and ventilated area where we can sit and have a ciggie and a pint?

See the above about what I think is fair. You suffer but you gain pleasure. We suffered but we gained nothing except extra laundry.

Oh, the humanity!!! Extra laundry!

I don't know where you get your numbers and you might be right (source would be nice), but for starters you've ignored the effects of lung irritants in smoke that you don't get in restaurants unless they're on fire.

Cooking causes all sorts of fine particle pollutants. Here is a study from the pro-smoking but non-tobacco-funded FORCES website which places cooking and second-hand smoking in pretty much the same light on these pollutants.

Again quoting FORCES, "This study, sponsored by the Hotel Association of Canada, clearly demonstrates (with sophisticated electronic equipment) that, with some ventilation, the air quality of a smoking area is equal (if not better) than the quality of the air where smoking is forbidden altogether. This is not good news for those who hold the absurd position that passive smoke cannot be eliminated; position held to hide that what they seek is not "protection" of non smokers from non-existing dangers to health, but prohibition for social control" - click here for study

Statistically speaking it's way too early to say what the long-term effects are, that might just be a spike after the ban. How many of these pubs, for example, have been re-opened? How many of those landlords actively decided to shut down because of the ban?

PS: I'm with you on the whole derogatory terminology thing jb, it's not really on is it.

I know, Sputty. As you can tell, I am really angry about the smoking ban.

I'm certainly not upset by you as a person - deffo not the case so apologies if I have seemed a little harsh but the situation really fries my goat.

[Alexia]

Regarding Rob:

It's bloody obvious... it was probably a cynical attempt to increase Google hits and make him appear more...well, bloggingly active than normal Fair doose if he just does what Melanie Phillips does, which is grab a whole chunk of text from another article and then go "this is bollocks" after it.

But then, for reasons unbeknownst to us, Melanie Phillips is a prominent and in some circles respected commentator and orator for the right-wing cause. Rob Francis however, is an internet geek who drinks green liquid inbetween hitting treble 18s.

Regarding smoking ban: I don't give a shit, it's the law and that's that. In 20 years time smokers will be as rare as mountain gorillas.

[johnnyboy]

Roy Castle was a non-smoker for all his life.

Google -"roy castle" cigars- and there are anecdotal stories about people seeing him light up every now and again.

If I got cancer, I am no more scientifically able to determine the cause of it than the non-medical Roy Castle. You might find this surprising but in a court of law, they can not even prove that lung cancer is caused by primary smoking. Look it up.

Smoke is smoke... that's why those firefighter chaps wear those masks that provide them with air when they enter a burning building. And in most cases in a pub, it's not just one person two tables down, it's about 30-40 people all lighting up in one go.

Water is water...that's why people die from drinking it too much of it in a short space of time. It's not the ingredient that is, of itself, bad but the dosage. What part of that do you have trouble understanding?

Comparing being in a smoking pub with a fireman being in a blazing building is just ridiculous. It's like comparing a puddle with a tsunami.

The worst thing about the ban now is people flouting it. I frequently smell smoke coming from the hotel rooms as I deliver the papers in the morning, and one guest was quite openly smoking in the hallway the other day.

Similarly in our enclosed bus station there are signs all over saying "No Smoking"...and people are smoking!! For fuck's sake, you can't choose which laws to obey and which not to!

That's the BEST thing. This is a stupid law that was not announced in Labour's manifesto.

History is made by people standing up to interfering governments.

For years and years, the number of places where you could smoke has been diminishing because the owners of the buildings decided they didn't want it. The VAST majority of smokers respected these decisions. The choice should remain theirs and theirs alone.

When the choice is taken away from all of us for no good reason other than to satisfy a bunch of howling health freaks funded by the pharmaceutical companies flogging their own nicotine products, civil rebellion is perfectly acceptable.

Don't can the ban, just amend the ban so smokers are treated like human beings. It is the height of the sickness of a country where old ladies in wheelchairs have to be taken outside the warmth of their nursing home to have a cigarette.

On the other hand, opinionated bastards who think the law is unjust and oppressive may think they are above this law and that it doesn't apply as it's an affront to their "human rights." I often find these people are the same people who think that being in the European Union is a bad idea...yet they often go crying to the Human Rights Act when something goes against them.

Are you 12? Drawing comparisons is a great way to test an argument but that was just strange.

As for CAMRA - maybe Real Ale is finally going out of fashion?

The evidence is stacking up against you!

Regarding smoking ban: I don't give a shit, it's the law and that's that. In 20 years time smokers will be as rare as mountain gorillas.

"It's the law and that's that" sums up why this country is in such terrible trouble.

[Nini]

Never seen someone so hellbent on proving that banning smoking is the slippery slope to the unravelling of society as a whole. Love the candour, just not so fond of the "my way or the highway" opinion driving the somewhat valid points presented.

It's of my belief that banning smoking or anything people enjoyed legally previously outright can only generate a certain amount of resentment although Johnny already seems to been waving his hard-left liberal freak flag long before this ban came into effect so I'll discount much of what he says as no good can come from someone's opinion so far to the left or right as they'll always be skewed, creepy, generally incorrect and grossly reactionist like the Animal Liberation Front or Nazi Germany respectively.

Johnny proved that a polarised view of anything just doesn't help debate if a lack of understanding from either side is seen and that smoking shouldn't be seen as tantamount to hate speech or saying crack is perfectly safe. Doesn't mean by any amount that it's safe but it's certainly anti-social and that it's moving gradually away from popular opinion of being acceptable due to the smell and other health issues involved. This issue is far from black and white and a middle ground will be hard fought to get.

::steps off small soapbox::

[johnnyboy]

Never seen someone so hellbent on proving that banning smoking is the slippery slope to the unravelling of society as a whole. Love the candour, just not so fond of the "my way or the highway" opinion driving the somewhat valid points presented.

I'm not saying "my way or the highway" though. Earlier in this thread, I said that I now appreciate that some people don't like cigarette smoke.

What I have suggested was a compromise.

...although Johnny already seems to been waving his hard-left liberal freak flag long before this ban came into effect...

What makes you think I am a hard-left liberal freak?

[Nini]

I'm not saying "my way or the highway" though. Earlier in this thread, I said that I now appreciate that some people don't like cigarette smoke.

What I have suggested was a compromise.

It's the tone, makes you sound like you have a decidedly biased axe to grind, my apologies.

What makes you think I am a hard-left liberal freak?

It's the whole "fight the power" and weirdy liberalist vibe you got going, screams granola eating hippy and knowing too many of them over time you get a feel for them. What is your position anyway if not of the apeshit leftist over regular leftist sort?

[Sput]

It's not so strange: Before the ban everyone around you who didn't smoke suffered while you enjoyed it in comfort. I think that's much less fair than the situation now.

Suffer? Suffer?

No-one obviously suffered so much that it stopped them from going to the pub or club or bingo hall.

It made it less pleasant. I can vouch for that

The pubs, clubs and bingo halls have not been flooded with grateful, happy non-smokers since the ban came in. According to the trade newspaper, the Morning Advertiser, "..(a)lmost two million adults go out less since the smoking ban, according to new consumer research conducted by Mintel.

It **IS** strange making someone suffer to have a bit of enjoyment.

You're the one doing it. Going by your logic you're either a pub person or you're not, so why would the smoking ban stop pub people going?

It will be much more pleasing for smokers to be able to stay inside when consuming their legal product. Of that, there is no doubt.

And the opposite is true for the non-smokers. That's the crux of the situation of course

Reeking? Reeking? What an exaggeration!

Your clothes and hair **may** smell slightly of smoke, along with general body odour, perfume/after-shave and splashed drinks.

I could smell my clothes across a room after a night out. You're obviously used to the smell so don't notice it as much

Oh, the humanity!!! Extra laundry!

Oh, the humanity!!! Having to stand outside for 10 minutes to set fire to something in your mouth! See? works both ways

Cooking causes all sorts of fine particle pollutants. Here is a study from the pro-smoking but non-tobacco-funded FORCES website which places cooking and second-hand smoking in pretty much the same light on these pollutants.

*I AM PUTTING ON MY SCIENCE HAT. STAND BACK*
I found the original paper this is based on, and it turns out it's evaluating instruments for fine particle monitoring rather than trying to compare emission sources indoors. The version on this site is missing swathes of information and I think it's extremely dodgy:

Firstly, they're showing graphs where, in a non-smoking area, the concentration of PM2.5 spikes to something comparable to the smoking area, but PM2.5 can be ANY particle 2.5 microns or smaller (including dust!), a spike in which you expect at peak hours anyway.

Secondly, look how shortlived that spike is compared with the smoking area, which is above 300 for the entire opening time of the place. The rest of the time the non-smoking area's concentrations are well below 100.

Thirdly, the smoking area graph originally showed a correlation between the number of cigarettes and the amount of PM2.5. In the edited version there seems to be a legend for "number of cigarettes" but no data present.

Fourthly, they've gone and picked the one type of cooking that brings a spike into the hundreds and then removed the caption to imply that's ALL cooking. The graph for spring rolls is less than half as tall, for example. In each case they're again short-lived (~30 minutes) whereas the concentrations are consistently high in smoking areas.

I was actually shocked that you bought this.

Again quoting FORCES, "This study, sponsored by the Hotel Association of Canada, clearly demonstrates (with sophisticated electronic equipment) that, with some ventilation, the air quality of a smoking area is equal (if not better) than the quality of the air where smoking is forbidden altogether. This is not good news for those who hold the absurd position that passive smoke cannot be eliminated; position held to hide that what they seek is not "protection" of non smokers from non-existing dangers to health, but prohibition for social control" - click here for study

Well, it's a bit more than some ventilation: "a segregated area with heat recovery ventilation system with directional airflow". It does reinforce your point about separate smoking areas, but then that was never in dispute from me. Their diatribe about social control is pushing it a bit though!

PS: Did I mention I got my degree and went into aerosol science?

[johnnyboy]

It's the tone, makes you sound like you have a decidedly biased axe to grind, my apologies.

No probs.

It's the whole "fight the power" and weirdy liberalist vibe you got going, screams granola eating hippy and knowing too many of them over time you get a feel for them. What is your position anyway if not of the apeshit leftist over regular leftist sort?

I am slightly right-of-centre libertarian. I believe the government should be as small as possible and interfere in people's life at a minimum. I believe in state-funded education and health, etc etc and would describe myself as mildly EU-skeptic.

I enjoy eating good food (ate at Gordon Ramsey's last month on a trip to London with my lady) but I do not know what a granola is.

Working class background, self-employed in advertising for the last 9 years. Posted £115,000 in profit last year and have paid in company and personal taxes nearly twice that amount in the last 4 years.

IMO, ever since the ignoring of the Iraq War demonstrations, people have become more compliant and subservient with authority than ever. I believe that a healthy amount of rebellion keeps a country healthy as does encouraging people to be as independent as possible.

Love Britain? Deeply. Hate the British government? Deeply.

Does that confirm or confound your impression of me?

[johnnyboy]

It made it less pleasant. I can vouch for that

Well, I'm glad you admit that "suffer" was over-egging the pudding a little!

You're the one doing it. Going by your logic you're either a pub person or you're not, so why would the smoking ban stop pub people going?

Excellent question - I was hoping you'd ask that!

I appreciate that, as a never-smoker, you won't really understand this in the way that a smoker (or ex-smoker) feels it. Cigarettes are enjoyable products to consume (most of the time).

But there's something special and comforting about cigarettes when you are consuming alcohol. The two work wonderfully well together in a way I can't possible explain to someone who's never smoked (meant in a non-patronising way!)

Not being able to smoke when you're consuming alcohol generally severely disrupts the enjoyment you get from alcohol. That's why the pubs are suffering - because smokers no longer have the choice (nor occasional smokers for that matter).

It will be much more pleasing for smokers to be able to stay inside when consuming their legal product. Of that, there is no doubt.

And the opposite is true for the non-smokers. That's the crux of the situation of course

Not exactly true.

For non-smokers, the presence of tobacco smoke may have made a little difference to their experience. The strong likelihood is that it did not deter a pub-goer from a nightout.

Given the relationship between cigarettes and alcohol I explained just above, not being able to smoke and drink in comfort makes a HUGE difference to a smoker's experience. This is why many pubs are suffering.

That's why we need a choice. We'll never get it with this bunch of freaks in charge though.

I could smell my clothes across a room after a night out. You're obviously used to the smell so don't notice it as much

There's no doubt I am far more used to the smell...

Oh, the humanity!!! Having to stand outside for 10 minutes to set fire to something in your mouth! See? works both ways

In the summer, it is true that it doesn't. You are, of course, quite right with that.

In the winter, or when it's cold/raining, it does make a big difference though. I went to London with my (smoking) lady in January for 4 nights. It was freezing and it really disrupted the enjoyment of the drinking part of the weekend.

We would often come back to the hotel early (11ish) or not drink as much in the bars. We'd drink and smoke to our heart's content in our smoking hotel room.

We did loads, went loads of different places, and had a whale of a time. It would have been nice though to hang around a bit longer in the bars but it was **SO** cold on a couple of the nights.

On the "oh, the humanity!!!" front, it is typical of the wicked anti-smokers in charge that, especially in some local authority old people's homes, the nurses wheel elderly and infirm men and women out into the cold to have a cigarette. That is wicked, whichever way you come at the debate from.

Well, it's a bit more than some ventilation: "a segregated area with heat recovery ventilation system with directional airflow". It does reinforce your point about separate smoking areas, but then that was never in dispute from me. Their diatribe about social control is pushing it a bit though!

PS: Did I mention I got my degree and went into aerosol science?

I didn't know that, I must admit! I didn't understand it quite as well as I thought, so, even though it appears not to support my argument, thanks for setting me straight on it.

I'd love them to introduce the "smoking room" exemption virtually every other European country has done. It'll save jobs, it'll save pubs, it'll save little old grannies from freezing in the cold when they are in their common areas away from their rooms.

But I think we all know that's not going to happen. That's why I will be going abroad in Summer 2010 when I've got enough money saved up and my business commitments have ended.

[Nini]

Does that confirm or confound your impression of me?

Lesse here... liberal, check. right of centre, usually more centre to left but good. small government, check....dum dum.. Yup, ticked most of the boxes I reckoned you'd mention so it's just confirmed and actually, the liberals are usually the more nicer of folks.

Although you have mentioned you'll be carting yourself off to some other less tyrannical cesshole sometime in 2010, any idea which yet?

[johnnyboy]

Does that confirm or confound your impression of me?

Lesse here... liberal, check. right of centre, usually more centre to left but good. small government, check....dum dum.. Yup, ticked most of the boxes I reckoned you'd mention so it's just confirmed and actually, the liberals are usually the more nicer of folks.

Although you have mentioned you'll be carting yourself off to some other less tyrannical cesshole sometime in 2010, any idea which yet?

I can't really disagree with your assertions there. I would stress "libertarian" more than "liberal" though.

My central belief is that the government should interfere in people's private lives as little as possible. Where they believe government intervention is necessary (like with the ill-conceived, job-destroying smoke ban), they should **genuinely** find the best middle ground to preserve everyone's rights and happiness. There is something wierdly neo-Puritan about this government - 3,000+ new laws since 1997. 3,000 things the last government and governments before them trusted us to do but this lot think we are too stupid/childish to work out for ourselves.

Less tyrannical cessholes? Mmm... I was thinking about Spain or Cyprus. Can't really see myself leaving Europe - preferably somewhere with links to Newcastle Airport so I can get home and see my folks easily.