Merged Smoking should be banned universally

[Francesca R]

As a critical thinker, you will understand the concept of confirmation bias.

Yes. But I don't think public opinion will be swayed, so I think it is likely moot.

Only a non-smoker would make such an absurd statement. Non-smokers now have 100% of all the pubs in Britain. How is that having equal rights for smokers and non?

It is factually correct. Non smokers and smokers have exactly the same choices in public buildings. Smokers want an additional choice.

Why can't we amend the law so that publicans have the choice of whether or not to allow smoking in their establishments.

When they open their place of business to the public, they relinquish the right to decide in full what goes on there. Surely you see this?

If non-smoking pubs are so popular amongst the non-smoking pub frequenting public then clearly there will be sufficient room in the marketplace to cater to both groups

See previous post--this is disproven by the vast majority of pubs being smoking throughout, or smoking in an inadequately vented part which was de facto the same, prior to the ban. The market forces that you admire (and so do I) don't work with externalities and trashing of commons.

At the moment, the pub industry is losing trade hand over fist because of the smoking ban. The anti-smoking lobby constantly say tell us that pub closures have nothing to do with the smoking ban

Well the anti smoking lobby may well be wrong. I can believe that pubs are losing trade. That doesn't shift the weight of argument very much IMO.

And what workable mechanism is there to compensate smokers for the fact that they no longer have anywhere warm to go to in order to have a fag and a pint with friends? Or a round of bingo and a ciggie?

I don't see why that merits any compensation. Losing a freedom that has an adverse impact on others doesn't really fall into the category of compensable.

There are many compromise solutions in between "free for all" smoking pubs where smoking is allowed throughout and a total ban. Unfortunately, the PTB won't look at them.

I don't think I agree. I think it would be good if there were, by the way.

 

[Francesca R]

[ . . . ]

Your statement "there is absolutely no benefit to smoking whatsoever." is wrong, and indicates lack of critical thinking skills and/or ignorance. So it undermines the coherence of your posts somewhat.

 

[Francesca R]

I don't like strip clubs, therefore I don't frequent them. Instead, I'll go to another establishment offering a different form of entertainment. Go figure.

That's a non-sequitur

 

[23_Tauri]

You mean, besides drugs, prostitution, public defecation, masturbation and urination, owning weapons of mass destruction.....?

Because asking for private clubs where only smokers congregate so they can enjoy a legal product is so comparable to the things you mention, right?

btw, what's wrong with prostitution? Consenting adults 'n' all that.

No secondhand soda.

No secondhand Playstation.

Wow, you are a master at moving those goalposts aren't you? Your issue was with parents smoking in the house and how this affects their childrens' health. Likewise, feeding them junk and allowing them to veg in front of a tv all day is bad for their health.

 

[23_Tauri]

That's a non-sequitur

Why? The average town has lots of public houses. One of the things that was mooted last time we had this discussion was a system whereby the council (licensing authority) in each area would issue a pre-determined proportion of licences for pubs where smoking is allowed and pub where it is banned.

Or, have member's only smoking bars (these are allowed in NYC, but they are few and far between). Those who don't want to go to a smoking bar (just like those who don't want to watch ladies not wearing much dancing round a pole) have the choice to go elsewhere.

 

[Francesca R]

Why?

Because pubs are not "smoking clubs".

Members only smoking clubs would be fine, though I suppose there should be some extra wage premium (levied as a tax on the employer) enforced, to compensate staff for the health risk. Dunno how popular they would be though. The "public" part of public houses is probably most of the draw. With it comes the need to cater to society's preferences.

 

[23_Tauri]

So your answer to making their lives better is "Smoke up, Johnny"? My, but you are a veritable font of solutions for improving the lives of the less fortunate, aren't you. If only Mother Teresa had met you.

This is what the health zealots in government don't get. You ban smoking in pubs and the old pensioner who has every day for the last 20 years sat in the corner of the pub with his pipe is forced to stay at home; in the process losing the only social contact that the has, causing depression and loneliness in his final years.

What does it matter to the old boy whether he smokes or not? What matters to his quality of life is that he still gets out of the house each day and sees his friends.

This is not me making this up. Anecdote they may be but these are the stories that are being repeated across the UK.

footnote: btw, I think you got jiggeryqua's point mixed up. He's not advocating "smoke up Johnny" at all, but he is making the point that social policy on health is politically motivated. And, as it happens, it is the same under Nu Labour and the Con-Lib Coalition.

 

[23_Tauri]

Because pubs are not "smoking clubs".

Members only smoking clubs would be fine, though I suppose there should be some extra wage premium (levied as a tax on the employer) enforced, to compensate staff for the health risk.

Why, when they choose to work there? Do we compensate other workers who choose professsions where there is risk in the workplace (however small?) e.g. firemen, paramedics? Nope, in fact these tend to be some of the worst paid.

Dunno how popular they would be though. The "public" part of public houses is probably most of the draw. With it comes the need to cater to society's preferences.

But publicans and not even being given the opportunity to find out!

As it happens, it's worth noting that in the UK pre 2007 ban, approximately 30% of pub goers were smokers, demonstrating that a higher proportion of pub goers are/were smokers compared to the general population (21%)

 

[23_Tauri]

Oh, on the back of the argument made by some here that smoking has no useful function, it's just occured to me that smoking in pubs does (did) serve a very useful purpose. If anyone's been in a pub lately you'll know what they smell of: the toilets. Tobacco smoke used to play the vital role of covering this up.

And, a company in Netherland has starting manufacturing a machine that recreates the authentic smell of tobacco smoke for sale to brown cafes and bars. Sez it all, really.

 

[Francesca R]

[ . . . ] social policy on health is politically motivated. And, as it happens, it is the same under Nu Labour and the Con-Lib Coalition.

Yes, but that is pretty much admitting it is a vote-winner for the overwhelming majority of the electorate. That happens with daft legislation too, but it doesn't make the smoking laws daft.

I do agree to the extent that I forsee future legislation becoming too anti-liberty but may still win votes. I don't think it is there already.

 

[JFrankA]

It's the intended use. What is a cigarette intended to do? Deliver a drug to a person in an intrusive way that affects people around them. Chew some gum for your nicotine, and I have no problem. There isn't secondhand nicotine gum, so to speak, at least not in a way different from any other gum.
Same thing for a gun. A gun is intended to shoot a target, a person or an animal, and cause destruction or death. So those two things should be heavily regulated - but you don't need a license for either (other than conceal and carry).

A car's intended use is transportation or delivery. You need a license to drive one, and there are a myriad of laws and regulations concerning cars.

If I may reverse slippery slope the argument you made, if cigarettes are legal, why not all drugs, and why not all things that might harm people like rape, murder, possession of nuclear weapons, etc.? If it's okay to harm people sometimes for your own selfish pleasure, then it should be okay for everything, right?

I'm sorry, but I have to point this out: I did not use a slippery slope. In fact, I purposely avoided it. It was you who claimed that I did, gave yourself permission to do it, and went right ahead and used a slippery slope.

That's all I would respond to your slippery slope. (That and drugs should be legal, just regulated, but that's another thread).

I will comment about the cars issue. Yes, a car is for transportation. It's to make life easier and faster for an individual or business. It provides something that an individual or a business wants.

So does cigarettes. It provides pleasure and calmness to an individual and it will provide customers to businesses such as pubs.

Yes, a car does need a "myriad of laws and regulations". One of those, at least here in the States, is emission tests. If a car produces too much emissions then it needs to be fixed so the emissions are not as powerful. But, here's the point, there are still emissions. There is a regulated amount of pollution that we allow cars to spill into the air.

So we compromise. And that's what I see is missing from the non-smoking side of this argument. I don't see any compromise at all. In fact, what I do see is the attitude of "I'm not addicted to a drug like you are" attitude.

There's got to be some kind of compromise here. Right now, I see smokers willing to take whatever hit the non-smokers want to give.

For example, there's a law being debated in Connecticut to make it illegal to smoke in your own car if there is a person of nine years old or younger in it. Is that the government compromising or is that the government baby sitting?

The US has banned flavored cigarettes and cloved cigarettes period. In fact, the only flavored tobacco that can be smoked is in cigars. The only cigarettes one can buy legally is normal and menthol. How is that a compromise?

Sorry, what I'm seeing is the rights of smokers being hacked away bit by bit. I see no compromise, indeed, by your posts, I see an attitude of "I'm better than you, so you should quit."

 

[Ambrosia]

All this seems to make the ventilation idea unworkable. Can you see why the public would agree?

I can see why the public might agree, but a TV, several people talking, a jukebox would all render such fan noise down to a level where you wouldn't notice it. Any pub that serves food already has a ventilation system of this kind of standard installed in their kitchen.

Trading Standards inspect places about as often as Environmental Health, (come to think of it they can have smoke meters as well) Just often enough to keep the business owner on their toes of their own accord, but pretty dam quickly if a member of the public complains about something.

They seemed to almost all allow it when the law was--in fact--that way. This is, largely, because excess smoke is an unpriced externality.

The issue is that the market can't decide about the unpriced externality. So this is not a valid solution.

I'm not suggesting a free for all market place.

I am advocating that local councils be permitted to grant exemptions to the smoking ban for some allocation of pubs in their area - say 15%.

Such premises would need to provide a good quality ventilation system and pay the council a suitable fee before any exemption would be granted.

Non smoking licenced premises continue as present with smoking banned completely inside.

Then let the market decide whether such pubs are viable.

 

[JFrankA]

Because pubs are not "smoking clubs".

Members only smoking clubs would be fine, though I suppose there should be some extra wage premium (levied as a tax on the employer) enforced, to compensate staff for the health risk. Dunno how popular they would be though. The "public" part of public houses is probably most of the draw. With it comes the need to cater to society's preferences.

In the US some smoking club are illegal depending on the state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._bans_on_smoking_in_all_general_public_places


ETA: I can't find the article online, but I've read in a local newspaper here in Connecticut about a smoking bar that only uses hookas for tobacco only is under attack by an anti-smoking campaign to make it illegal.

 

[Francesca R]

I am advocating that local councils be permitted to grant exemptions to the smoking ban for some allocation of pubs in their area - say 15%

That might happen. It is an OK idea. I suspect lack of political will--or, if you like--an insufficiently organised smoking lobby.

 

[Francesca R]

I see no compromise, indeed, by your posts, I see an attitude of "I'm better than you, so you should quit."

Agreed--that member's entire premise is undermined by the sanctimonious "no benefit whatsoever" denialism.

 

[23_Tauri]

No. Smoke doesn't obey section designations.

Translation: I'm so addicted to smoking that I can't even pause for a couple of hours so I can go to a bar. I'm also so much more important than the majority nonsmoking crowd that they should have to accommodate my addiction.

Clearly you don't understand about a pint and a cigarette. The pub is the place one goes to have a smoke! The idea of going to the pub to indulge in adult pastimes (drinking, smoking, swearing) is that the pub is away from the family environment, so one doesn't choke the kids with smoke or upset grandma with some *****' and blindin'.

And note that more smokers are more representative of the pub going fraternity that they are in the general population (or at least they were).

Nonsmokers should have to go to designated places where smoking is not allowed, but you shouldn't have to go outside?

Eh?

 

[23_Tauri]

Yes, but that is pretty much admitting it is a vote-winner for the overwhelming majority of the electorate. That happens with daft legislation too, but it doesn't make the smoking laws daft.

No, it means that politicians are pandering to a populist majority and not protecting the rights of a minority. That's no right, IMO.

I do agree to the extent that I forsee future legislation becoming too anti-liberty but may still win votes. I don't think it is there already.

What would be too illiberal, in your view? No smoking in cars where children are present? No smoking within 20 feet of a doorway? No smoking in a tenanted property? Prohibition?

 

[Francesca R]

Yes, all those.

(ETA--I think all the other points you raise were covered in the dinosaur thread I linked. Forgive me for not following them up again right now since I am on a mobile and the day is a scorcher )

(And Hyde Park is better without the march against the cuts, IMO)

 

[Kid Eager]

Clearly you don't understand about a pint and a cigarette. The pub is the place one goes to have a smoke! The idea of going to the pub to indulge in adult pastimes (drinking, smoking, swearing) is that the pub is away from the family environment, so one doesn't choke the kids with smoke or upset grandma with some *****' and blindin'.

And note that more smokers are more representative of the pub going fraternity that they are in the general population (or at least they were).


Eh?

I'd have to agree with the above - it was one of the reasons I never went to the pub. I didn't mind having a beer, but I really didn't want to smoke.

 

[Limbero]

Technically that is not a straw man. Alcohol use can indeed affect people other than the one imbibing it. It can affect the person they run over driving home drunk, the person they drunkenly assault, the person they stumble into tipsy, or the person they throw up on to name just a few.

By definition it is, it's a poor copy of the example I am making, just as a straw man is to a human.

And yes, I should have said it doesn't directly affect the person sitting next to you if you have a drink, but it may of course affect them indirectly, I never meant to say it can't.