Safe Speed Forums

Are people going to stop going out for a beverage? Pubs will probably have to change to attract a different customer than before, but people still want to go out and meet others. All places are in the same boat, so it's not like pubs have been singled out. It was standing room only on Friday.

Why have seperate rooms? At other work place there arn't seperate areas why you can breath in harmfull substance. There's no arguing, you can't smoke in a place the public have access to, end of debate.

But smoking has not been banned, if you want a fag, you just have to go out side. Which is how it should be. Some establishments have far more arbitary rules about who they will and won't let in, dress codes for instance. Is there as big who harr because some one wasn't allowed in to a pub because they had trainers on or the wrong trousers? "you're too scruffy mate, you're not coming in" is ok, but "you stink of fags, will make the whole place stink of fags and are giving off carcanogenic (sp) fumes." is not.

I can’t say I’ve ever respected such sentiments, especially since the like of Gore and his ilk use such statements.



Of course you can – outside!
That might seem an argument of semantics, but my point has subtle merit.......


Separate rooms aren’t automatically necessary, decent ventilation is enough (otherwise smoking outside would have been banned too).


Before the ban I visited a factory where the cafeteria had a sectioned off part for the smokers, that system worked well and no-one had cause for complaint.

Now I think about it, the last place I worked at had a separate room for smokers during break-times – another example where a compromise was the best all-round solution.

edited to add:

Smoking has been banned inside even though it needn’t have been (with the right compromise).


But this doesn’t apply in all indoor places does it? At least those punters have some sort of choice of where to go.


The ban doesn’t prevent this, unless smoking it totally banned everywhere (including in a car and home).

Why shouldn't smokers, and adults who aren't that bothered by tobacco smoke, be allowed to gather in clearly-identified indoor areas? To prevent them doing so seems remarkably intolerant. If all participants are willing, then why ban it?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Normally I am a strong supporter of the idea that something should be permitted if all participants are willing. I deeply resent things being prohibited which don't adversely affect anyone who isn't participating, and detest the bigotry and intolerance (together with the lying and the suppression and manipulation of science) which is usually behind such decisions.

I don't doubt that such intolerance is (to a large extent at least) what's driven the smoking ban, bearing in mind who's behind it. But in my mind, it's slightly different, because having no ban severely limits the number of pubs that a non-smoker can go to (unless they don't mind the smoky atmosphere). So it does actually affect non-smokers quite a bit. It effectively denies amenities to anyone who dislikes being in a smoke-filled room. I'm not sure that's fair, especially when more and more pubs are closing anyway. Of course, a total ban will almost certainly hasten such closures, so on reflection I think that's going too far, and a partial ban is the only solution that will please everyone (except the intolerant bigots) and keep pubs in business.

But how exactly would we implement a partial ban so as to be equally fair to all pubs and customers? The only way I can see would be to require every pub to have at least x% sealed-off non-smoking accommodation. But apart from that being potentially expensive, how would we get round the problem of workers being exposed to the smoke? Is it fair to expect any worker to be exposed to smoke, even if passive smoking isn't dangerous? How would we decide which workers were to be exposed? To me the idea of partial ban raises a lot of questions, but if a completely fair and workable solution could be thought up, I would be in favour of it. It is vitally important that victimless behaviour is not criminalised, and that intolerant bigots are shown that we're not going to pander to their crap so they might as well sod off.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

The science supporting the view that "passive smoking" causes adverse health effects is extremely dodgy anyway.

But even before the ban, nobody was forced to go to a smoky pub, and people were entirely at liberty to open wholly non-smoking pubs. The fact that so few establishments were opened, and some of them experienced financial difficulties, suggests that the demand was very limited. The vast majority of non-smoking pubgoers were not so concerned about their health that they deliberately avoided pubs where smoking was permitted. Also, in any pub that had a non-smoking area, it was normally the last area to fill up, except when designated as an eating area.

Personally I see no need for any official restrictions on smoking in pubs and restaurants - the market will sort it out anyway. Even before the ban, virtually all restaurants had non-smoking areas.

But even acknowledging the pressure behind the ban, why shouldn't all pubs and restaurants have been expected to be basically non-smoking, but be allowed to set aside an area separated by a door where smoking was permitted?

I know for a fact the trade of many local pubs has dropped off a cliff since the ban and come January and February I would not be surprised to see a wave of closures

I am, by the way, a non-smoker of many years' standing.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I’ve never smoked and have no intention to, it’s a foul habit. So why do I care?

First they came for the smokers.......

And here's an article with the very same title.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I do have sympathy with your point of view Peter. I should have made it clear that I know there's no evidence that passive smoking causes health problems, it's just a question of the aesthetics of being in a smoke-filled room (and the effect on your clothes).

And while I do think that you can't always rely on market forces to benefit the public (elegant though the idea is), I am very concerned about the closure of pubs, many of which are part of our country's heritage, e.g. former coaching inns. They're not just businesses that can be replaced. They're part of what makes us British, and I have a nasty feeling that that's exactly why the do-gooders aren't too bothered about the situation.

I'm going to give the matter some more thought I think.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

I was in the local last night and unsurprisingly nobody was smoking. This pub is a traditional one with an open fire with logs. This was smoking away merrily but the place was still inviting an old fashioned way.

Should these open fires be banned, after all, my clothes were smoky and I, no doubt inhaled a lot of second hand vapours.

I also went shopping yesterday and purchased some smoked salmon. I propose to ingest this smoke by eating it. Should this passively smoked fish be banned?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

On Saturday I traveled to Birmingham by train - the first time I've used this particular form of transport since the ban, and I was a bit taken aback, although not really surprised, to see that they have 'no smoking' signs up even on open-air platforms. It seems so typical of the buraeucracy we know and love - they pass pointless laws on spurious grounds, and not only do they enforce them to the nth degree, but they then go the 'extra mile'. Anyway, when I disembarked at Birmingham New Street, the station was thick with choking, acrid diesel fumes, and people were coughing and gasping all around as they hurried for the exit. As we were going up the escalator an announcement came over the tannoy that, "We'd like to remind everyone that smoking isn't permitted anywhere on the station" - which was immediately met by howls of laughter from most people around.

You really couldn't make this up.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Nail on the head. Such signs are now at every station that I've seen, even completely open ones without buildings (or many passengers for that matter). I find such signs condescending and irritating, despite not being affected by them. I have always found smokers on platforms to be considerate and they tend to go as far away from others as possible, especially where children are concerned (in other words humouring parents concerned about "passive smoking"). It's only really a problem if the platform is very crowded from end to end, and that shouldn't really happen.

(Funnily enough, the last person I saw smoking on a station platform was smoking a "green" cigarette upwind of me and several other passengers, very casually, and I don't mean menthol. I did idly wonder whether that would be covered by the smoking ban if no tobacco was involved. It was about a year ago as I don't travel by train very often. Ealing Broadway if anyone was wondering! )

It was only 6 years ago that I was smoking in a smoking carriage on a Virgin train (also going to Birmingham). Seems like a lifetime ago now.

Presumably the government's "figure massagers" are already getting to work in preparation for when the smoking deaths don't come down despite the ban. Perhaps we'll see smoking-related KSIs? They can include things like having a cigarette stubbed out on your hand at first, then craftily exclude them after a year or two. And no doubt smoking and the deaths it causes will come down "at pub sites". Once again, of course, their Achilles' heel will be hospital admissions. They're going to have to get to work on those pesky hospitals as they're a constant source of truth and, therefore, embarrassment.

(D'oh! I was determined to keep this post short! Most of them start off like that, believe it or not, then I add a little bit here, and a little bit there, and then I can't bear to delete anything. Hopefully I'll get a stopwatch for Christmas and then I can limit myself to a few minutes per post.... )

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

I believe smoking was banned at Birmingham New Street as a reaction to the Oxford Circus underground fire, which saw it banned on the tube despite smoking not playing a part, and the subsequent King's Cross underground fire, which is believed to have been caused by smoking materials.

Whilst I don't disagree with the New Street smoking restrictions (indeed I feel it is the right of any building owner/operator to dictate access conditions, just not for the government to blanket them in this way) it should be pointed out that being a few feet below street level is the only similarity it shares with tube stations, in terms of fire and escape: New Street has numerous fire exits from the main concourse, which is only a short distance by escalator or stairs, with a seperate pair of each for each pair for platforms. It also has a completely seperate concourse at the other end of the platform, and it would be much safer (than the tube) to cross the lines to other platforms if required due to the electrification being overhead, rather than 3rd/4th rails. Finally, a significant portion of the platform is 'open air', so smoke would be much less of a concern than on the underground.

Then you must be very lucky. Other people have different experiences.

I was once in the depths of a very bad cold and I started coughing. A chav smoker started tutting at me. And muttered: "Making a bloody show." I looked at her and said: "Listen, I have a cold and a bad cough and I have as much right to cough in public as you do to smoke. So can it!"

She gawped at me, looking surprised. Mind you, it might have been her council house facelife that made her look surprised!

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

Tee hee. Sounds like a misinterpretation to me. It's sometimes difficult to tell with coughs whether they're deliberate or not, although perhaps she could have given you the benefit of the doubt at first at least. If you coughed just as she started smoking, and/or did it in what she thought was an exaggerated/deliberate way, and she was taking reasonable steps to keep her smoke away from you, she may have mistaken you for a self-righteous busybody who wanted to tell her not to smoke (just in case she derived some pleasure from it) and was using the coughing as an excuse. Unfortunately such people do exist. They don't seem to be happy unless they're criticising and/or preventing someone else's (usually reasonable) behaviour.

Of course if she wasn't smoking considerately in the first place, you had every right to politely alert her to it, even if that wasn't what you were doing, and she should have done something about it.

One of those subjective situations where TBH it's difficult to draw any definite conclusion from just having heard one side of the story.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Wrong. I have the utmost respect for sensible laws, and strive to uphold those sensible laws at all times.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Having watched this threat for a couple of weeks since last contributing, I have the greatest admiration for the standard of discussion here, which remains measured and mature.

A point or three.

End of debate (Adam.L). Like Smeggy, I abhor this put-down. It is a lazy copy of frighteners used by the likes of global warming opportunist Al Gore, who is rapidly - and not before time - being exposed as a snake-oil salesman.

How would we get round the problem of workers being exposed to the smoke? (Bombus). Easy. Separate, well-ventilated, serve-yourself room(s) for smokers. What's the problem, particularly when there is plentiful evidence to prove that light exposure to secondhand smoke is not harmful? Can't provide a separate room? Then sit back and enjoy the stampede of all those returning non-smokers who promised to support smoke-free pubs.

People who don't obey laws, even ones they don't agree with because they don't respect them, are called criminals. (jomukuk) and Wrong. I have the utmost respect for sensible laws, and strive to uphold those sensible laws at all times. (BottyBurp)

There will always be righteous folk like jomukuk who unquestioningly accept the law; boastfully, I dare say, because it allows them to claim the moral high ground. Sadly, this government has become so obsessed with legislation as a means of correcting every perceived weakness of mankind (3000 new laws and still counting) by hammering us into its image of a perfect no-smoking, no-drinking, no-eating, no-speeding, no-smacking, no-talking, no-swimming, no-playing, no-risk, no-fun society, that even normal, upright people have started to pick and choose which laws to obey. It is a shift in the relationship between state and citizen previously unseen in my lifetime, or that of many generations before, and is a development that should worry us deeply. Including yourself, jomukuk.

Oh, it does worry me, but maybe not deeply.
I've seen the writing on the wall for over 30 years now.
You're going-on about the labour government, but it is really the state you should worry about. And that is virtually unassailable. Unelected and as nearly unaccountable as possible to get. And there whatever government is in office. One item of trashed legislation finds its way back onto the timetable a few months/years in the future, under another guise.
My comment about which law you obey was made not because I question the right of anyone to disobey a law, but because it sets that person above others making the same choice, for personal reward reasons. That leads to many more people breaking laws they don't like, because they don't like them and not because they are bad laws.
As I said, the majority of burglars just don't like paying/cannot pay, for the goods they steal, so they disobey the law.

It's a personal choice.

After many years of writing to the press (itself an organ of big-biz, which is an branch of politics) I am quite sure that we have sleep-walked through an era in which anything COULD be done and into an era in which LITTLE can be done, and are headed (inevitably) into the final battle in which nothing can be done.

I shall continue to write letters criticising the inevitable council tax increases, knowing they will be followed by others wringing their hands and saying "but what can we do".
I shall continue to write letters commenting on the ever-increasing state storage of personal details they cannot want for good reasons, and get no reply.

Every little battle you/me/others win is followed by a [state][council] pincer movement in which the status quo is returned to what other want, and the juggernaut rolls-on.

It gets quite depressing after 30 years.

I'm fairly sure Paul was getting that way ?

True, jomukuk, the state is a slippery character. But the legislation it produces is, for the most part, a product of the government of the day (who are now burdened with EU law as well, of course).

The demeanour of the state is also influenced by government; for instance the creeping politicization of the Civil Service over the last decade and the disproportionate power given to "scientific advisors" has done immense damage to the state's relationship with its citizens, not to mention deomcracy itself.

As for law-breaking, I guess we would all agree that burglary is wrong. As an act of theft it is, if you like, an original sin. It also has a clearly defined victim.

Compare this with our latest laws which criminalise the driver of a coal-fired steam locomotive if he dares to operate his stinking, sooty cab with a roll-up dangling from the lip! Legislation like this literally makes a laughing stock of the law - another extremely dangerous development. The whole system starts to break down when principled, honest people treat the law with ridicule, yet you can hardly blame them for ignoring it on occasions.

The EU bureaucracy gets the blame for quite a lot [of EU law], which is a bit strange because the EU gets told what it should be doing , by the member states, which have to ratify it anyway.
Blaming the EU is a bit like blaming the boogy-man, ok as long as the blame does not attach to those to whom it should.
The reality of it is that because we have sleep-walked into the situation, fed on a diet of crap tv and bland media coverage of nothing to do with anything, and getting out of it is getting harder every day. We have got the EU, for good or bad, because we trust the politicians we elect. While they, of course, have nothing but contempt for us.
So, the people to blame for the EU fiasos' are the people who elect bunches of idiots to represent them. Us. And they are the same people who are to blame for the Brit-Gov we have now, and the ones we will have in the future. Because no other party is going to be any different to the one we have now, even though they may say they are. In fact, democracy is to blame for the mess we are in. That and liars. And easily-fooled people. Us. Again.