Netherlands overturns draconian smoking ban

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327226/Smoking-ban-u-turn-Holland-ALLOWS-lighting-2000-bars-pubs.html


U-turn on smoking ban as Holland ALLOWS lighting up in 2000 bars and pubs




http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/11/06/article-0-017BCDC50000044D-284_468x293.jpg



Light up: The Netherlands is the first country to partially overturn its smoking ban. Smokers in small bars and pubs will now be able to light up without fear of a fine



Smokers in the Netherlands will now be able to light-up again in over 2000 of the country's small owner-operated bars or pubs. The partial over-turning of the blanket ban, which was introduced in 2008, is a huge victory for for smokers' rights campaigners who had argued that the blanket ban was driving small bar owners out of business. An incoming coalition government in the country has allowed the partial lifting of the ban for pubs which are less than 743.5 sq ft in size and which are staffed solely by the owner.


It is a major victory for anti-ban campaigners and the first relaxing of the controversial ban anywhere in Europe.
Meanwhile in Spain, smokers are up in arms after the announcement that a smoking ban in public places will come into effect in January 2011. Prominent anti-ban campaigner Weil Maessen told The Sun: 'This is great news for small bars and the common man. Lower-class people tend to drink in these places and they were being punished'. 'Small bars have an important social function.

Public health workers tell us smoking is bad for you. Well, the ban is very bad for your social and psychological health'. He added, 'I hope that the same thing happens in the UK now'. Dutch health minister Edith Schippers promised that impromptu smoking checks by food and consumer safety inspectors would now be stopped. 'The new law will allow consumer choice. A sign will inform customers whether or not they are allowed to smoke on the premises,' she said. The government has also canceled 280 fines related to the ban.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUx7GXiCNTY
UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom on smoking legislation



Some common sense at last, it should be down to the pub owner what goes on in his or hers pub - not the government or the police. And if you dont like it - don't go to that pub!!! whatever happened to individual responsibility. The smoking ban is ridiculous anyway, I think it was Farage who gave the example that you could organise a orgie with as many other people as you liked in a public building, but you couldnt start up a smoking club.

British pubs are closing week on week, and the smoking ban certainly does not help them.

A nice little interesting fact that you'd probably be interested to know though, the politicians who implemented this ridiculous legislation over here (all three main parties I think it was) - well guess what? the bar in the House of Commons is exempt from the smoking ban.

Thoughts?

[matt$]

Yea smoking ban in pubs should be lifted although i hate the smell of it, its up to the owners of the pubs to decide

[Jordy]

The smoking laws in the UK aren't that bad to be fair, it's no where near as drastic as the laws in Ireland and the rest of Europe. I'd allow it in areas of pubs and bars though, cigarettes and pubs create a lot of tax revenue, god knows why the government want to miss out on that :P

[Bun]

lol i agree with it, if you wanna light up holla your ass outside. i ain't breathing your crp in because you are stupid enough to smoke init.

[immense]

uk laws aren't bad on this. must places have heated outside areas anyway so yah. i like it the way it is. it's sooo weird in spain everyone smoking in bars

[Nixt]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070611/text/70611w0004.htm#07061114000542


With these principles in mind, the Commission has decided that smoking should cease to be permitted from 1 July 2007 in all internal areas of the House of Commons estate, including in bars and private offices.

[Jordy]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070611/text/70611w0004.htm#07061114000542Are you suggesting Dan has made up or exaggerated something?

[Conservative,]

Smokers should be shot....

in reality - I love the ban and if this happened here I would be EXTREMELY infuriated. Smokers are inconsiderate, unhealthy *****. Idc, I don't want their disgusting toxic 2nd-hand smoke anywhere near me. The ban is for the good of the people.

If you wanna **** up your lungs, heart & more, increase the chances of cancer & heart disease and basically destroy your health, go outside and do it, at least then you won't be affecting anyone else's health at the same time. Idc if you don't want to if you're willing enough to destroy your health for a drug then surely it's only a minor interference to go outside? I ain't breathing in your **** thanks.

As you can tell, I feel VERY strongly about this. Smokers disgust me.

[GommeInc]

I don't really mind the ban in this country. Smoking is a pointless habit with no benefits, unless you count being poor as a benefit of smoking? :P However, the Dutch have different customs and habits, and are known to play a different game altogether compared to the rest of Europe. Good for them for overturning it though :) Not sure what to proud about though, if it's been down to the country rather than an organisation or another country pushing its views or opinions, there isn't really much to shout about as it doesn't really effect us :/

[alexxxxx]

i think the rule where smoking is allowed if it is only staffed by the owner is a very good one. that way at least all staff and customers know there is likely to be smoke.

[Art]

Smokers should be shot....

in reality - I love the ban and if this happened here I would be EXTREMELY infuriated. Smokers are inconsiderate, unhealthy *****. Idc, I don't want their disgusting toxic 2nd-hand smoke anywhere near me. The ban is for the good of the people.

If you wanna **** up your lungs, heart & more, increase the chances of cancer & heart disease and basically destroy your health, go outside and do it, at least then you won't be affecting anyone else's health at the same time. Idc if you don't want to if you're willing enough to destroy your health for a drug then surely it's only a minor interference to go outside? I ain't breathing in your **** thanks.

As you can tell, I feel VERY strongly about this. Smokers disgust me.

Agree with every word :)

[cocaine]

lol non smokers i can understand why you wouldn't want to breathe in second hand smoke (or even just smell if it you're more than 3 metres away....) but you have just as much rights as a smoker does. ultimately i think it's up to the owner of the premises

[Conservative,]

lol non smokers i can understand why you wouldn't want to breathe in second hand smoke (or even just smell if it you're more than 3 metres away....) but you have just as much rights as a smoker does. ultimately i think it's up to the owner of the premises

Smokers lose their rights when they light up their first ciggarette.

[-:Undertaker:-]

uk laws aren't bad on this. must places have heated outside areas anyway so yah. i like it the way it is. it's sooo weird in spain everyone smoking in bars

Whatever happened to freedom of choice?

Would you like the state telling you what to do in your own bedroom for example?


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070611/text/70611w0004.htm#07061114000542

My bad, I read that it was still in place. Even so, 3 years it took them to ban it for themselves? one rule for us, another for them.


Smokers should be shot....

in reality - I love the ban and if this happened here I would be EXTREMELY infuriated. Smokers are inconsiderate, unhealthy *****. Idc, I don't want their disgusting toxic 2nd-hand smoke anywhere near me. The ban is for the good of the people.

If you wanna **** up your lungs, heart & more, increase the chances of cancer & heart disease and basically destroy your health, go outside and do it, at least then you won't be affecting anyone else's health at the same time. Idc if you don't want to if you're willing enough to destroy your health for a drug then surely it's only a minor interference to go outside? I ain't breathing in your **** thanks.

As you can tell, I feel VERY strongly about this. Smokers disgust me.

How about this then, say i'm disgusted by drinking. I don't like the smell, sight or affects of drinking. I want to go to a restaurant, lets ban drinking in all restaurants/places where food is served - do you see my point now? i'm telling you what you can and cannot do just because I don't like it.

Then again a more personal question to yourself would be, do you eat fatty/salty foods such as McDonalds, do you drink? - barely a difference. If anything alcohol is worse because it has more severe effects on your person such as losing control.

[Conservative,]

Whatever happened to freedom of choice?

Would you like the state telling you what to do in your own bedroom for example?



My bad, I read that it was still in place. Even so, 3 years it took them to ban it for themselves? one rule for us, another for them.



How about this then, say i'm disgusted by drinking. I don't like the smell, sight or affects of drinking. I want to go to a restaurant, lets ban drinking in all restaurants/places where food is served - do you see my point now? i'm telling you what you can and cannot do just because I don't like it.

Then again a more personal question to yourself would be, do you eat fatty/salty foods such as McDonalds, do you drink? - barely a difference. If anything alcohol is worse because it has more severe effects on your person such as losing control.

Smoking & Drinking are nothing like each other. Smoking not only affects your health, but the others around you from second hand smoke. Drinking doesn't DIRECTLY. Smoking is also never safe, whereas drinking in small amounts is.

And yes I eat McDonalds sometimes & I have had a drink in the past, but in moderation, those things are fine, and can actually be good for you. Whereas ANY smoking, 1 a day even, is bad for you.

[alexxxxx]

How about this then, say i'm disgusted by drinking. I don't like the smell, sight or affects of drinking. I want to go to a restaurant, lets ban drinking in all restaurants/places where food is served - do you see my point now? i'm telling you what you can and cannot do just because I don't like it.

Then again a more personal question to yourself would be, do you eat fatty/salty foods such as McDonalds, do you drink? - barely a difference. If anything alcohol is worse because it has more severe effects on your person such as losing control.

the key difference here is that you have no right not to be offended by someone's actions, yet you do have a right not to be harmed by someone else's actions. smokers at restaurants/bars/clubs can choose to smoke outside briefly and then return, thus not hurting anyone. drinkers can drink with non-drinkers and not harm anyone else.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Smoking & Drinking are nothing like each other. Smoking not only affects your health, but the others around you from second hand smoke. Drinking doesn't DIRECTLY. Smoking is also never safe, whereas drinking in small amounts is.

And yes I eat McDonalds sometimes & I have had a drink in the past, but in moderation, those things are fine, and can actually be good for you. Whereas ANY smoking, 1 a day even, is bad for you.

Smoking is safe, I believe alcohol kills brain cells anyway does it not?

Nothing is 'safe' - everything you consume will affect you in someway or other, smoking has been made to look more dangerous than it actually is compared to drinking. Smoking (unlike drinking and drugs in general) doesn't change you - drinking and drugs can make you 'lose' yourself whereas smoking doesn't have that affect.

Smoking in moderation can be fine, it calms a lot of people down.


the key difference here is that you have no right not to be offended by someone's actions, yet you do have a right not to be harmed by someone else's actions. smokers at restaurants/bars/clubs can choose to smoke outside briefly and then return, thus not hurting anyone. drinkers can drink with non-drinkers and not harm anyone else.

Harmed? you are harmed by many things in someway or other. It would be like somebody who is allergic to pollen demanding that the local flower display at the park is uprooted because it has a negative affect on them.

If you do not like smoke and feel it has a great effect on you, then you could simply go to a pub where smoking is not allowed. You know, freedom of choice without state/busybody interference as the video shows?

[Conservative,]

Smoking is safe, I believe alcohol kills brain cells anyway does it not?

Nothing is 'safe' - everything you consume will affect you in someway or other, smoking has been made to look more dangerous than it actually is compared to drinking. Smoking (unlike drinking and drugs in general) doesn't change you - drinking and drugs can make you 'lose' yourself whereas smoking doesn't have that affect.

Smoking in moderation can be fine, it calms a lot of people down.



Harmed? you are harmed by many things in someway or other. It would be like somebody who is allergic to pollen demanding that the local flower display at the park is uprooted because it has a negative affect on them.

If you do not like smoke and feel it has a great effect on you, then you could simply go to a pub where smoking is not allowed. You know, freedom of choice without state/busybody interference as the video shows?

But smoking affects other people - drinking doesn't.

Second hand smoke - when consumed often - has the same affect as smoking. So if you go down the pub every Friday after work and people are smoking, the second hand smoke builds up, and has the same affect as smoking a few every Friday. But going down the pub and drinking doesn't have that affect at all.

Basically...for drinking, only the one who's drinking is affected. Smoking - people are around them are affected. I don't want to be inhaling rat poison, tar and more disgusting things thanks. Keep that for yourself.

[-:Undertaker:-]

But smoking affects other people - drinking doesn't.

Second hand smoke - when consumed often - has the same affect as smoking. So if you go down the pub every Friday after work and people are smoking, the second hand smoke builds up, and has the same affect as smoking a few every Friday. But going down the pub and drinking doesn't have that affect at all.

Basically...for drinking, only the one who's drinking is affected. Smoking - people are around them are affected. I don't want to be inhaling rat poison, tar and more disgusting things thanks. Keep that for yourself.

But you are fine with consuming various salts, food dyes, pesticides, herbicides, fats and alcoholic beverages?

In the other thread concerning fireworks you agree with me - well this is my point again. What is the problem with allowing freedom of choice? you would have the very simple choice of; you can either go into a non-smoking pub/bar or a smoking pub/bar - smokers would also have that choice.

Can you not make your own decisions?

[Conservative,]

But you are fine with consuming various salts, food dyes, pesticides, herbicides, fats and alcoholic beverages?

In the other thread concerning fireworks you agree with me - well this is my point again. What is the problem with allowing freedom of choice? you would have the very simple choice of; you can either go into a non-smoking pub/bar or a smoking pub/bar - smokers would also have that choice.

Can you not make your own decisions?

Of course I can, and I agree with you in that thread because you are right - people buy pets in the knowledge that for a few days a year fireworks will go off and make them nervous/scared. If they're not prepared to put up with that then they shouldn't buy them.

But back on topic; the things you listed (fatty foods, alcohol ect.) do not affect anyone except the consumer. Whereas smoking does. The smoke when they are not inhaling drifts throughout the pub/restaurant and is inhaled by other people who are then affected by it. Regular pub visitors who don't smoke may get signs of smoker - for example the smokers cough, due to large amounts of inhaled second-hand smoke. With drinking/fatty foods that doesn't happen.

That's why - smoking affects other people's health without their consent and it shouldn't be allowed to happen. Imo; smoking should be banned completely but that won't happen because the Government makes too much tax from it.

[Bun]

lol dan i can't see how you can run the 'big government' argument here. banning people from smoking, which is dangerous to others, from public places is nothing but common sense. i hold no grudges against people who smoke either, but don't moan when you have to go outside for a tab because it's unfair on non smokers to be polluted with second hand smoke which doesn't need to be there. i hope it has made a lot of people reconsider smoking.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Of course I can, and I agree with you in that thread because you are right - people buy pets in the knowledge that for a few days a year fireworks will go off and make them nervous/scared. If they're not prepared to put up with that then they shouldn't buy them.

But back on topic; the things you listed (fatty foods, alcohol ect.) do not affect anyone except the consumer. Whereas smoking does. The smoke when they are not inhaling drifts throughout the pub/restaurant and is inhaled by other people who are then affected by it. Regular pub visitors who don't smoke may get signs of smoker - for example the smokers cough, due to large amounts of inhaled second-hand smoke. With drinking/fatty foods that doesn't happen.

That's why - smoking affects other people's health without their consent and it shouldn't be allowed to happen. Imo; smoking should be banned completely but that won't happen because the Government makes too much tax from it.

So then why are you complaining? most of us consume these things, including the anti-smoking brigade - the the argument about health completely goes out of the window. If someone were so concerned about health, they certainly wouldn't be in a pub drinking alcohol and eating a big greasy pub meal. So you still haven't answered my point that you can make your own choices.

It is like my argument with the pets - if you don't like seeing them in distress on bonfire night, dont buy a pet in the first place.
Argument with the smoking ban - if you don't like smoking, then don't go to a pub which allows smoking.


lol dan i can't see how you can run the 'big government' argument here. banning people from smoking, which is dangerous to others, from public places is nothing but common sense. i hold no grudges against people who smoke either, but don't moan when you have to go outside for a tab because it's unfair on non smokers to be polluted with second hand smoke which doesn't need to be there. i hope it has made a lot of people reconsider smoking.

Can you not make your own decisions? if you hate smoking so much along with the fella above, then you simply use your own brain and make the decision and say 'right, well I hate smoking that much - tonight i'll go to a non-smoking pub' it really is that simple.

To borrow a phrase, its common sense.

Why do we need government to make simple decisions for us?

[Art]

So then why are you complaining? most of us consume these things, including the anti-smoking brigade - the the argument about health completely goes out of the window. If someone were so concerned about health, they certainly wouldn't be in a pub drinking alcohol and eating a big greasy pub meal. So you still haven't answered my point that you can make your own choices.

Why are you being so difficult. Smoking affects not only the smoker but those around them too. People shouldn't have to be worried about their health when going somewhere. If they decide to do something that affects their health then that is GREAT but if they don't, then what? You just expect them to leave?

Those who don't smoke shouldn't have to have their options limited by those that do. Both non-smokers and smokers can go to events, and not smoke!

[Conservative,]

So then why are you complaining? most of us consume these things, including the anti-smoking brigade - the the argument about health completely goes out of the window. If someone were so concerned about health, they certainly wouldn't be in a pub drinking alcohol and eating a big greasy pub meal. So you still haven't answered my point that you can make your own choices.

It is like my argument with the pets - if you don't like seeing them in distress on bonfire night, dont buy a pet in the first place.
Argument with the smoking ban - if you don't like smoking, then don't go to a pub which allows smoking.



Can you not make your own decisions? if you hate smoking so much along with the fella above, then you simply use your own brain and make the decision and say 'right, well I hate smoking that much - tonight i'll go to a non-smoking pub' it really is that simple.

To borrow a phrase, its common sense.

Why do we need government to make simple decisions for us?

Because I don't understand how there would be a non-smoking pub? That wouldn't make sense for the owner if he wanted to make money, so then all pubs would become smoking-pubs :|

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why are you being so difficult. Smoking affects not only the smoker but those around them too. People shouldn't have to be worried about their health when going somewhere. If they decide to do something that affects their health then that is GREAT but if they don't, then what? You just expect them to leave?

I expect, if you don't like smoking - that you go to a non-smoking pub?

Why are you being so difficult? can you not make your own decisions? are in incapable of that?


Because I don't understand how there would be a non-smoking pub? That wouldn't make sense for the owner if he wanted to make money, so then all pubs would become smoking-pubs :|

Because there would be a market for people who didnt want to smoke, so they would go to non-smoking pubs.

[immense]

i would love if the state controlled what i did in the bedroom. ultimate slavery. hot as hell.

[Art]

Why are you being so difficult? can you not make your own decisions? are in incapable of that?

Alright lets use your logic. Why do you need smoking pubs? Can't you make your own decisions?? Are you incapable of that? You can smoke in your own house!

Why should someone who doesn't smoke have to have their options burdened by someone who does? Smokers affect non-smokers. Non-smokers don't affect smokers.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Alright lets use your logic. Why do you need smoking pubs? Can't you make your own decisions?? Are you incapable of that? You can smoke in your own house!

Why should someone who doesn't smoke have to have their options burdened by someone who does? Smokers affect non-smokers. Non-smokers don't affect smokers.


Because people have been smoking in pubs for many many years. It is also the property of the landlord as to what goes on in his or hers pub and not the problem of the government or the police. The comparision you've given is poor, as we live in historically free country. But you've just confirmed to me that you can't make your own decisions, and would rather dictate what other people do instead of using your own common sense.

So the likes of yourself ramble on about health regarding smoking, but would still be prepared to go into a pub that allows smoking - which clearly suggests you don't actually care about the issue on health grounds at all, its more a question of you getting your own way.

[Bun]

Can you not make your own decisions? if you hate smoking so much along with the fella above, then you simply use your own brain and make the decision and say 'right, well I hate smoking that much - tonight i'll go to a non-smoking pub' it really is that simple.

To borrow a phrase, its common sense.

Why do we need government to make simple decisions for us?

because then that's putting a divide in society and people should have the freedom to go in any public house and not have to worry about second hand smoke. having smoking and non smoking pubs is a lot more radical than just running outside, a lot of pubs have designated smoke areas anyway. and for the record i don't 'hate' smoking. i don't dislike it but i'm conscious of the affects of it, even most smokers will tell you it does no good so why should non smokers accept it affecting us, directly or indirectly?

exactly yeah, common sense. and to answer your question, because it saves lives. anyone who moans about how annoying it is to go out their way to have a tab needs to man up and either accept it, or quit.

[-:Undertaker:-]

because then that's putting a divide in society

Absolute rubbish, maybe ASDA sells something Tescos doesn't and thats why I go to ASDA - oh jesus, that could be creating a divide in society. Don't use political speak like that which doesn't really mean anything for such a trivial issue, this is nothing like apartheid/a divide.

It is down to individual choice.


and people should have the freedom to go in any public house and not have to worry about second hand smoke. having smoking and non smoking pubs is a lot more radical than just running outside, a lot of pubs have designated smoke areas anyway. and for the record i don't 'hate' smoking.

You would have the freedom, you would have the freedom to chooce whether to go to a smoking pub or a non-smoking pub. In regards to radical, what is radical is telling landlords what rules and regulations they must have, forcing landlords to erect costly outside smoking areas, fining people for smoking all of which is resulting in pub closures week after week and thus you get more unemployment and the death of many important local pubs which you could argue is the foundation of a local community - especially if you live in a small village/town.

Weatherspoons banned smoking before the ban and it worked very well.


i don't dislike it but i'm conscious of the affects of it, even most smokers will tell you it does no good so why should non smokers accept it affecting us, directly or indirectly?

You wouldn't have to let it affect you, as you would have the choice of a non-smoking pub or a smoking pub.


exactly yeah, common sense. and to answer your question, because it saves lives. anyone who moans about how annoying it is to go out their way to have a tab needs to man up and either accept it, or quit.

Saving lives? why not just go the whole hog then and ban cars, drinking, salt, fatty foods and so forth?

I think the people who need to 'man up' are those who can't make a simple decision for themselves and who worry about inhaling some smoke down at the local pub on a friday - there are bigger things to worry about, there's a bigger chance of you crashing your car the next morning than there is of you becoming seriously ill over a little bit of smoke down at the pub.

And before the anti-smoking 'experts' are quoted, are they the same experts who predicted that we were all going to freeze in a mini ice age during the 1980s, that we were all going to die from SARS, that we are all going to boil thanks to global warming, that we were all going to die from swine flu + the list goes on and on. It's time to ignore the scaremongers and start using a bit of common sense.

[Nemo]

Absolute rubbish, maybe ASDA sells something Tescos doesn't and thats why I go to ASDA - oh jesus, that could be creating a divide in society. Don't use political speak like that which doesn't really mean anything for such a trivial issue, this is nothing like apartheid/a divide.

It is down to individual choice.



You would have the freedom, you would have the freedom to chooce whether to go to a smoking pub or a non-smoking pub. In regards to radical, what is radical is telling landlords what rules and regulations they must have, forcing landlords to erect costly outside smoking areas, fining people for smoking all of which is resulting in pub closures week after week and thus you get more unemployment and the death of many important local pubs which you could argue is the foundation of a local community - especially if you live in a small village/town.

Weatherspoons banned smoking before the ban and it worked very well.



You wouldn't have to let it affect you, as you would have the choice of a non-smoking pub or a smoking pub.



Saving lives? why not just go the whole hog then and ban cars, drinking, salt, fatty foods and so forth?

I think the people who need to 'man up' are those who can't make a simple decision for themselves.

Not everyone has a bazillion pubs near them, and so those who dont have a non-smoker pub will either not have the chance to go to a pub, or have to harm their health for no benefit whatsoever other than being able to use a service that is already available to them.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not everyone has a bazillion pubs near them, and so those who dont have a non-smoker pub will either not have the chance to go to a pub, or have to harm their health for no benefit whatsoever other than being able to use a service that is already available to them.

Nobody forces you to go to a pub.

To add to that, its like going to a pub and expecting that alcohol will not be on sale. Smoking has been part of the pub scene for many many years, just as drugs are part of the clubbing scene and the same with drinking for both. If you go to a pub, you expect there will be smoking.

If you don't like it then you don't go - nobody forces you to go.

[Nemo]

Nobody forces you to go to a pub.

To add to that, its like going to a pub and expecting that alcohol will not be on sale. Smoking has been part of the pub scene for many many years, just as drugs are part of the clubbing scene and the same with drinking for both. If you go to a pub, you expect there will be smoking.

If you don't like it then you don't go - nobody forces you to go.

Times change, so do traditions. Kind of a dumb thing to say otherwise things would never change. Nobody should be forced to have their health harmed just because they want to go to a PUBLIC place. Smokers can still go, but they do their business outside, its not like they're banned.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Times change, so do traditions. Kind of a dumb thing to say otherwise things would never change. Nobody should be forced to have their health harmed just because they want to go to a PUBLIC place. Smokers can still go, but they do their business outside, its not like they're banned.

Traditions do change yeah, but not with legislation.


Nobody should be forced to have their health harmed just because they want to go to a PUBLIC place.

You wouldn't have anything forced on you. You-are-not-forced-to-go-to-a-pub.

It is like me walking into the local ASDA and complaining that food is on sale - rightly enough, i'd be branded as a loony.

Can I also ask on a personal note though (because you are really concerned about health it appears as are the rest of the health brigade here), do you avoid alcohol, salt-laden foods, fatty foods, hydonated fat, GM food, food dyes and so forth? I do hope so.

[Nemo]

Traditions do change yeah, but not with legislation.



You wouldn't have anything forced on you. You-are-not-forced-to-go-to-a-pub.

It is like me walking into the local ASDA and complaining that food is on sale - rightly enough, i'd be branded as a loony.

Can I also ask on a personal note though (because you are really concerned about health it appears as are the rest of the health brigade here), do you avoid alcohol, salt-laden foods, fatty foods, hydonated fat, GM food, food dyes and so forth? I do hope so.
Well apparently now they do, a change within a change!

Yes but people should have the option, smokers can still smoke, just outside. Its a compromise so that everyone is pretty much happy.

And notice that i said "for no benefit". Alcohol has the benefit of...fun. All those foods, are generally delicious and food dyes well they're in most things and not too bothered about them. Smoking however in the same room as a non smoker, just provides a nasty smell and cancer. cool.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well apparently now they do, a change within a change!

Yes but people should have the option, smokers can still smoke, just outside. Its a compromise so that everyone is pretty much happy.

And notice that i said "for no benefit". Alcohol has the benefit of...fun. All those foods, are generally delicious and food dyes well they're in most things and not too bothered about them. Smoking however in the same room as a non smoker, just provides a nasty smell and cancer. cool.

Outside in the freezing cold - the point is that it should be down to the landlord and not the government as to whether or not smoking is allowed on their own pub premises - you know, a return to common sense.

Not bothered about them? what do you think causes heart attacks and so forth? It is very clear and plain to see the point on cancer and health effects is irrelevent - because of all of you in this thread who are so supposedly worried about passive smoking which has very very very little health effects (if none at all), you are all glad to go out and consume fats, salts, chemicals, and genetically modified food.

[Conservative,]

I don't get what the problem is with people taking 5 steps to the door so that they don't harm other people while feeding their disgusting addiction?

Unless they're exceptionally selfish or just lazy, that shouldn't be a problem.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't get what the problem is with people taking 5 steps to the door so that they don't harm other people while feeding their disgusting addiction?

Unless they're exceptionally selfish or just lazy, that shouldn't be a problem.

I don't see what the big issue is with you where you can't make a simple choice of which pub you wish to go to (a non-smoking pub or a smoking pub)?

..is it really that hard to make a decision for yourself?

[Conservative,]

I don't see what the big issue is with you where you can't make a simple choice of which pub you wish to go to (a non-smoking pub or a smoking pub)?

..is it really that hard to make a decision for yourself?

Yes because there is only one pub near me within about....10 miles? I don't particularly want to drive over to the other side of town just for a drink thanks.

And I don't see why i should have to drive 10 miles, waste petrol & my money, just for drink, when selfish smokers can just walk outside the door to feed their disgusting habit. Which is better for everyone? Yes - smokers going outside.

I'd look at it as a punishment for getting addicted - they have to freeze to feed their obsession, sounds fair enuf to me.

[Art]

This is pointless, -:Undertaker:- isn't open to other people's opinions. Whatever we say doesn't seem to get through. Seems like they are trolling tbh.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes because there is only one pub near me within about....10 miles? I don't particularly want to drive over to the other side of town just for a drink thanks.

And I don't see why i should have to drive 10 miles, waste petrol & my money, just for drink, when selfish smokers can just walk outside the door to feed their disgusting habit. Which is better for everyone? Yes - smokers going outside.

I'd look at it as a punishment for getting addicted - they have to freeze to feed their obsession, sounds fair enuf to me.

Then that is the problem of the landlord, you don't own the pub - therefore you have no say in how it is run.

You don't have to drive 10 miles, you could always sit in and have a drink - you go to a pub expecting there to be smoke, just as you go into the local ASDA expecting there to be food. Regarding the phrase 'disgusting habit' - what about drinking? the beverage which causes far more problems than smoking does with our town centres covered in sick, anti-social behaviour taking place and the occasional fight? maybe drinking is a habit which leads to disgusting outcomes but you don't hear me proposing to ban it.

How would you feel about this proposal - banning drinking in public places. You'd quite rightly call whoever suggested it a control freak, and that people should be able to make their own decisions - so why is it any different. I have no idea who has implanted this daft vendetta against smoking in you, but you'd be far better worrying about your intake of salts, fats, GM foods and chemicals than passive smoking and its overexaggerated effects.

As for addiction, people are addicted to alcohol - smoking is the same, not everybody is addicted to smoking.


This is pointless, -:Undertaker:- isn't open to other people's opinions. Whatever we say doesn't seem to get through. Seems like they are trolling tbh.

I just cant understand why you have such a problem with making decisions for yourself as opposed to the government making them for you, and i'm yet to hear a real reply to that point rather than the hypocritical nonsense i've heard regarding cancer, health and the usual 'WELL WHY CANT SMOKERS..'

[Nemo]

T
I just cant understand why you have such a problem with making decisions for yourself as opposed to the government making them for you, and i'm yet to hear a real reply to that point rather than the hypocritical nonsense i've heard regarding cancer, health and the usual 'WELL WHY CANT SMOKERS..'
People can make decisions for themselves, it was the fact that some selfish people will make the decision to be, selfish. If the government have to step in and force people to think about others (for example they do this with people playing music loudly on the bus, should be stopped and im pretty sure it isnt allowed but then that's hard to enforce). What's wrong with the health replies and "why cant smokers"? Ive explained again and again that its harming your health for..

NO BENEFIT

dont know how many times i have to say it for it to stick in your head. And smokers should have to make the sacrifice, after all they are the ones who don't need to smoke and just harm themselves and others. Selfishness is what it is.

I wonder when you'll get through what i just said or remain stubborn and be like "YEAH BUT NO BECAUSE YOU CANT SAY THAT"

[-:Undertaker:-]

People can make decisions for themselves, it was the fact that some selfish people will make the decision to be, selfish. If the government have to step in and force people to think about others (for example they do this with people playing music loudly on the bus, should be stopped and im pretty sure it isnt allowed but then that's hard to enforce). What's wrong with the health replies and "why cant smokers"? Ive explained again and again that its harming your health for..

NO BENEFIT

dont know how many times i have to say it for it to stick in your head. And smokers should have to make the sacrifice, after all they are the ones who don't need to smoke and just harm themselves and others. Selfishness is what it is.

I wonder when you'll get through what i just said or remain stubborn and be like "YEAH BUT NO BECAUSE YOU CANT SAY THAT"

No, end this health rubbish. I take it (because you haven't knocked me back on this one yet) that you drink, eat salty foods such as McDonalds, consume food dyes, eat GM foods, eat fatty foods and have a drink now and again.

Now again I will ask, you say there is no benefit to smoking - the same applies to alcohol. So why not ban alcohol aswell which causes more problems than smoking does and ever will?

The fact is, that you are only using the health argument because you cant answer to my point about personal choice, so you bang on about health when you (I take it) consume all the things I listed about which makes you a hypocrite.

Don't pretend to be concerned about health when you are clearly not.

The benefit of smoking is enjoyment.
The benefit of drinking is enjoyment.
The benefit of eating fatty foods/salty foods is enjoyment.

All are harmful - don't demonise one but not the others just because you consume the others.

As usual it is 'do as I say but not as I do'.

[Nemo]

And notice that i said "for no benefit". Alcohol has the benefit of...fun. All those foods, are generally delicious and food dyes well they're in most things and not too bothered about them. Smoking however in the same room as a non smoker, just provides a nasty smell and cancer. cool.


No, end this health rubbish. I take it (because you haven't knocked me back on this one yet) that you drink, eat salty foods such as McDonalds, consume food dyes, eat GM foods, eat fatty foods and have a drink now and again.

Now again I will ask, you say there is no benefit to smoking - the same applies to alcohol. So why not ban alcohol aswell which causes more problems than smoking does and ever will?

The fact is, that you are only using the health argument because you cant answer to my point about personal choice, so you bang on about health when you (I take it) consume all the things I listed about which makes you a hypocrite.

Don't pretend to be concerned about health when you are clearly not.

The benefit of smoking is enjoyment.
The benefit of drinking is enjoyment.
The benefit of eating fatty foods/salty foods is enjoyment.

All are harmful - don't demonise one but not the others just because you consume the others.

As usual it is 'do as I say but not as I do'.
Do you just choose to not read what i write?
I do use those because they have benefits because i feel they outweight the risks.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Do you just choose to not read what i write?
I do use those because they have benefits because i feel they outweight the risks.

Smokers must feel the same way hence why they continue smoking.

You've just answered your own point about the benefits of smoking.

So the idea of 'no benefit' doesn't stand up, as usual its down to personal choice which is what i've been arguing for throughout this entire thread.

[Nemo]

Smokers must feel the same way hence why they continue smoking.

You've just answered your own point about the benefits of smoking.

So the idea of 'no benefit' doesn't stand up, as usual its down to personal choice which is what i've been arguing for throughout this entire thread.
Does me eating fatty foods harm anyones health? no. Does me drinking alcohol (lets not talk about side effects), harms anyones health? No.

What we're talking about is the selfishness of those who smoke, so yes, no benefit does. Because im pretty much being forced to inhale smoke that provides nothing whatsoever to me other than negative effects

[-:Undertaker:-]

Does me eating fatty foods harm anyones health? no. Does me drinking alcohol (lets not talk about side effects), harms anyones health? No.

What we're talking about is the selfishness of those who smoke, so yes, no benefit does. Because im pretty much being forced to inhale smoke that provides nothing whatsoever to me other than negative effects

But you are not being forced to inhale smoke, dont you understand that?

If it was down to the discretion of the landlord or landlady, nobody would be forced to do anything - smokers could go out for a smoke and a drink and non-smokers could go out for a drink = everybody happy, more pubs stay open and more revenue for both government and the booze industry.

You would not be forced to go anywhere, let alone a smoking pub.

[GommeInc]

you go to a pub expecting there to be smoke, just as you go into the local ASDA expecting there to be food.
I go expecting drink and/or food, not the smell of men and women endulging in a pointless addiction. Then sooner smoking is eradicated the better, there's no benefits :/

[-:Undertaker:-]

I go expecting drink and/or food, not the smell of men and women endulging in a pointless addiction. Then sooner smoking is eradicated the better, there's no benefits :/

Only within the past few years, you can still go for a drink and food - you simply would go to a non-smoking pub.

[Nemo]

But you are not being forced to inhale smoke, dont you understand that?

If it was down to the discretion of the landlord or landlady, nobody would be forced to do anything - smokers could go out for a smoke and a drink and non-smokers could go out for a drink = everybody happy, more pubs stay open and more revenue for both government and the booze industry.

You would not be forced to go anywhere, let alone a smoking pub.
My god, the fact that not everyone has a pub near them so they don't always get that choice.

I actually give up, continue to be stubborn

[GommeInc]

Only within the past few years, you can still go for a drink and food - you simply would go to a non-smoking pub.
But to allow smoking pubs would assume there are benefits to smoking. It would be wise to just remove smoking altogether. Sure, you could say that choice should be down to the individuals and land owners, but some can't think for themselves. Land owners allowing smoking are taking advantage of the people who are wasting their time, money and lives by smoking.

[-:Undertaker:-]

My god, the fact that not everyone has a pub near them so they don't always get that choice.

I actually give up, continue to be stubborn

That is the free market at work, some of us have certain things in our area - some don't. You can't have everything.


But to allow smoking pubs would assume there are benefits to smoking. It would be wise to just remove smoking altogether. Sure, you could say that choice should be down to the individuals and land owners, but some can't think for themselves. Land owners allowing smoking are taking advantage of the people who are wasting their time, money and lives by smoking.

The same can be said for alcohol, to allow pubs to continue would assume there are benefits to drinking.

I stated before; people smoke for enjoyment just as people consume unhealthy food and drink for enjoyment.

[cocaine]

Smokers lose their rights when they light up their first ciggarette.

dont think so mate. you're saying something similar to 'individuals lose their rights when they drunkenly cause harm to someone else'. what do you say to that then?

[GommeInc]

The same can be said for alcohol, to allow pubs to continue would assume there are benefits to drinking.

I stated before; people smoke for enjoyment just as people consume unhealthy food and drink for enjoyment.
Main difference I can think of is alcohol isn't as damaging to people around you or yourself and it's easy to get off being dependent, plus some alcoholic drinks are supposedly good for you, like wine :P


And smoking for enjoyment is a lame excuse, no-one has properly smoking for entertainment since the 1800s and early 1900s. When commoners started smoking it went down hill and just became annoying addictions rather than enjoyment - doing it for the sake of it, rather than for social reasons.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Main difference I can think of is alcohol isn't as damaging to people around you or yourself and it's easy to get off being dependent, plus some alcoholic drinks are supposedly good for you, like wine :P

And smoking for enjoyment is a lame excuse, no-one has properly smoking for entertainment since the 1800s and early 1900s. When commoners started smoking it went down hill and just became annoying addictions rather than enjoyment - doing it for the sake of it, rather than for social reasons.

Smoking is for enjoyment (relaxation mainly) just as is alcohol, I suppose the argument about damaging to people around you does stand up - but again I bring in the point that if you were to be concerned about health to such a degree, passive smoking is the least of your worries with the likes of fatty foods, salty foods, GM foods you most likely consume on a regular basis - and to add to that, if so concerned about health you certainly wouldn't be drinking which is also damaging to health.

Passive smoking and smoking in general has been greatly demonised when far bigger threats to health exist out there.

[GommeInc]

Smoking is for enjoyment (relaxation mainly) just as is alcohol, I suppose the argument about damaging to people around you does stand up - but again I bring in the point that if you were to be concerned about health to such a degree, passive smoking is the least of your worries with the likes of fatty foods, salty foods, GM foods you most likely consume on a regular basis - and to add to that, if so concerned about health you certainly wouldn't be drinking which is also damaging to health.
Main difference between the two relaxation methods is that smoking isn't kept to yourself, it affects those around you as well so if you have non-smoking friends it's a bit unfair and you only really mix with other smokers or non-smokers whom don't care, while alcohol can be kept to yourself without directly affecting others (unless you begin to drink too much). Health is a huge area for discussion - unhealthy foods are still food and food is a necessity, you could live longer with them compared to smoking which has no benefits.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Main difference between the two relaxation methods is that smoking isn't kept to yourself, it affects those around you as well so if you have non-smoking friends it's a bit unfair and you only really mix with other smokers or non-smokers whom don't care, while alcohol can be kept to yourself without directly affecting others (unless you begin to drink too much). Health is a huge area for discussion - unhealthy foods are still food and food is a necessity, you could live longer with them compared to smoking which has no benefits.

But again this is the point; let people make that choice. If there is such an anti-smoking mood then most pubs will cater for the non-smokers and a small minority of pubs would allow smoking which smokers would use. I personally feel that most people do not care less (and a lot of people have a smoke just when they go out) and we'd have a pretty balanced system without government and police interference.

We know passive smoking has been over exaggerated; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7530949/Fiddling-those-smoking-figures-again.html with the WHO declaring that passive smoking does not cause cancer. The idea that you face some grave threat when you walk into a smoke-filled pub is laughable, the effects are probably the same as when you go to the pumps to fill up your car and breathe in petrol fumes - no effects what so ever.

[Chippiewill]

We know passive smoking has been over exaggerated; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7530949/Fiddling-those-smoking-figures-again.html with the WHO declaring that passive smoking does not cause cancer. The idea that you face some grave threat when you walk into a smoke-filled pub is laughable, the effects are probably the same as when you go to the pumps to fill up your car and breathe in petrol fumes - no effects what so ever.

I'm not worried about the cancer, I just don't want to be inside a public building that stinks of smoking. Pubs are far more pleasant places to be inside nowadays.

[alexxxxx]

Smoking is safe, I believe alcohol kills brain cells anyway does it not?

Nothing is 'safe' - everything you consume will affect you in someway or other, smoking has been made to look more dangerous than it actually is compared to drinking. Smoking (unlike drinking and drugs in general) doesn't change you - drinking and drugs can make you 'lose' yourself whereas smoking doesn't have that affect.

Smoking in moderation can be fine, it calms a lot of people down.



Harmed? you are harmed by many things in someway or other. It would be like somebody who is allergic to pollen demanding that the local flower display at the park is uprooted because it has a negative affect on them.

the netherlands model is a good one. a very very good one.

If you do not like smoke and feel it has a great effect on you, then you could simply go to a pub where smoking is not allowed. You know, freedom of choice without state/busybody interference as the video shows?

smoking is not safe, nor is alcohol, don't be so ridiculous.

and no, that analogy is not the same. EVERYONE is harmed by smoke, NOT EVERYONE is harmed by pollen.

get real, in most places there is not enough competition in pubs/bars to allow for a gap in the market for non-smokers pubs. most landlords are unlikely to say goodbye to 10-20% of their possible trade.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm not worried about the cancer, I just don't want to be inside a public building that stinks of smoking. Pubs are far more pleasant places to be inside nowadays.

Then go to a non-smoking pub.

Use your brain and make a decision for yourself.


smoking is not safe, nor is alcohol, don't be so ridiculous.

and no, that analogy is not the same. EVERYONE is harmed by smoke, NOT EVERYONE is harmed by pollen.

get real, in most places there is not enough competition in pubs/bars to allow for a gap in the market for non-smokers pubs. most landlords are unlikely to say goodbye to 10-20% of their possible trade.

I didn't say they were safe, quite the opposite - cars are also not safe but I don't propose banning them.

In terms of smoke, what do you class as harm? there is next to no harm, and if you are in a pub you are being harmed anyway by consuming alcohol. The pollen example, everybody who is allergic to pollen is affected by it.

There is a gap judging from all of your horrified reactions to the proposal that people should be allowed to light up in a pub, again as I stated before - in this thread i've had a manner of pathetic excuses for banning it thrown at me and still nobody can explain the point of freedom of choice that i'm making. It seems people are infected with this belief that they have a right to trample over the freedom of others - not just with this issue but with many others. Are we now all so dull and stupid that we are incapable of making our own decisions?

I thought you were a libertarian anyway, seemingly not.

[alexxxxx]

In terms of smoke, what do you class as harm? there is next to no harm, and if you are in a pub you are being harmed anyway by consuming alcohol. The pollen example, everybody who is allergic to pollen is affected by it.

It is fair to assume that there is an elevated risk of certain diseases associated with smoking if exposed to them for an extended period of time. That's the same with anything that affects you. 'Anyone who gets hit by a car is affected by being hit by cars.'



There is a gap judging from all of your horrified reactions to the proposal that people should be allowed to light up in a pub, again as I stated before - in this thread i've had a manner of pathetic excuses for banning it thrown at me and still nobody can explain the point of freedom of choice that i'm making. It seems people are infected with this belief that they have a right to trample over the freedom of others - not just with this issue but with many others. Are we now all so dull and stupid that we are incapable of making our own decisions?

No, quite the opposite, I understand your point of view - it doesn't mean i agree that it is right. Most of your views would be entirely justified if there is enough competition in the world - but there simply isn't. Take this example, a small village might only be able to keep one pub open, where is the smoke-free alternative provided for the market in that area? The market cannot possibly sustain two pubs. Banning smoking inside is unlikely to close that pub due to it being the only one around. Then on the opposite side of the spectrum, take a city like manchester or london, very large, a lot of competition - arguably too many bars for the population, already heavily slashing prices to attract. If landlords were given the choice whether to allow smoking or not, almost all would allow smoking - or lose business. The closeness of the product/service of a pub/bar with smoke and a pub/bar without smoke makes it inviable for both to exist in highly concentrated and loosely concentrated markets. Medium concentrated markets where there are only a few pubs/bars may be able to sustain smoking/non-smoking due to the lack of competition in prices, yet more choice than a monopoly.

What the netherlands' law does is distinctly differentiate the two products/services in order to give choice to consumers.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It is fair to assume that there is an elevated risk of certain diseases associated with smoking if exposed to them for an extended period of time. That's the same with anything that affects you. 'Anyone who gets hit by a car is affected by being hit by cars.'

So why the overstated risk concerning passive smoking? the threat is very minimal, it barely exists. Yet if you read through this thread, they'd have you believe that smoking is the most dangerous habit around - all while they consume their GM foods, chemicals, food dyes, salts, hydronated fats and alcohol. The health argument simply does not stand up, anyone that concerned about health wouldn't be drinking in the first place.


No, quite the opposite, I understand your point of view - it doesn't mean i agree that it is right. Most of your views would be entirely justified if there is enough competition in the world - but there simply isn't. Take this example, a small village might only be able to keep one pub open, where is the smoke-free alternative provided for the market in that area? The market cannot possibly sustain two pubs. Banning smoking inside is unlikely to close that pub due to it being the only one around.

Then you have no choice. That is the market at work like it or not. I could very well fancy a ASDA right next door for my convienence, it doesn't mean it will happen or it should happen.


Then on the opposite side of the spectrum, take a city like manchester or london, very large, a lot of competition - arguably too many bars for the population, already heavily slashing prices to attract. If landlords were given the choice whether to allow smoking or not, almost all would allow smoking - or lose business. The closeness of the product/service of a pub/bar with smoke and a pub/bar without smoke makes it inviable for both to exist in highly concentrated and loosely concentrated markets. Medium concentrated markets where there are only a few pubs/bars may be able to sustain smoking/non-smoking due to the lack of competition in prices, yet more choice than a monopoly.

So again, if the demand is there and people want to smoke in bars, pubs and clubs then let the market work itself out without government interference and without the constant scaremongering from busybodies who, while fretting over passive smoking - are out on the town getting completely smashed out of their silly little heads (along with the lot in this thread who consume salts, fats, dyes and chemicals but continue to worry about their health rights, its simply ludicrous).


What the netherlands' law does is distinctly differentiate the two products/services in order to give choice to consumers.

I would argue that the law in the Netherlands doesn't go far enough, government doesn't have a place in this trivial issue.

[alexxxxx]

So why the overstated risk concerning passive smoking? the threat is very minimal, it barely exists. Yet if you read through this thread, they'd have you believe that smoking is the most dangerous habit around - all while they consume their GM foods, chemicals, food dyes, salts, hydronated fats and alcohol. The health argument simply does not stand up, anyone that concerned about health wouldn't be drinking in the first place.

It does exist though. And again, you choose to eat those foods (which are labelled GM, hydrogenated and alcohol - it is clear to the consumer so they can make an informed choice, or shall we leave it to the market to make goods which may or may not show what is in them too?). Who is to say that someone in a pub is drinking alcohol too? That is a choice too. People may choose to simply drink bottled water, or fruit juice, or a soft drink - choices they make!


Then you have no choice. That is the market at work like it or not. I could very well fancy a ASDA right next door for my convienence, it doesn't mean it will happen or it should happen.

Yes that is true, but what we are doing here is attempting to 'correct' a market. The market system is good but it is not perfect. Neither is 'correcting' it, but it does go someway to helping consumers. The market already tries to correct your ASDA issue by having small, corner shops selling popular products at slightly inflated prices which effectively pays for the convenience. The supermarkets are in fact serve another market entirely.



So again, if the demand is there and people want to smoke in bars, pubs and clubs then let the market work itself out without government interference and without the constant scaremongering from busybodies who, while fretting over passive smoking - are out on the town getting completely smashed out of their silly little heads (along with the lot in this thread who consume salts, fats, dyes and chemicals but continue to worry about their health rights, its simply ludicrous).

And this is relevant how?



I would argue that the law in the Netherlands doesn't go far enough, government doesn't have a place in this trivial issue.
I would barely call this law trivial.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It does exist though. And again, you choose to eat those foods (which are labelled GM, hydrogenated and alcohol - it is clear to the consumer so they can make an informed choice, or shall we leave it to the market to make goods which may or may not show what is in them too?). Who is to say that someone in a pub is drinking alcohol too? That is a choice too. People may choose to simply drink bottled water, or fruit juice, or a soft drink - choices they make!

So as i've been saying throughout, the consumer can make an informed choice as to whether or not they go into a pub which allows smoking as opposed to a non-smoking pub.


Yes that is true, but what we are doing here is attempting to 'correct' a market. The market system is good but it is not perfect. Neither is 'correcting' it, but it does go someway to helping consumers. The market already tries to correct your ASDA issue by having small, corner shops selling popular products at slightly inflated prices which effectively pays for the convenience. The supermarkets are in fact serve another market entirely.

I this said earlier, the market would correct itself with non-smoking pubs because you'd have the likes of the above going into a non-smoking pub seeing as they detest that 'disgusting' habit so much.


And this is relevant how?

Relevant because it dispells the silly issue of health that keeps being brought up.


I would barely call this law trivial.

It is very trivial, pubs got on very well before New Labour (including the Tories and the 'Liberal' 'Democrats') and the health and safety mob started meddling in the industry. It seems to me that nowadays people (and government) just can't resist meddling in every tiny little issue.

The government has far more important things to be policing.

[alexxxxx]

So as i've been saying throughout, the consumer can make an informed choice as to whether or not they go into a pub which allows smoking as opposed to a non-smoking pub.

No, this is where you are wrong. They can be informed - but it is unlikely they would have a choice.



I this said earlier, the market would correct itself with non-smoking pubs because you'd have the likes of the above going into a non-smoking pub seeing as they detest that 'disgusting' habit so much.

In many places there will not be a choice.


Relevant because it dispells the silly issue of health that keeps being brought up.

just the silly issue of health



It is very trivial, pubs got on very well before New Labour (including the Tories and the 'Liberal' 'Democrats') and the health and safety mob started meddling in the industry. It seems to me that nowadays people (and government) just can't resist meddling in every tiny little issue.

The government has far more important things to be policing.

Hahahahaha lovely, stereotypical rant.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, this is where you are wrong. They can be informed - but it is unlikely they would have a choice.

The choice would be around, and if the choice is not around then boo-hoo.

My grandad may want a brand of old crisps brought out again, it doesn't mean he can have it.


In many places there will not be a choice.

Indeed, and thats the free market.


just the silly issue of health

It is because this lot who are fawning over health are the ones who drink, consume GM foods, consume fats, consume salts and so forth - yet seem to have some major problem with passive smoking which is far less a risk than the likes of GM foods, chemicals and fatty foods.


Hahahahaha lovely, stereotypical rant.

What? you think the government has a right to meddle in something which has worked pretty well before government came along? to borrow a phrase, they couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.

[alexxxxx]

The choice would be around, and if the choice is not around then boo-hoo.

My grandad may want a brand of old crisps brought out again, it doesn't mean he can have it.

True, however I'd argue that the market for crisps World/Europe/UK-wide is much more competitive than the market for pubs/bars.



Indeed, and thats the free market.

Which evidently isn't the answer to everything. This is a fundamental difference in thinking - mine is, intervene to make things better, yours is 'theoretically everything should work itself out.'



It is because this lot who are fawning over health are the ones who drink, consume GM foods, consume fats, consume salts and so forth - yet seem to have some major problem with passive smoking which is far less a risk than the likes of GM foods, chemicals and fatty foods.

This isn't really an argument against banning smoking in pubs is it? Like I said, people have a choice and are informed (because of the law) and then can make their own decision.



What? you think the government has a right to meddle in something which has worked pretty well before government came along? to borrow a phrase, they couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.
That's subjective - I argue that it wasn't working well before the government came along and intervened in this issue. For example, when I was younger, (14/15/16) I went to an under 18s club night, afaik - the only one. This was before the smoking ban and when you could smoke at 16. I came out smelling of smoke, I hated smelling of smoke, I hated it when people smoked near me. However, I had no CHOICE - if I wanted to go I had to endure the smoke, the smoke did not make the place an unbearable place, yet i coughed and it was disgusting - if there was a non-smoking version I would have preferred to have gone there. When the law changed so that you could no longer smoke inside and you could no longer buy cigarattes at 16 - it was a much more pleasant experience and it was still as busy as it normally was.

[Jordy]

Just to her interject something here, pub decline has been ongoing since the Victorian era and is affected enormously by cheaper alcohol being available at off-licenses and Supermarkets just as much, if not more than by the smoking ban.