Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Conversation >

Smoking to be banned completely in English pubs and restaurants.

Page: 1(2)3 4 5 6

22:37 / 09.10.05

Psychiatric hospitals still have a special exemption in the H&S legislation.

I heard a NHS head honcho discussing this on radio 4 recently and I think this exemption is going to be repealed in the next few years. Not envying the people who have to enforce that ban infintely more so than the workers enforcing the pub and restaurant ban!

the effect of smoke on kids and others in the home whom you're around for much longer than that is bound to be the next focus of debate.

Yeah, that sounds about right for this current government. Next they'll be legislating for the correct direction to wipe your arse.

22:46 / 09.10.05

I think Barbelith has already legislated on that.

If the passive smoking issue is serious enough to push forward legislation to stop you being exposed to it for a few hours in a bar, the effect of smoke on kids and others in the home whom you're around for much longer than that is bound to be the next focus of debate.

Which is one of the reasons I don't buy the stated motivation being protecting the innocent and vulnerable from passive smoking. Certainly, driving smoking out of pubs and into the home is a ridiculous strategy for furthering that aim and I don't believe our legislators are that dumb.
But as a bid to help smokers who want to quit to do so, I think it's probably quite a good idea. I almost certainly smoke less than I would if I could smoke everywhere. And it would make sense as a stage of the phasing out of smoking altogether. If we're to be protected from ourselves then I don't really understand what's wrong with complete prohibition.

The Return Of Rothkoid

22:47 / 09.10.05

It's coming in in Australia at the moment. Currently, venues and bars and the like have to ensure that the largest room in the place is smoke-free. By 2007, entire venues will be smoke-free. Venues seem to be dealing with it pretty well and, as you'd imagine, private clubs can provide different facilities to public establishments. So in that regard, there's always smokers' refuges.

Here, it's not so much of a problem. Beergardens proliferate, and pubs and clubs are putting more effort into creating outside areas that're attractive to smokers. The much-dreaded decline in sales hasn't happened, because smoking is, mostly, something that happens while socialising - it isn't the sole reason for socialising. Think about it: do you go to a gig because you want a ciggie, or because you want to see a band? Sure, one might want to do both, but unless you're blase and pay to see things you don't particularly like, the event will win out. There's been no decline, apparently, in business - at least, not from publicans I know that I've asked about it. People don't really cut off their social lives just because they can't light up - they either find somewhere that'll let them, or they take a crafty one here and there and make do.

As far as such a ban goes, I'm all for it. I can see smokers' complaints, but taking a strictly health-based angle as a starting point, this protects people who don't smoke, but are affected by your choice to smoke. I find this particularly important in restaurants. Most smokers I know are considerate enough not to smoke when people are eating, but there are a lot who aren't. It's the one part of life where, rational or not, it feels fucking wrong to have someone blazing away while you're trying to dig into something.

If the government does have some sort of responsibility to public health, then protecting those who haven't opted in to carcinogenic consumption from the sideeffects of those who have is, I'd say, a pretty large concern.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

23:09 / 09.10.05

Beergardens proliferate

Trouble is in England you can only really use 'em for about ten minutes in each year.

23:17 / 09.10.05

I find this particularly important in restaurants... It's the one part of life where, rational or not, it feels fucking wrong to have someone blazing away while you're trying to dig into something.

Which betrays the fact that this isn't so much about 'strictly health-based' concerns at all; it's about things that irritate you. But, gawd if I got to ban things that irritated me, some people wouldn't be allowed to leave their houses.

Interesting how infectious the urge to ban things is.

The Return Of Rothkoid

00:20 / 10.10.05

Somehow, I don't think that my dining peccadilloes are behind the government push to ban smoking. I merely said that it shat me.

Interesting that much defense of the issue is based on what people find enjoyable, rather than health or politeness, though.

I don't suggest that banning smoking is going to happen, nor do I advocate that it occur. What I do suggest is that opting into something that is construed by many as offensive, that has distinct negative influences on health, and then suggesting that people put up with it because they're exercising their rights, maaan, is a bit weak.

The Return Of Rothkoid

00:31 / 10.10.05

Edit: when I say "the banning of smoking" I mean "the banning of smoking everywhere, for all time, forever and ever amen."

00:41 / 10.10.05

Rothkoid, I'm sorry if I misread you, but you said:

As far as such a ban goes, I'm all for it. I can see smokers' complaints, but taking a strictly health-based angle as a starting point, this protects people who don't smoke, but are affected by your choice to smoke. I find this particularly important in restaurants. [Italics mine]

If we're taking a 'strictly health-based angle', why is particularly important to ban it in restaurants?
My point is that when we come across something about other people we don't like, it's traditional to argue that they're dangerous. I suspect that something like that is going on with smoking. The possibility that ETS might not be ruinous to health is anathema to the anti-smoking lobby, but something that is still actively entertained by the scientific community. I'm not saying that no one thinks there is a link with cancer, but enough people doubt it for there to be continual research into it, for a start. I've not seen any evidence of much effort being made to link asbestos to asbestosis recently. Just sayin'.

What I do suggest is that opting into something that is construed by many as offensive, that has distinct negative influences on health, and then suggesting that people put up with it because they're exercising their rights, maaan, is a bit weak.

Why's that weak? People exercise rights to do all sorts of things that are offensive or have negative influences on others. Some drive cars, others drink alcohol, eat meat, vote BNP, wear leather trousers... I might be old fashioned, but I think it's good for people to tolerate things they don't like.

The Return Of Rothkoid

00:59 / 10.10.05

Even if it's suggested that it can kill other people who didn't opt-in to the same behaviour? I don't really see how your individual choice to light up - which has ramifications on more people than just yourself - can necessarily be taken over the top of the rights of others. Putting up with things that you don't like - like broccoli, say - are a bit different than putting up with things that could result in parts of your lung being removed, after all.

I really couldn't give a shit about whether smoking's banned or not. I've been mates with inveterate smokers for a long time, and I've gone to places that've been filled with smoke in order to see things I've wanted to see, or do things I've wanted to do. I have, in my time, smoked. But I do think the protests about right infringement are a bit crap when it's been the case that the rights of people who choose not to smoke have been infringed for many years, with little more then lipservice, or a "put up with it" attitude.

01:14 / 10.10.05

Maybe smoking does kill non-smokers, maybe it doesn't. But I'll tell you something that definitely kill innocent people: cars. I say ban them, and anyone who argues against me is weak and full of crap. What say you?

Honestly Rothkoid, I don't think it matters whether you smoke; I really don't think this argument should be characterised as smokers vs. non-smokers. I know smokers who hate smoking and non-smokers who like it. And I don't really think its particularly useful to talk about it in terms of rights. But for what it's worth, I don't think I do have a right to smoke beyond the legal one, and that might be taken away from me soon. Similarly, I don't think anyone else has a right not to breathe in other people's cigarette smoke - until such a right is enshrined into law.
Although maybe you disagree. These rights of people who choose not to smoke that have been infringed for many years; what are they and where did they get them from? It must have passed me by.

02:30 / 10.10.05

The point being that "oh yeah you'll bitch now but you'll be fine with it when it happens, I don't smoke but I think my friend doesn't mind really, life goes on" might be construed as being just ever so slightly patronising and dismissive.

I was actually trying to commiserate, albeit in my limited capacity, and point out the bright side. God, I think it's just not my fucking day today. So, okay, yes the world is probably going to end when they ban smoking in bars, but I really wouldn't know because I'm an asshole nonsmoker with imaginary friends.

The Return Of Rothkoid

03:58 / 10.10.05

Yeah. I'm going to have a drink with Ibis in a nonsmoker loser bar. Seems that we're not cool or right-on enough to cut it in the real world, where people presumably don't give a fuck about the ramifications of their actions.

Regrettable Juvenilia

06:31 / 10.10.05

we're not cool or right-on enough to cut it in the real world

Where did Smoothly say that, out of interest, Rothkoid?

Our Lady Has Left the Building

06:42 / 10.10.05

I certainly think that anywhere where there is food should be no smoking, but possibly that's mainly because when I go out with my family we can't now go to any restaurant that isn't non-smoking because my Mum's lungs are extremely sensitive to cigarette/cigar/pipe smoke. I personally don't have too much of a problem with people smoking around me, would rather the Government put through legislation to make filthpubs install better air conditioning, there are few things worse than being at the back of the Princess Louise with the oxygen slowly disappearing from the atmosphere.

People can go without smoking a couple of hours if they go to the cinema. Can they not go for the same amount of time in a pub? You chain-smokers you...

08:26 / 10.10.05

In the past I used to smoke, now I don't. But one thing I have never done is smoked when mine or anyones kids are around. As a smoker if you choose to smoke so be it, your decision- your health. Those that choose not to smoke should be able to do just that.

I could choose not to go to smoky pubs but my job regularly takes me into licensed premises. When I come out I can smell it on my clothes for the rest of the day. What about all those who benefit from the right to a smoke free work place? Am I entitled to this to?

Also for the record I have always hated the smell of smoke on my clothes and hair(even as a smoker), and I would actually go out more if there were smoke free pubs.

09:11 / 10.10.05

What about all those who benefit from the right to a smoke free work place? Am I entitled to this to?

That's a good question. As it stands, who currently does have the right to a smoke-free workplace? I assume firemen don't. Does anyone?

Tryphena Absent

09:22 / 10.10.05

Once this comes in I really don't see the point of going to the pub anymore and I think, basically that I just won't bother anymore.

Fundamentally the pub is a place of vice. While I sympathise with Smoothly about restaurants I genuinely couldn't give a toss that they're planning on banning smoking in them. However as someone who just doesn't drink any alcohol and smattered the kind of stupid conversation that people have in pubs with cigarettes instead I don't see the motivation to go to these dens of sin without exercising a sin. I can't help but feel it would be more sensible to ban smoking absolutely everywhere except the pub (on the street, in the workplace, in the park) and leave me my one and only drug in the traditional British drug den. *sigh*

What's the point of living when you can't legally have any fun anymore? It's all a little too clean for me.

09:24 / 10.10.05

We'll always have Paris, Nina.

ONLY NICE THINGS

09:25 / 10.10.05

In terms of cigarette smoke, it's fair to suggest that very few people, firefighters or victims, stop for a crafty fag in the middle of a burning building. Therefore the firefighters do tend to have a workplace free of cigarette smoke. You know, unless they're fighting a blaze in a cigarette factory or something like that.

Incidentally, are we _sure_ private clubs are not going to be affected by this? They weren't going to be in the Reid proposal, but it seems sterner counsels are prevailing. Looks like Milk & Honey may fall.

09:27 / 10.10.05

Always? Didn't they recently ban smoking in Italy? No doubt the rest of Europe will eventually give in. Or give up, to be more precise.

09:30 / 10.10.05

According to the Observer article linked to at the top, they are going to be exempt. They better be, or I'm moving to Paris full-time.

09:33 / 10.10.05

I know what you're saying, Loomis. But I kinda hope that if anyone is going to draw a line in the ash, it'll be the French.

ONLY NICE THINGS

09:36 / 10.10.05

Well, the article in the Grauniad says:

The white paper Choosing Health would have imposed a ban on smoking in all workplaces, restaurants and pubs serving food. However, smoking would have continued in private clubs as well as in pubs not serving food.

I reckon it may yet hang in the balance. I suspect a lot depends on how you define a private or public space.

09:43 / 10.10.05

Lawks, you're right. I must have misread it. And I just didn't think private clubs were ever in the frame given the other exemptions they have, and how these things tend to go. I imagined there would still be cigars smoked in Westminster, for instance.

09:46 / 10.10.05

I don't have a major problem with bars being left with a non-smoking and smoking section. But I personally applaud a total ban in restaurants. If you're in the middle of a tasty meal your senses are sharper, and nothing pisses on the enjoyment of that meal more than fag smoke.

It's the equivelant of some dick talking at the cinema.

09:49 / 10.10.05

I agree with you, Scientist. Although I don't know if talking in the cinema should be a criminal offence. And if you wanted to open a cinema that invited discussion, I don't think you should be prevented from doing so.

10:15 / 10.10.05

Talking at the cinemas isn't a criminal offence. But it bloody should be (joking...kinda). Although people can be asked to leave if they're disturbing the film for others, I suppose they could argue they have as much right to loudly chat as others to actually watch the film.

Smoking and drinking are both unhealthy acts which, in their own way, affect people around them. Having been unfortunate enough to witness an attempted bottling in a pub at the weekend I'm not going to try and defend alcohol as the "safer" of the two drugs.

The ban on smoking at the bar protects the people who, whilst not necessarily smokers, are continuously exposed to cig smoke in the course of their jobs. It only minimises the exposure though as they are exposed when picking up empties, etc. I suppose some kind of protective mask could be worn by bar staff who're that concerned.

I think a total ban, while something I'd personally like to see, would not be effective. Both sides of the debate have to recognise that, in some way, they are impeding the freedoms of the other side. Smokers have a moral right to smoke a legally available drug, and non-smokers have a moral right not to be exposed to something they consider to be toxic.

10:18 / 10.10.05

I'm all in favour of non-smoking pubs, and pubs with improved ventilation & non-smoking areas. I'm just not sure it's something that should be legislated for. Surely they will arrive naturally if people really want them.

pointless & uncalled for

10:22 / 10.10.05

Of course, doesn't the government have a fundamental obligation to pursue banning? After all, it is charged, in part, with matters of health of the citizens of the nation.

Under what argument do you think that the government could reasonably condone smoking in public places? And if you can't then surely it would be a pathetic double standard to ask them to condem smoking but do nothing about it.

Basically it would seem that, with the escalating health conciousness in Britain, the government has basically become powerless to do nothing about it. Perhaps another reason, for smokers at least, to punch Jamie Oliver.

10:32 / 10.10.05

But I kinda hope that if anyone is going to draw a line in the ash, it'll be the French.

Fumer, c´est liberté toujours!

Oui, the French won´t stand for a ban. Although it has been tried:

"...it seems huddled groups of smokers puffing away outside bars and restaurants stand little chance of appearing on the streets of Paris.

The city council was yesterday forced to acknowledge that a voluntary scheme launched three months ago aimed at encouraging Paris's 12,452 cafes, bistros and brasseries to declare themselves smoke-free zones had been adopted by barely 30."

"The French remain a nation of dedicated smokers: according to the latest government figures, 32.2% of all 26- to 75-year-olds are regular consumers and the figure rises to 36.7% in the 12 to 25 age group. In the face of customer pressure, laws on smoking in public places are widely ignored in most cafes and restaurants.

Proprietors argue that banning smoking would amount to commercial suicide."

Guardian again 16feb05

10:36 / 10.10.05

You've got to love the French.

After all, it is charged, in part, with matters of health of the citizens of the nation. -- SK

Charged with what? Guaranteeing the health of citizens? Ensuring it, promoting it, what?

If it was the duty of the government to outlaw everything that's bad for us then they're not going to get much else done and we'd live in a very weird place. So I'd say they can 'condone' smoking in the way they condone other things that people like to do despite not being strictly good for them. In fact, the law protects your right to kill yourself outright if you want to. I don't think it condones the swallowing of a handful of paracetamol, but it respects your freedom to do so.

It's not a double standard for the government to advise people to maintain a healthy diet and yet continue to allow the consumption of beer or butter, is it?

10:42 / 10.10.05

they should really ban selfish types from smoking in bus shelters that really pisses me off

Only if you can tell me a better way of getting the bus to turn up than lighting up?

11:37 / 10.10.05

I'm all in favour of non-smoking pubs, and pubs with improved ventilation & non-smoking areas. I'm just not sure it's something that should be legislated for. Surely they will arrive naturally if people really want them.

Many of the big "chain pubs" have non-smoking areas, and that's good enough for me. As I say both sides need to show consideration for the others. Non-smokers have to accept that, whilst tobacco is legal, they will inevitably be exposed to cig smoke (you can't really ask the person walking down the street ahead of you to put it out). But smokers also need to accept that non-smokers don't want cig smoke blown in their face (as it were).

Unfortunately things like this end up needing to be legislated as the chances of total strangers showing each other consideration is normally quite slim in the big city.

pointless & uncalled for

11:39 / 10.10.05

Charged with what? Guaranteeing the health of citizens? Ensuring it, promoting it, what?

Protecting it would be the answer that you're looking for. The same way in which they're obliged to legislate on vehicular emmisions for those who don't enjoy a good lungful o' lead with their stroll to the pub.

If it was the duty of the government to outlaw everything that's bad for us then they're not going to get much else done...

Not quite the angle really but to answer this then you'll notice the creep of regulation in this direction. From the planned regulation on the food that gets offered to children in schools to the changes in legislation on housing codes over the past 20 years or more. The government knows that it can't do everything overnight, bureaucracy simply doens't work in that fashion. But knowing how it does work the government is taking issues on a maleable prioritisation.

The angle that I was looking at was one person doing something that is bad for other people. Like a form of enforcing cognisance and responsibility. I see it as living in a wierd place where we can say it's OK to pollute the air of minors with carcinogens and mutagenics but then say drive slower if they're more likely to run out in front of you. It's about how youaffect other people, not about how you affect yourself.

Proprietors argue that banning smoking would amount to commercial suicide

Incidentally, when smoking was banned in restaurants (open to the under 19s) in Toronto the levels of patronage rose in both smoking and non-smoking venues. Then again, so did the smoking percentage of the population and therefore proprieters were still able to claim that they were loosing out.

pointless & uncalled for

12:09 / 10.10.05

Many of the big "chain pubs" have non-smoking areas, and that's good enough for me.

But not for a lot of people. It seems that smoke doesn't respect the imaginary barriers that we put up. Even with ramped up air-con, those poor non-smokers seated next to the smoking area aren't going to notice a great deal of difference. Unless, that is, air is sucked over them at a Beef Wellington chilling speed. Hardly a conduicive eating environment. I guess you could have semi-smoking areas for mixed parties whose smokers promise that they'll just have one or two. Doubt it would wash though.

Page: 1(2)3 4 5 6