Smoking banned in Scotland

Well I don't smoke or drink so going in pubs isn't a problem for me anyway, but if I did drink and went into a pub why should I be forced to breathe in other peoples smoke? Not just pubs of course but anywhere else.

Really though I think within the next few years most places in the world will ban smoking, and I think it will be a good day when that happens.

I was over in Ireland clubbing with friends last year and you have no idea how nice it was to really enjoy the pubs and clubs then go back to the hotel and not stink of smoke. I can’t wait until they introduce the ban here, it won’t stop that many smokers going out and the number of non-smokers more inclined to go clubbing will more than make up for this crap that publicans are spouting about a loss of income.

From what I’ve read a lot of privately owned men’s clubs and political venues count as private extensions of the owners house and won’t be included… so everyone is welcome to pile into one of the those and smoke themselves to oblivion, hell, I’ll even buy you all a disposable lighter.

So if you smoke, either stay in your home, or go to pub, but drop outside to smoke? If you are a smoker, you are not all owed to drink and smoke at the same time outside your own home?

And a lot more.

You failed to notice my point. How many hours a day do you spend outside, exhaling the air, compared to being in a pub exhaling cigarette smoke? My point was that passive smoking occurs in a restricted place for a restricted time, whereas passive exfume-inhaling occurs regularly, everywhere.

Have you ever been to a bus station in England? And have you ever worked in a factory?

Come on, you have health-hazards everywhere, all the time. That's called life. And in the quote I was talking about workplaces, you took my quote out of context.

And how handy of you Ice to pick out the pieces from my post that suit your arguement, and leave out the ones that you can't respond to.

Every bar, restaurant, club is free to ban smoking whenever they want, there is not a law saying they have to have a certain amount of area reserved for smoking. How many pubs or clubs actually do this? You can see that it is beneficial for the pubs and clubs to let people smoke in them.

I can understand how nice it was! Still, I think, and I think there has been research made, that it will result to loss of income and the loss of several small pubs especially. And clubs are free to be non-smoking in England, too, but they won't do it, as I said.

I am a 25-year old woman. Why on earth would I want to go to a privately-owned men's club or a political venue for a night out???? A lot of privately-owned political venues and fancy restaurants are smoke-free, but I am not suggesting for you to go to those with your friends for a nice night out

Yes. Exactly. If you're a nudist, you're not allowed to walk naked around town, why should smokers be allowed to injure others by smoking in closed spaces?


It's not the point. We can't do anything about the air, at least within the realms of reason, but we can do something about smoking.

Tell me, why should the non-smokers have to breathe the harmful smoke if there's a way to prevent it?



Yes and no. The bus drivers don't stay on the station, they drive the freaking bus. The fumes do not enter the cabin while driving.

And, I don't know the law about this in the UK, but in Finland the law requires the work place to provide ear protection if the noise level is over 85db. It's your own fault if you don't use it. It's a choice, passive smoking isn't.


No, I didn't. You said there are dangers in most jobs, I pointed out that your examples were poor ones. Why do you think people in pubs should be forced to breathe smoke? Are you for people inhaling asbestos as well?

As to health-hazards, yes there are a lot. But why make life even more dangerous by forcing people to inhale nicotine and tar?

I chose the ones I thought were the most important. Point any that I didn't answer and I'll try.

Anyway, the point here is that you are a smoker. You only want to hold on tto the rights you have. Non-smokers on the other hand want to have some rights. If you look at the facts, there's no point in being pro-smoking, but non-smoking has several health benefits. If you deny those, you're really denying modern medicine.

Ice

One humourous analogy I like for having smoking ad non-smoking sections in pubs or restaurants is that this ludicrous idea is the same as adopting a urinating section in a swimming pool!

Some nights I go out with a group of people, one of whom is profoundly asthmatic and we have a next to nil choice on places to go… clubbing is almost certainly out the window. It maybe just a bit of an irritant to me (as many fellow contact wearers may tell you) but for her smokers have dictated where she can go almost her entire life.

If people want to smoke then let them smoke, I just don’t see why they can do it in their own house or grounds and away from people who might object… health reasons aside I don’t like the smell of smoke, I don’t like having to take my contacts out hours early because of it and I hate the lingering smell on my clothes and I’m sure I’m not alone.

Maybe I’ll proclaim my love of carrying round a big bag of $hit and throwing it over people… Makes your clothes smell? Gets in your hair? Antisocial? Well tough.. I love throwing $hit .. it calms me down… why can’t I do it where I want? Sorry?? What? It may be hazardous to your health? Oh man, for God’s sake… why do you have to tell me where I can throw $hit… it’s my choice dammit…

Amen! I've been watching you for a while and you've made great posts, but this is the top. Love it!

Ice

Ok. This debate is about banning smoking in public places. The smokers say yes, they should be allowed to smoke, and the non-smokers say they shouldn't be forced to suffer from smoking. As I've said before, I am for banning smoking everywhere else in public except in pubs. I am not defending smoking, and I shouldn't be forced in the defensive with my views. This is what in most cases happens in the discussions about this, smokers need to go in defensive, and they are blamed for 'forcing' their habit on others. If you want to talk about the cons of smoking, fine, but that is to be done in another debate.

The point isn't that I'm trying to hold on to the rights I have or increase my rights where I don't as a smoker. The point is, there is a solution that is good for both parties. And that is to allocate designated areas for smokers and non-smokers in pubs, not to drive the others away.

This is easy to do really, and it's been done in Finland already. One part of a pub is non-smoking, whereas the other is smoking. Allocating these places rightly, increasing airconditioning and separating the areas properly will get rid of the smell of smoke in the non-smoking area, whereas smokers can both enjoy the pub and their cigarettes in the smoking section. No booths, no crouching around, just proper tables, proper signs indicating where you can smoke, and proper airconditioning.

As for the staff. I am not saying at all that they should be forced to breathe smoke. Smoking at bars is prohibited in Finland anyways. It is up to the staff to enforce that, and some places do allow it. However, they don't have to. So, if bars are non-smoking areas, and no table service is provided to the smoking tables, no smoke should get to the staff to be inhaled.

The same goes for clubs. At least in Finland, most dancing floors are non-smoking anyways. If you can't smoke in dancing floors, at bars and around dj's booth, but there are tables where you are allowed to smoke, with proper air-conditioning and positioning, both smokers and non-smokers will be able to enjoy the clubs (if you happen to enjoy clubs in the first place).

I don't see a problem with this, and it is exactly how it is done in Finland. It works better in some places than others, but it is up to the pub in question to enforce it. The law is what it is, they do check-ups but they are very difficult to carry out. The way to go about is not to change it completely, but give strict rules about positioning of the two areas, air-conditioning etc, and give large fines if these are not followed.

The thing is, even when these two areas in Finland are in use, very often the non-smoking side of a pub is almost totally empty, whereas the smoking areas are filled with people. Why is that? Because a lot of people in pubs smoke. If these people aren't allowed to do that in pubs, most of them won't go, or won't stay as long, which will result to loss of income, and many pubs will go under.

<retracted>

If an employee wants to take a job where they KNOW they will be exposed to second hand smoke, that's their choice, just like they can make the choice to go look for employment in a healthier environment. As long as no one's forcing them to apply for, accept, and work a job that's detrimental to their health, I say no foul.

Adrian