July 1st ~ The end of the indoor puff!

[lcfc_jme]

I voted 'Kin Brilliant. And on t'main bit I clicked Packaging, Loud Music, Fast Foods, Life, Football, Records by Shakira, Malted Milk Biscuits. All main health hazards covered I feel.

[davieG]

i've never been a smoker but i'm dead against the ban. i against the nanny state and banning everything that's bad for you, grown ups should be allowed to make their own decisions. if an individual landlord decides to ban it in his pub fair enough, if we had non-smoking pubs and smoking pubs people could make up their own minds, as there are very few non-smoking pubs it shows there isn't much demand.

PS on the radio the other day it said that since the ban in scotland came in, pub turnovers have gone down 11% but cigarette sales have gone up 6%.

They haven't banned it you can still smoke you just can't use me as an ash tray - so the 'nanny state' argument is not valid.

As for pub turnovers going down that's inevitable in the short term as people take time to readjust their lifestyles. I rarely go in a pub except when attending footy matches. When on holiday I have often seen a pub where I fancy having a meal and a pint but so many where full of smoke I've stopped looking. In time I'm sure trade will pick up and increase on what it is now.

[Daggers]

PS on the radio the other day it said that since the ban in scotland came in, pub turnovers have gone down 11% but cigarette sales have gone up 6%.

* Studies of the impact of smoking restrictions on the hospitality sector (hotel, bars and restaurants) have failed to find any statistically significant effect

* The studies do not rule out the possibility of much smaller negative effects for some businesses or small areas, which are balanced out by gains elsewhere

* Estimates of the effect on the hospitality sector in Scotland lie between -£104m to +£299m, with a central estimate of +£97m

* Other economic impacts include savings to the NHS, productivity gains from sickness absence, smoking breaks, savings on fire damage and cleaning costs

* The total effect of eliminating exposure to ETS lies in the range +£23m to £555m, with the central estimate being +£335m

Source

[Webbo]

* Studies of the impact of smoking restrictions on the hospitality sector (hotel, bars and restaurants) have failed to find any statistically significant effect

* The studies do not rule out the possibility of much smaller negative effects for some businesses or small areas, which are balanced out by gains elsewhere

* Estimates of the effect on the hospitality sector in Scotland lie between -£104m to +£299m, with a central estimate of +£97m

* Other economic impacts include savings to the NHS, productivity gains from sickness absence, smoking breaks, savings on fire damage and cleaning costs

* The total effect of eliminating exposure to ETS lies in the range +£23m to £555m, with the central estimate being +£335m

Source

statistics can prove anything. if your for the ban you can prove the benefits and if your against it vice versa. i know i'm in a minority on this but it's just the way i feel.

[Daggers]

statistics can prove anything. if your for the ban you can prove the benefits and if your against it vice versa. i know i'm in a minority on this but it's just the way i feel.

How come you can quote unsourced (and odd) statistics - but feel free to discount those that are sourced and reliable as "just statistics" that "can prove anything"?

The bottom line is that this isn't a "nanny state" issue and it isn't targeting the liberties of smokers: It is an international phenomena that is promoting the rights of non-smokers. I can't help but feel that those arguing for the right to smoke anywhere they chose might as well argue for the right to **** children while they're at it.

[Fez of Mahrez]

F**king brilliant.

[Leicfox]

How come you can quote unsourced (and odd) statistics - but feel free to discount those that are sourced and reliable as "just statistics" that "can prove anything"?

The bottom line is that this isn't a "nanny state" issue and it isn't targeting the liberties of smokers: It is an international phenomena that is promoting the rights of non-smokers. I can't help but feel that those arguing for the right to smoke anywhere they chose might as well argue for the right to **** children while they're at it.

I smoke and im really not bothered by it, i've not been able to smoke in resturants in my area for years anyhow. So when i do go out on the piss its no hardship to go outside for one, its quite nice sometimes when places get red hot, plus most of my m8's smoke so i wont be alone and the odd person who doesn't smoke won't want to stay in the pub alone so they'll venture outside too, they might even start to smoke themselfs to be apart of the gang.

We like being lepers, its so cult.

[Webbo]

* The studies do not rule out the possibility of much smaller negative effects for some businesses or small areas, which are balanced out by gains elsewhere

* Estimates of the effect on the hospitality sector in Scotland lie between -£104m to +£299m, with a central estimate of +£97m

So it's either -£104m or +£299m, not exactly conclusive.

* Other economic impacts include savings to the NHS, productivity gains from sickness absence, smoking breaks, savings on fire damage and cleaning costs

how will it save cleaning costs, does the need for dusting and hoovering suddenly stop.

* The total effect of eliminating exposure to ETS lies in the range +£23m to £555m, with the central estimate being +£335m

yet again another estimate, proves nothing.

add to that that smoking raises an estimated £9billion for the economy, smokers die younger therefore cost less in pension.

as i say you can prove anything with statistics, and most of those statistics are optimistic guesses by people with their own axe to grind.

[Stevosevic]

The same reason why people drink, take drugs, eat junk food etc etc, because they enjoy it ?.

I understand your point, but at least those mentioned are enjoyable. Drinking tastes good, alot of junk food tastes good, some drugs can be good in your youth cos they can be a laugh but smoking just tastes like crap to be honest.

[Daggers]

<opinion only>

I didn't ask you about your views on statistical analysis.

[Leicfox]

I understand your point, but at least those mentioned are enjoyable. Drinking tastes good, alot of junk food tastes good, some drugs can be good in your youth cos they can be a laugh but smoking just tastes like crap to be honest.

You've obliviously not smoked blue vein.

[Webbo]

I didn't ask you about your views on statistical analysis.

Hey, I'm a complicated kinda guy.

[Daggers]

Hey, I'm a complicated kinda guy.

I'm superficial. How's complicated working out for you coz I really fancy a change?

[Katy]

It can't come soon enough for me

[Alexikokopops]

I did, Harald Schumacher. Watcha gunna do? Huh? Watcha gunna do?

Do somethin!

You better watch out boyo, I'm onto you.

I understand your point, but at least those mentioned are enjoyable. Drinking tastes good, alot of junk food tastes good, some drugs can be good in your youth cos they can be a laugh but smoking just tastes like crap to be honest.

"It's a shame it's that secondary smoke that stinks so bad, 'cause the stuff we're sucking up is fooking great man. *Sucks cigarette* Mmm, mmm, steak and potatoes. *Sucks cigarette* Lobster. *Sucks cigarette* Yul Brynner's noggin..."

[Guest]

* Other economic impacts include savings to the NHS, productivity gains from sickness absence, smoking breaks, savings on fire damage and cleaning costs

how will it save cleaning costs, does the need for dusting and hoovering suddenly stop.

I suppose there's the damage caused by fag burns, that doesn't cost much. Neither does the cost of redecorating, some places don't like nicotine stained walls. Still, I'm sure they just shove the curtains etc in the washer with the dishcloths.

* * The total effect of eliminating exposure to ETS lies in the range +£23m to £555m, with the central estimate being +£335m

yet again another estimate, proves nothing.

add to that that smoking raises an estimated £9billion for the economy, smokers die younger therefore cost less in pension.

Pointless argument. Smokers cost the NHS more, either for themselves or for the effect of their habit on those who do not smoke. Why shouldn't they pay for it?

[Leicfox]

I never know you could smoke in hospitals anyway, So why does cleaning costs come into it ?

[Webbo]

I suppose there's the damage caused by fag burns, that doesn't cost much. Neither does the cost of redecorating, some places don't like nicotine stained walls. Still, I'm sure they just shove the curtains etc in the washer with the dishcloths.

cleaning ladies are still going to be employed wether people smoke or not.

Pointless argument. Smokers cost the NHS more, either for themselves or for the effect of their habit on those who do not smoke. Why shouldn't they pay for it?

Smoking as a "public good"

Tax is levied on tobacco in three ways: excise duty at a specific rate per 1,000 cigarettes, an additional rate based on 20% of the total retail price, plus VAT at 17.5% of the final price - including the other taxes.

The end result is that tobacco taxation, the amount levied in various ways by the government on every packet of cigarettes, cigars or smoking tobacco, comes to £12 billion per year, six times more than any NHS bills run up by nicotine addicts.

source

[Leicfox]

If having a bonfire can constitute a private nuisance, actionable in a court of law, and with the payment of damages, why shouldn't cigarette smoke?

Because it simply isnt true that second hand smoke kills.

[Father Ted]

Who voted Malted Milk biscuits?

Come on, be honest.

They'll probably ban them next 'cos it probably has something like 1 too many artificial sweeteners or they'll ban cardboard cereal boxes or tarmacked roads

[Daggers]

cardboard cereal boxes

Environmentally unsound - seventeen seals get brutally murdered just to make one Frosties packet.

tarmacked roads

Carcinogenic.

If only the people that licked them were made aware of this.

It's shocking.

[Rincewind]

I found out yesterday that Ruth the landlady of The Shakespears Head is leaving because of it. Apparently she has bought a place in Cyprus (I think) I like Ruth and the Shakespear but feel this is a bit drastic and OTP. There has been bans in other places, America, Ireland, Scotland and it seems to be working. In fact more people visit pubs in some areas. I also heard that Wetherspoons may be taking over the Shakespear. Some of the regulars were saying they wouldn;t go in if that happens. But TBH the only reason they go in now is the beer is cheap (£1.45 bitter)

I can't wait for July 1st. Now I won't have move ashtrays full of dogends when I go in a place and I wont have people half-stubblng their fags out at my table while I am eating leaving it still smouldering.

[lookwhaticando]

There was a pub/club/bar smoking ban here in Ottawa a couple of years ago.

The smoking lobbies and other such groups said "you'll hurt business, which in turn will hurt rate revenues... bla bla bla".

Turns out business has been pretty solid since they banned fags. I'm 99.9% certain that the impact to business was very short term (first few months).

[Zingari]

There was a pub/club/bar smoking ban here in Ottawa a couple of years ago.

The smoking lobbies and other such groups said "you'll hurt business, which in turn will hurt rate revenues... bla bla bla".

Turns out business has been pretty solid since they banned fags. I'm 99.9% certain that the impact to business was very short term (first few months).

aren't "fags" something else in north america

[lookwhaticando]

aren't "fags" something else in north america

I say fags just to wind up the locals. It makes them think that I'm being politically incorrect... and they hate that.