Pub landlord gives 2 fingers to the smoking ban

[nick]

It would have been perfectly possible to frame legislation such that bar staff were not exposed to smoke.

 

I would be fascinated to see your ideas on that one Steve.

[Steve Walker]

I would be fascinated to see your ideas on that one Steve.

 

Physical partition between staff side of bar and smoking side of bar. Positive pressure ventilation on the staff side, negative pressure on the punter side, drinks served through a hatch, no glass collection or cleaning within n hours of the bar closing, patrons to take glasses back to the bar. Cleaners and glass collectors to wear NBC suits if you really feel the need, whatever. It's not impossible.

 

It wouldn't be the nicest looking bar around, it would look more like one of those off licences in the dodgy parts of town, where you are served through a perspex partition, but it would be perfectly possible.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

I would be fascinated to see your ideas on that one Steve.

 

Absolutely no need to argue this point, smoking bars manned by people who want to work there regardless of any risk.

 

It is called FREEDOM OF CHOICE

 

And this is the whole point of this debate, non-smokers such as myself have a choice, we decide whether we wish to be in the company of smokers, many of my fishing companions smoke and I am quite happy to be in their company, travel in their cars etc. whilst they smoke.

 

IT IS CALLED MY CHOICE AND NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO STOP THAT CHOICE.

[snakey1]

The NBC suit approach would go down well at some fetish clubs i know

Edited January 16, 2008 by snakey1

[nick]

Physical partition between staff side of bar and smoking side of bar. Positive pressure ventilation on the staff side, negative pressure on the punter side, drinks served through a hatch, no glass collection or cleaning within n hours of the bar closing, patrons to take glasses back to the bar. Cleaners and glass collectors to wear NBC suits if you really feel the need, whatever. It's not impossible.

 

It wouldn't be the nicest looking bar around, it would look more like one of those off licences in the dodgy parts of town, where you are served through a perspex partition, but it would be perfectly possible.

 

The no collection or cleaning part would lead to closure on health and safety grounds (broken glass is very dangerous stuff - even gets used by drunken idiots in fights), and probably get the fire officers interested too if there was lots of combustible materials around.

[barry luxton]

Absolutely no need to argue this point, smoking bars manned by people who want to work there regardless of any risk.

 

It is called FREEDOM OF CHOICE

 

And this is the whole point of this debate, non-smokers such as myself have a choice, we decide whether we wish to be in the company of smokers, many of my fishing companions smoke and I am quite happy to be in their company, travel in their cars etc. whilst they smoke.

 

IT IS CALLED MY CHOICE AND NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO STOP THAT CHOICE.

Yer but, if i was to offer you a lift in my van Ken and you would be more than welcome, based on the current law neither of us must smoke, hows that for freedom of choice. Equally so, my bestest charter skipper at weymouth enjoys his rollups, with this new law he has to go out of his cabin to light up, the cabin that he paid 150 grand for, how stupid is that. So one of his anglers could quite easily grass him up, based on how the law is. Thats freedom for you.

[Wordbender]

You may not be gloating but you are making an enormous assumption that smokers do not enjoy a smoke and that they all want to pack up, that is not the case.

 

Ken, I have never said that smokers don't enjoy smoking, have I? Feel free to correct me if that is the case. Also, I have not claimed that all smokers want to pack up.

 

What I said was, most smokers would rather not be smokers, and that's absolutely true. From speaking to smokers over the years, at least 80% of them profess a desire to give up.

 

I hope I've clarified my statement.

 

Regards.

[Steve Walker]

The no collection or cleaning part would lead to closure on health and safety grounds (broken glass is very dangerous stuff - even gets used by drunken idiots in fights), and probably get the fire officers interested too if there was lots of combustible materials around.

Collection of any remaining glasses and cleaning done out of hours. Most pubs don't have the cleaners in while punters are present anyway, so I'm not sure why doing it the following morning before opening would be a problem. No second drink without returning your glass, shatterproof glasses, etc. Where there's a will...

Absolutely no need to argue this point, smoking bars manned by people who want to work there regardless of any risk.

I wonder what the occupational risk is for staff on charter boats? Or commercial fishing boats; are you allowed to smoke on them, I wonder, or is it too risky? If I worked in a pub, I'd be more worried about violent alkies than smokers, tbh.

[Steve Walker]

What I said was, most smokers would rather not be smokers, and that's absolutely true. From speaking to smokers over the years, at least 80% of them profess a desire to give up.

 

As an ex-smoker, I have limited sympathy for people who say that. If they really wanted to give up, they would do. I think many smokers who say that are giving the answer they feel are expected to give. There's a difference between feeling that you ought to give up and wanting to give up.

[Wordbender]

Absolutely no need to argue this point, smoking bars manned by people who want to work there regardless of any risk.

 

Ken, as previously posted, this was explained to me as being impossible because bar staff could no more elect to work in a smoke-filled environment than construction workers could choose not to wear hard hats.

 

'Disregarding risk' in the workplace simply isn't an option.

 

Regards.