Pub landlord gives 2 fingers to the smoking ban

[Steve Walker]

That's as maybe but it is an employers responsibility to reduce any such risks to individuals and prevention is the first line of defence (under HSE rulings).

 

And prevention could have been achieved by any number of methods short of an outright ban. I can think of ways of setting up a smoking room in a pub such that staff do not enter it until it has been decontaminated, as I'm sure can you. In extremis, issuing staff with biohazard suits and ventilators would have been possible. Of course that would not have been necessary, but the point is that a ban was absolutely not the only way of protecting staff.

 

Staff could easily sue, just the same as employees in any other 'harmful' environment can.

 

If fear of civil litigation by staff had been an issue, pubs would have banned smoking themselves and it would not have been necessary to implement a ban.

 

If it were still an issue, it would not be possible to allow smoking to continue in those few situations (residential care homes, prisons) where it is allowed.

[Leon Roskilly]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinbu...ast/6986554.stm

 

 

Scots smoke ban 'improved health'

 

The Scottish smoking ban has led to a significant advance in public health, the most detailed scientific study of the measure so far has suggested.

 

Comparisons at nine hospitals revealed that there was a 17% year-on-year drop in heart attack admissions since the ban was introduced in March 2006.

 

It said the quality of air in pubs is now equivalent to that found outdoors.

 

Exposure to second-hand smoke north of the border is down by 40% among adults and children, the study added.

 

The findings will be presented to an international conference in Edinburgh on the ban organised by the Scottish Government.

 

They are based on scientific evidence collected from routine health data, as well as research projects undertaken by government scientists and Scottish universities.

 

Admissions to nine major Scottish hospitals were also compared in the year before and after the introduction of the ban.

 

Scotland's deputy chief medical officer, Professor Peter Donnelly, said they were proof that the ban had produced major health gains.

 

But Scottish publicans claim that many of the benefits could have been achieved without a ban and complain that bar sales have declined because of it.

 

More than 2,000 primary school children and adults aged between 18 and 74-years-old from 74 postcode areas took part in the research.

 

Professor Jill Pell, who headed the research team which made the findings, said: "The primary aim of smoking bans is to protect non-smokers from the effects of passive smoking.

 

"Previous studies have not been able to confirm whether or not that has been achieved. What we were able to show is that among people who are non-smokers there was a 20% reduction in heart attack admissions.

 

"This confirms that the legislation has been effective in helping non-smokers."

 

The main findings of the study were;

 

 

The ban has reduced second-hand smoke exposure in both children and adults.

 

Among primary school children, levels of a by-product of nicotine fell by more than a third (39%) following the ban.

 

In adults, cotinine levels fell by almost half (49%) in non-smokers from non-smoking households.

 

Non-smokers living in smoking households continued to have high levels of second hand smoke exposure in the home.

 

And the authors suggest that further action is urgently required to support smoking households to implement smoke-free homes and cars.

Ash Scotland chief executive Maureen Moore welcomed the research.

 

She said: "The ban on smoking in public places provides everyone in Scotland with effective protection from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke and was a courageous move taken by the Scottish Parliament.

 

"That decision has now been shown to be paying dividends for everyone living in Scotland."

 

After the Scotland banned smoking in enclosed public spaces, Wales and Northern Ireland followed suit in April 2007 and England did the same in July 2007.

[kleinboet]

Rabbit, thanks for that I think you missed the irony of my last paragraph. That was the thought of a smoker walking down High Street. They will light up a fag and not go into a shop until it is finish - to the detriment of the High Street shops!

The lady who owns the pub we eat in said that she would not have expected a non-smoker to serve in the smoking section of the bar (if there had of been one)!

[snotty]

Having cast my vote and observed that those who agree with the ban (on the whole) outnumber those who dont by around 2 to 1, I was quite surprised to see the large majority of posts moaning about the ban and its effects on trade etc...etc...

Perhaps you smokers are still huffing and puffing though not in my local anymore.

 

If there are less alehouses in ten years time, maybe that will be a good thing too, less places where louts with no self control or dignity can drink themselves stupid and behave badly on our streets.

 

Its wonderful to go out and not come home stinking like an ashtray.

Its so good to eat out and not have to ask the selfish drug sucker on the next table to refrain from blowing his vile residue in my direction.

The only problem now is that to get into or out of the pub these days you have to run a smoky gauntlet of these wretched folk huddled around the entrance.

 

Just remember this, once us non-smokers were the lepers, huddled in an area underneath the obligatory ceiling fan or vent-axia, the publicans concession to the non-smokers rights.

If I had my way I would restrict smoking to a lean-to shed at the bottom end of the car park farthest from the door, but if you would rather stay at home, then so be it... I wont miss you.

[snakey1]

It doesn't seem to have made any difference to the pubs i drink in (which vary from pubs out in the sticks in wales to some in birmingham city centre) haven't been clubbing in years so i couldn't say whether its made any difference to them or not (i doubt it though).Although i don't generally agree with the ban(i don't like the idea of banning things willy nilly)i have to say its great to come out of the pub at night now not stinking like somebodys old ash tray.

[mr motorola]

What the people who are supporting the ban want to be careful of is.....the ease of the implementation of it. The ban happened virtually overnight (compared in time to most bans) . What could be next i wonder? A sea fishing license? (errr) thats already in the pipe-line for starters. Lying back and letting the idiots in power get away with such ridiculous ideas will spell trouble 5-10 years down the line.

You can't have your cake and eat it , i'm afraid!!!

 

And what's all this tosh about people coming out of the pub smelling like an ashtray? Most of the pubs / clubs i frequent have pretty decent air-con / removal systems in place and WORK VERY WELL.

Edited January 11, 2008 by mr motorola

[Leon Roskilly]

And what's all this tosh about people coming out of the pub smelling like an ashtray? Most of the pubs / clubs i frequent have pretty decent air-con / removal systems in place and WORK VERY WELL.

 

After going along to the Medway Mullet Group meets, Brenda would make me hang all my clothes in the garage rather than the hall (well not all, some had to go in the wash-basket).

 

Not nearly well enough for those whose sense of smell hasn't been dmaged by smoking.

 

(I remember when I gave up, many years ago, marvelling at some of the smells I hadn't really experienced since I was a kid, privet blossom, new grass, damp leaves. That itself made giving up worthwhile, not to mention being healthy again, and able to run two or three blocks without having to stop for a wheeze).

Edited January 11, 2008 by Leon Roskilly

[snakey1]

And what's all this tosh about people coming out of the pub smelling like an ashtray? Most of the pubs / clubs i frequent have pretty decent air-con / removal systems in place and WORK VERY WELL.

And all of them will be none smoking now (or should be)so you won't smell of smoke anymore, before that if you were a smoker you wouldn't have noticed anyway, smoking doesn't improve your sense of smell or taste you know.

[mr motorola]

After going along to the Medway Mullet Group meets, Brenda would make me put all my clothes in the garage rather than the hall.

 

Not nearly well enough for those whose sense of smell hasn't been dmaged by smoking.

 

(I remember when I gave up, many years ago, marvelling at some of the smells I hadn't really experienced since I was a kid, privet blossom, new grass, damp leaves. That itself made giving up worthwhile, not to mention being healthy again, and able to run two or three blocks without having to stop for a wheeze).

Good for you Leon.

[mr motorola]

To you smokers, is it worth the risk? do you really want to end your life prematurely? Coughing and wheezing? having major surgery and therapy? Don't get me wrong, I know the pleasure of a good tobacco, I loved my Balkan Sobranie pipe smoke, but when, at 40 years old, I found I couldn't keep up with my wife and kids, I decided enough was enough.

 

Den

Thats a fair reply Den , but smoking causing premature life?? Maybe some but most definately not in all. My local for instance...WMC with at least 20 maybe 30 of the punters (smokers) being into their 60's and 70's. The ban might kill em off though by having to stand outside in the cold and rain like naughty little children while they enjoy a smoke. Huh.

 

I worked on one particular job today , an elderly man , housebound , 83 years young. He'd worked down the pit all his life , smoked for most of it too. He's got Emphysema , and the doctor blames the cigs. No mention of the tons and tons of soot these guys had to work in, it's the cigs!!!! MY AR5E.