Pub landlord gives 2 fingers to the smoking ban

[Peter Sharpe]

Like many other people on here I suspect, I spent years working in an office where people were smoking contantly. It was not uncommon to see atypist light up a cigarette, take a drag, then leave it burning away in an ashtray, only to take a second drag just before it went out. You could tell who the smokers were by the yellow stains on the ceiling above them and sometimes you could hardly see across the office because of the smoke. Sometimes it made your eyes sting and you used to go home smelling like a bus shelter. I now wonder what damage I have suffered through working under those conditions for all those years and I now wonder how I ever used to tolerate being in some of the pubs.

I used to have to take my pint outside until my eyes had stopped stinging and then go back in until it yet again became too much to tolerate.

Smokers are now wingeing because it's their turn to have to go outside into the cold air. GOOD!

[mr motorola]

What's next on the horizon........care workers refusing to enter a smoky house? i know i know.

 

If the problem with smoke is that bad , then why not ban cigarettes? Cos the ar5eholes in power can't do without the colossal loss to the treasury that cigarettes generate. Two faced personified. But it's ok , we'll just impose a little ban in public places because our good old english folk take whatever we throw at them and get on with it.

I can see (if the current trend continues) that we may have a revolt on our hands. And not before time if you ask me.

 

I find it hard to understand that most of the public cannot see it happening.

[kleinboet]

Mr M - That's already happened!! Care workers coming to change a dressing etc, cannot enter a home of a smoker unless the windows are left open for two hours!

 

The problem is, all the posters on here are saying how much better it is now that the smokers have been banned from lighting up inside. not ONE non-smoker, will agree that the government reneged on the earlier agreement. The non-smokers are happy - the smokers are not!

It is simple really, if the government had honoured their agreement BOTH sides would be happy, the smokers can exercise their habit apart from the non-smokers - the non-smokers have their clean air.

PROBLEM SOLVED!!

[Peggy Burke]

closeing due to smoking ban....

 

http://www.redlionhotel-hythe.co.uk/

 

I'm Hythe born and bred and whilst the smoking ban may have been the final straw for The Red Lion it may not be the whole story. There are 2 more pubs within 100 yards, The Globe and The Duke's Head. Not much further is the Gate and then through Hythe's High Street there are a further 3 large pubs all offering food as well as drink. The renaming of the pub to The Watersedge certainly didn't help and although it's now returned to it's old name, certainly I think it suffered from this ill-advised change.

 

To me the whole issue is not whether the Government has reneged on the smoking/non smoking areas in pubs. It's should people be made to inhale toxic fumes against their will. To me the only answer to that is no they shouldn't and therefore smoking should be banned in any public place be it pub, restaurant shop etc.

[mr motorola]

To me the whole issue is not whether the Government has reneged on the smoking/non smoking areas in pubs. It's should people be made to inhale toxic fumes against their will. To me the only answer to that is no they shouldn't and therefore smoking should be banned in any public place be it pub, restaurant shop etc.

Could you define the word MADE.?

Forced into something?

And against their will. No-one is puffing smoke into their lungs against their will.

With the growing age of idleness , people are finding it easier to go out and eat (can't be bothered to cook for themselves) huh.

Fully licensed restaurants have (as far as i know) a no smoking policy and so be it.

[nick]

Could you define the word MADE.?

Forced into something?

And against their will. No-one is puffing smoke into their lungs against their will.

With the growing age of idleness , people are finding it easier to go out and eat (can't be bothered to cook for themselves) huh.

Fully licensed restaurants have (as far as i know) a no smoking policy and so be it.

 

Prior to the smoking ban anyone entering any enclosed space in which smoking was allowed was MADE to inhale the residue of the smoke. As in there was no way to avoid it. The selfish individuals that chose their own filthy pleasure over others health FORCED them to. Everyone in such an environment WAS puffing smoke into their lungs against their will. Now at long last we all have a free choice. The people that want to can enter any public building and breathe relatively clean air. Anyone that wishes to inhale filthy carcinogenic smoke deeply into their lungs is also free to d so without too great an advers effect on others.

 

Why is that unfair?

 

The more you say the more foolish you look. I could possibly find some modicum of empathy for your position if you accepted simple facts and then presented a logical argument, but time after time you just try and twist reality to suit your own personal agenda.

[Peggy Burke]

Could you define the word MADE.?

Forced into something?

And against their will. No-one is puffing smoke into their lungs against their will.

Fully licensed restaurants have (as far as i know) a no smoking policy and so be it.

 

If I'm in any public building (pub or otherwise) where smoking is allowed how can I avoid inhaling the smoke in the air - short of arriving in an NBC suit or wearing a gas mask?

 

Whether a restaurant is licesned or not shouldn't make any differerence to the smoking policy. No one wants to eat food contaminated by cigarette smoke and just having a separate area doesn't solve the problem. Smoke doesn't stop short just because there's a No Smoking sign.

 

Smokers are drug addicts and will always find a justification for indulging their habit. That's fine but do it where it doesn't effect those of us who don't wish to have our physical well-being jeopardised.

 

If you remember Roy Castle died of lung cancer having never smoked. Why - he performed for years in the smoke laden atmosphere of clubs.

Edited January 14, 2008 by Peggy Burke

[billy50000]

with the way this goverment changes its mind id be supprised if the defined areas (inside buildings)dont come back for both partys...

 

I see the point from both sides and i for one wouldnt light up near someone eating(id rather wait)as smoking with food DONT mix..

 

i smoke and il keep doing it(just what the goverment likes)revenue!!

 

as for pubs etc,they will revolt and choose for themselfs soon enough as profit is already being impacted and it was bad enough for pubs to accept 21 yr olds only(pub in farnham changed from 18-21 and profit hit the floor and forced them to change it back as they nearly went under)

 

cannot imagine how slow its profit is now considering most of its business was student from the college and uni.

 

i can bet brown still puffs away on big brown cubes in his orafice:)

[DavyR]

If you remember Roy Castle died of lung cancer having never smoked. Why - he performed for years in the smoke laden atmosphere of clubs.

 

To be compeletely objective, Peggy, it's impossible to say (although he clearly believed it to be true himself) if Roy Castle's years of exposure to passive smoking caused his lung cancer. I think if you have a genetic predisposition to developing cancer, then anything which is a proven irritant might spark it off. The key thing is that you have to be a susceptible individual to start with, otherwise the majority of smokers would develop the disease.

 

Most of us over the age of 50 will have grown up surrounded by fag smoke at home, work and in pubs, clubs, etc., but the likelihood is that something other than lung cancer is going to finish us off.

 

Cheerful, innit?

[Ken Davison South Wales]

As someone who smoked for a few years packed it in when I was 30yrs and restarted when I was 60yrs and has now knocked it on the head for good I can make an unbiased comment or two

 

1. It is not illegal to smoke, cigs are sold freely in shops and are taxed extremely high, so anyone smoking is not a criminal.

 

2. Yes smoking is bad for your health and I would agree that smoking in an office or any enclosed work space is not being fair to your work mates. However someone sat in his own truck should have the choice.

 

3. Heart decease of all forms is caused far more often by diet that smoking.

 

4. I also believe there should be smoking and non-smoking pubs and clubs and we all have a choice of which ones we go to. Currently we are stopping law abiding citizens from making that choice.

 

5. With the question of workers in a smoking club or pub they would have the choice of where to work, at a rough guess a smoking bar person would opt for a smoking bar.

 

6. If tobacco sales were illegal then a total ban would be the order of the day, until that happens there should be freedom of choice.

 

7. Non-smokers do not have the right to impose their way of live on others, I always feel it is a shame that so much time and effort is put into stopping law abiding citizens doing what they want when little effort is made to stop law breakers i.e. such as bad drivers from doing what they want. I have actually witnessed people watching a drunken driver going on his way and saying on his head be it, to me it does not make sense at all.

 

Would you take the same view if veggies tried to ban meat on cruelty grounds?

 

Or even worse ban angling on the same grounds?

 

I read on here how many people enjoy Top Gear which I think is a heap of c++p but I have no right to stop them viewing or their having their own opinions and even trying to emulate what they see, even though I think they are damaging the environment and wasting natural resources.

 

8. You see there is a very fine line between what we are banning today and what might easily be banned tomorrow on the back of these type of restrictive laws.

 

I am only a short stones throw from the wooden box but for you younger ones I would think very carefully about freedom of choice, just look how Brown and others are eyeing up your bits and pieces when you kick the bucket, how long will it be before they decide your beyond saving knock him or her on the head to save public money??

 

It certainly needs some careful thought.

Edited January 14, 2008 by Ken Davison South Wales