Smoking in 'enclosed public spaces'. Legal or Illegal?

[yoink 321]

As some may know, it's now illegal to smoke in any enclosed public area which serves or prepares food in the UK.
Many people think the ban hasn't gone far enough, while just as many are crying out at a percieved abuse of civil liberties... so where do you stand?

For what it's worth, I'm an ex smoker who whole heartedly agrees with the ban on smoking in public for several reasons...

1) It's a shit load easier to stop smoking if it's banned in pubs / clubs. I think we'll see an increased number of people stopping as a result. This can only be beneficial for the nations health.

2) As smokers cry about their civil liberties abuse, they seem to forget that non-smokers have the right not to be poisoned in public. The issue of liberties doesn't exist in a 'smokers only' vacuum.

I've got some more, but am too busy to type....

I suspect we'll see non-smokers and ex-smokers poll for 'Illegal' above, but it'll be interesting to see the results.

so...

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

As some may know, it's now illegal to smoke in any enclosed public area which serves or prepares food in the UK.

Not yet - it will become so at some point in the near future. The legislation is being rolled in over a 4 year period.

[yoink 321]

Quote

Quote

As some may know, it's now illegal to smoke in any enclosed public area which serves or prepares food in the UK.

Not yet - it will become so at some point in the near future. The legislation is being rolled in over a 4 year period.

doh... my bad. Both on that, an on just seeing the other thread on the subject!

[pajarito 0]

My opinion: There is no way to prevent others from inhaling all second hand smoke in an establishment. Hell, there's no way to prevent someone else from inhaling second hand smoke standing outside at the bus stop next to a smoker. I have no problem whatsoever with the freedom they have to smoke or do whatever to their own bodies. It's just when it's forced upon me and especially my kids when I have a big problem. Making it illegal anywhere food is served will be a positive move.

Added: Maybe they should invent some sort of a glass bubble hat that seals around the neck. You could wear one of those oxygen tanks on your back which feeds into the bubble through a tube. There could be a clip built in to hold the cigarette. Then, they could smoke till their hearts content or they go ahead and have their heart attack and it wouldn't bother anyone.

I like this quote by Tonto from another thread in Bonfire:

"I'm getting more militant by the day with people fighting for their right to polute my lungs."

[ladyskydiver 0]

**Non-smoker**

I've been to restaurants and bars both where it's been legal to smoke and illegal to smoke inside.

I have a far more enjoyable time and am willing to spend more time (and hence money) in places where it's illegal to smoke inside. The place smells better, and as an asthmatic, I can breath a lot easier when it's a non-smoking environment.

Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile.

[AggieDave 6]

Here's my thought. Its a bar, a fucking bar, you drink you smoke, its a fucking bar.

Resturants, sure, no smoking, that's fine, I'm a smoker and I don't even like smoking while eating, but bars? Its a fucking bar.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[mr2mk1g 10]

90% of British "bars" are effectively restaurants. The ban only affects those pubs/bars that do serve food - those that don't will be at liberty to continue to permit smoking.

[AggieDave 6]

Just about every bar where I live serves food as well.

What they use to determine bar vs resturant is using the tax code. Bars are under a different tax bracket then resturants, the determining factor is 51% of income. Is it from alcohol or food. If alcohol, then its a bar. Sure, 49% may be food, that's a lot of food being sold, but its still a bar. You can smoke in the bars here, but not the resturants (city ordinance).

I really like how that's seperated out.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[yoink 321]

Quote

Here's my thought. Its a bar, a fucking bar, you drink you smoke, its a fucking bar.

Resturants, sure, no smoking, that's fine, I'm a smoker and I don't even like smoking while eating, but bars? Its a fucking bar.

That's why there's so much argument - another (equally valid) point of view would be that just because you smoke and drink, doesn't mean that I should have to...

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Here's my thought. Its a bar, a fucking bar, you drink you smoke, its a fucking bar.

Resturants, sure, no smoking, that's fine, I'm a smoker and I don't even like smoking while eating, but bars? Its a fucking bar.

I'm inclined to agree with you there. In the case of a bar. It's a bar. You drink and smoke in a bar. Everybody knows that and should expect it. I also understand that many serve food. I guess if its main purpose is to be a bar, I'd say the law of not smoking should not apply. If its main purpose is to be a restaurant, it should. How you determine that line when it becomes confusing, I don't really know. But, I agree with you, "It's a bar!"

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

That's why there's so much argument - another (equally valid) point of view would be that just because you smoke and drink, doesn't mean that I should have to...

Then don't go to that place if it bothers you.

You know, I'm don't understand Goth culture that much, so I don't go to into the Goth stores in the mall.

For a while when I got to college I smoked but didn't drink. Then for a while I drank but didn't smoke. I still went to the bars to hang out with my buddies. Now I drink and smoke, so I guess I'm going to hell...or the hostpital.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Kennedy 0]

I'm with Dave on this one.

I never smoked, but my favorite bars on Earth had a constant haze of smoke. If you don't like it, get the f@*& out.

It's not "public," it's someone's privately owned establishment. They can toss out anyone they want. That's hardly "public."

The park is public. The beach an sidewalks are public. Flanagan's and Murphy's are not.

If a smokefree bar were in that much demand, then someone would open one. Leave it to the free market.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Here's my thought. Its a bar, a fucking bar, you drink you smoke, its a fucking bar.

Resturants, sure, no smoking, that's fine, I'm a smoker and I don't even like smoking while eating, but bars? Its a fucking bar.

I'm inclined to agree with you there. In the case of a bar. It's a bar. You drink and smoke in a bar. Everybody knows that and should expect it. I also understand that many serve food. I guess if its main purpose is to be a bar, I'd say the law of not smoking should not apply. If its main purpose is to be a restaurant, it should. How you determine that line when it becomes confusing, I don't really know. But, I agree with you, "It's a bar!"

Given a choice between a "smoking" bar and a "no-smoking" bar, I would choose the no-smoking one 99% of the time (the 1% is for the case that they only sell garbage beer).

Just because it's a bar STILL doesn't mean people should be free to poison me.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Given a choice between a "smoking" bar and a "no-smoking" bar, I would choose the no-smoking one 99% of the time (the 1% is for the case that they only sell garbage beer).

Just because it's a bar STILL doesn't mean people should be free to poison me.

And YOU don't have to go to that bar. You can go to a non-smoking bar, it is your choice. Just like it is my choice to smoke.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

If a smokefree bar were in that much demand, then someone would open one. Leave it to the free market.

Same could apply to restaurants or airlines. Wanna smoke, fly United, want clean air, fly Delta... What's special about bars that they shouldn't have to comply?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,419]

>Its a bar, a fucking bar, you drink you smoke, its a fucking bar.

Unfortunately some people do more than drink there; they work there. If someone has a sole proprietorship and works the bar themselves (or with business partners) then I have no problem with smoking there. If people don't like it, they leave. But we place a higher importance (rightly, I think) on making workplaces safe; employees can't leave as easily as customers.

[AggieDave 6]

Bill,

I would say that if you're worried about smoke in the workplace and you apply for a job at a bar...well, you're a fucking idiot. Seriously. There are a lot of jobs to be had out there in the service industry. You could tend bars at a resturant that doesn't have smoking or if you just want to be in the service industry, there are LOTS of jobs available.

So Bill, I do not believe your arguement in the case of bars is applicable.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[billvon 2,419]

>I would say that if you're worried about smoke in the workplace and
>you apply for a job at a bar...well, you're a fucking idiot.

If you ran an electroplating facility, and you required your employees to stick their hands in the tank without gloves, you'd end up in trouble with the law - even if you told them "hey, if they don't want chemicals on their hands, why'd they get a job here?" OSHA rules don't come about because people can't make up their minds, or they're spineless - they come about because history has shown that whenever businesses have an opportunity to abuse their employees to increase their profit margin, they do. It's not meanness or evilness on their part, it's capitalism.

So it's nice to say that the wise employees of a bar would choose one that didn't allow smoking. In reality, 90% of bars will allow it (that capitalism thing again) and your choice will come down to working in a smoky bar or not working.

[Kennedy 0]

How about the fact that bars and restaurants aren't propped up by government grants?

Farmers and airlines seem incapable of running theimselves without government dollars.

Bars have to get by on the cash they bring in the door.

Bars deserve to run their own businesses any way they see fit and can accept the market or change to fit its demands.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Falko 0]

Non smoker, voted "illegal" if it's in a public place.

That quote really says it all: "I'm getting more militant by the day with people fighting for their right to polute my lungs."

Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse.
(Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)

[Zenister 0]

Quote

1) It's a shit load easier to stop smoking if it's banned in pubs / clubs. I think we'll see an increased number of people stopping as a result. This can only be beneficial for the nations health.

oh yea... and legislating for an increased life span of our ever growing population is suuuuch a good idea.

wait until the cost of the populace living an extra year or so out ways the tax and work benefits to society... then maybe the government will step back from it's 'mother' position....

allowing any activity in a private business should be up to the owner and the patrons.... if people want smoking bars, theaters, restaurants etc...they will support them economically.... we dont need government voting for us.. let the citizens decide what kinds of atmosphere they are willing to pay for....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

So it's nice to say that the wise employees of a bar would choose one that didn't allow smoking. In reality, 90% of bars will allow it (that capitalism thing again) and your choice will come down to working in a smoky bar or not working.

or chosing another feild of work... 'service' industries are exactly that, you work to the whims of your customers. As a bartender or waitress you have to accept the conditions created by your patrons. If your patrons wish to indulge themselves they will, you have the choice NOT to work in a service industry, or limit yourself to the portion that does not cater to smokers..

next we will have soldiers complaining about being shot at......wait nevermind...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[mardigrasbob 0]

1998 visited Califonia 1st time; lit up cigarette in a bar, looked for the ash tray."What you can't in this bar!!?",reply "you can't smoke indoors anywhere but your home (in CA.)"
2001 moved to SoCal; smoke outside.
2004 went to Quincy err Rantoul, stopped at bar in Ohara; "hey people smoke in here"

Smoking sucks but .........

Fuck it I don't care!! let the liberals win one but that doesn't mean we can't fight for our right to kill ourselves. They better stay away from other hazardous activities i.e. leaving the comfort of an airplane in flight.

-----------

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

If you ran an electroplating facility, and you required your employees to stick their hands in the tank without gloves, you'd end up in trouble with the law - even if you told them "hey, if they don't want chemicals on their hands, why'd they get a job here?"

That's a good liberal analogy that makes no relation to the arguement or the reality of the arguement.

Look Bill, aparently you want MORE government in our lives dictating what we are allowed to do and not do, regulating our lives to a minute detail. Fine, I sure as hell don't want that much governemtn in my life.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[billvon 2,419]

>That's a good liberal analogy that makes no relation to the
>arguement or the reality of the arguement.

Is it that you think that cigarette smoke is not dangerous? It's easy to ignore things that don't agree with your perceptions, but it often leads to problems later on.

The reality is is that companies do pretty much whatever they want to with their employees, and employees are pretty much free to leave. In your world, they simply decide to not work where they don't want to and the problem goes away. In the real world, employers have a lot of power over employees, so things like OSHA become important.

Would you be in favor of getting rid of OSHA? After all, people can 'just leave' if a company requires you to do something dangerous.

>Look Bill, aparently you want MORE government in our lives
>dictating what we are allowed to do and not do . . .

Nope! Nothing further than what we have now.