Smoke Free Britain

[Accountable]

Of course it does. Even privately owned clubs abide by rules and regulations. If the law has restrictions on what patrons can do, whether that be alcohol related, age related or smoke related then those have to be adhered to.

Pubs are not private, exclusive places. They are public establishments, where families or individuals ( including children ) can enjoy a drink. Its no different to retricting smoking in a restaraunt.

My friends who smoke dont seem to think their rights are breached because they are asked to step outside or to another room, to smoke.

I think smoking clubs are a good idea. I have no problem if people who smoke want to enjoy the atmosphere they create. That wouldnt impact on those that didnt smoke because those that didnt would probably not go. Thats different from making all pubs - who are by definition public places - a smoking free for all

But there's no need for force of law. If smoking clubs are a good idea, then non-smoking clubs are also a good idea. The same can be said for pubs with smoking, non-smoking, or mixed rooms or areas. Let the local patronage decide, rather than activists in London who will never darken the door..

[gaiusjulii]

But there's no need for force of law. If smoking clubs are a good idea, then non-smoking clubs are also a good idea. The same can be said for pubs with smoking, non-smoking, or mixed rooms or areas. Let the local patronage decide, rather than activists in London who will never darken the door..

segregating the smoking and non-smoking party goers is a silly idea your creating a them and me society. you might as well start saying its ok to make single sex or single color clubs also... most places have designated outdoor smoking areas i dont see what the problem is.

[Accountable]

segregating the smoking and non-smoking party goers is a silly idea your creating a them and me society. you might as well start saying its ok to make single sex or single color clubs also... most places have designated outdoor smoking areas i dont see what the problem is.

There are gay bars, black bars, hispanic bars, etc etc etc. Nobody seems to raise a fuss. The problem is when you get the government involved to force an issue that might or might not occur naturally. We should let it occur naturally.

[Bryn Mawr]

The pavement's public - owned by the public. Public law has no business placing restrictions on what privately owned pubs allow their patrons to do. Rather than taking legal action to force all pubs (most of which an individual nonsmoker will never visit) to bend to a nonsmoker's will, why not convince one's local pub to cater to nonsmokers, or open a nonsmoking pub oneself?

A pub is not a private place by definition, it is open to members of the public and therefore administered by public law.

Smokers, by the very nature of their addiction, are imposing on the health of those around them and this effect is far worse in an enclosed area.

The law states that smokers are not allowed to so endanger the health of others in any publicly accessible enclosed space such as offices, shops or places of public assembly (theatres, restaurants, pubs, etc).

[Accountable]

A pub is not a private place by definition, it is open to members of the public and therefore administered by public law.

and that public law is too intrusive, imo. That's all I'm saying.

[gaiusjulii]

There are gay bars, black bars, hispanic bars, etc etc etc. Nobody seems to raise a fuss. The problem is when you get the government involved to force an issue that might or might not occur naturally. We should let it occur naturally.

Unfortunately the process you say should occur naturally was never going to happen, smokers are happy to continue blowing smoke in crowded rooms regardless of the health risk to others. after all they did have the best part of a century to do so. I dont usually condone government meddling but on this occasion they did the right thing. Imo smokers would continue smoking until told not to by the law its the nature of the addiction.

[Bryn Mawr]

and that public law is too intrusive, imo. That's all I'm saying.

I'd tend to disagree on the grounds that the actions of the smokers are harming everyone around them - certainly it is far more pleasant in the office since smoking was banned there.

No massive feeling on the legal side though - on the practical side, most people I know agree that pubs are better places to visit now the smoke has gone and that includes several smokers.

[Accountable]

Unfortunately the process you say should occur naturally was never going to happen, smokers are happy to continue blowing smoke in crowded rooms regardless of the health risk to others. after all they did have the best part of a century to do so. I dont usually condone government meddling but on this occasion they did the right thing. Imo smokers would continue smoking until told not to by the law its the nature of the addiction.

Why shouldn't they? It's a legal activity. In my country, a proprietor can deny service to anyone not willing to play by the established rules (with the exception of ethnic considerations). Isn't it that way in your country? Smoking & non-smoking areas were set up before the law mandated it. If (before the law changed) a proprietor decided to make his establishment totally smoke free, he had that option, just as he could make it a cigar bar. Aren't you condoning the meddling this time because you personally benefit, even if only psychologically?

[Snowfire]

Why shouldn't they? It's a legal activity. In my country, a proprietor can deny service to anyone not willing to play by the established rules (with the exception of ethnic considerations). Isn't it that way in your country? Smoking & non-smoking areas were set up before the law mandated it. If (before the law changed) a proprietor decided to make his establishment totally smoke free, he had that option, just as he could make it a cigar bar. Aren't you condoning the meddling this time because you personally benefit, even if only psychologically?

Oh you better believe it. Meddle away if it prohibits others from influencing my health

[Bryn Mawr]

Why shouldn't they? It's a legal activity. In my country, a proprietor can deny service to anyone not willing to play by the established rules (with the exception of ethnic considerations). Isn't it that way in your country? Smoking & non-smoking areas were set up before the law mandated it. If (before the law changed) a proprietor decided to make his establishment totally smoke free, he had that option, just as he could make it a cigar bar. Aren't you condoning the meddling this time because you personally benefit, even if only psychologically?

Simple economics - no publican is going to turn away a significant proportion of his clientèle in the hope of getting an improved attendance from the rest.

Personally, I find the government's stance hypocritical - either smoking is a such a serious health risk to both smokers and to those around them that it justifies a ban or not. The current actions stink of a compromise determined by the existing tax revenue from the sale of tobacco.