Smoking Ban.

nook1938

Supporting Member
I did ask if workers who smoked had a time when they could have a smoke, in Wakey the other day while having a sarnie I observed a group come out of a office block, stop on the pavement sit on a wall, have their fag, put the fag end in a bin and returned to the office, later on others came and went, they must have some arragement for smokey time.

These chaps and women who pick up tab ends must be having a field day with the amount that is now on the pavements, so now it is a lottery if you walk on fag ends or chewing gum.
 
Last edited:

Pythagoras

Active Member
I did ask if workers who smoked had a time when they could have a smoke, in Wakey the other day while having a sarnie I observed a group come out of a office block, stop on the pavement sit on a wall, have their fag, put the fag end in a bin and returned to the office, later on others came and went, they must have some arragement for smokey time.

These chaps and women who pick up tab ends must be having a field day with the amount that is now on the pavements, so now it is a lottery if you walk on fag ends or chewing gum.

While the people in the office who don't smoke have less breaks
 

SuperMosh

New Member
While the people in the office who don't smoke have less breaks

Only if you have a poor supervision system in place - most places seem to require you to 'flex out', 'clock out' etc to leave the building so if this is enforced properly, people should be smoking in 'their' time as it were.
 

nook1938

Supporting Member
Beer Gardens are part of the establishment and some I have seen are partly covered with a wall most of the way round, in York there are quite a few of these, plus you still have the staff collecting glasses. Most Beer Gardens are in the grounds away from the building but there are exceptions, put some seats and a table outside and call it a Beer Garden.
 

WoodenFlugel

Moderator
Staff member
I had an idle thought about the smoking ban last night while sat in traffic...if you own a company car that happens to be a convertable (or one of those coupe/convertable jobbies) can you still smoke in it if you have the top down?

:-?
 

Adamskied

Member
Not necessarily. Not meaning to sound like a "reformed smoker" but the cost to the NHS from the effects of smoking would probably be near the revenue created - well maybe not quite but not everyone will quit!
You are wrong about the revenue cost to the NHS...A figure of about £1,5 billion is the cost to the NHS...but Cigarette smoking brings in abour £8,5 billion in tax for the Government. If they ban it are you gonna pay an extra 10p in the pound tax(rough guess)???????? You will all be moaning then huh???
 

tpcornet12

Member
You are wrong about the revenue cost to the NHS...A figure of about £1,5 billion is the cost to the NHS...but Cigarette smoking brings in abour £8,5 billion in tax for the Government. If they ban it are you gonna pay an extra 10p in the pound tax(rough guess)???????? You will all be moaning then huh???

Ok you're right that tax will have to increase somewhere - but not everyone will quit so not going to need to find 8.5 billion. Just coz there's a smoking ban doesn't make everyone not want to smoke. I'm sure there will be a good chunk of revenue to be collected from the smoking fraternity for many years to come. To be honest if 5% quit now then they will probably raise the duty of fags for the remaining 95% to make up the difference!
 

Griffin

Active Member
Ok you're right that tax will have to increase somewhere - but not everyone will quit so not going to need to find 8.5 billion. Just coz there's a smoking ban doesn't make everyone not want to smoke. I'm sure there will be a good chunk of revenue to be collected from the smoking fraternity for many years to come. To be honest if 5% quit now then they will probably raise the duty of fags for the remaining 95% to make up the difference!

my friends and i have discussed this too
we reckon that around a third of smokers will stop... or cut down
so thats like 33%
there is a lull in pub attendance because of this ban.. but we reckon it wont last too long
it takes around 10 years after a smoker stops to have the same health risks a a non-smoker

sooo at 33% less taxing coming in, and around 10 years before the NHS has feels these effects (i.e. less people with smoking related illnesses) tax revenue will have to come from somewhere else....
alcohol is the obvious choice, but if the lull in pub sales continues then it would be pointless

added to the fact that the government might make the age of smoking restricted to 18+ and only selling packs of 20.. less people will start too


and if anyone understands what ive said then well done.. i have no idea
 
I read an interesting argument recently.

Read and comment ...

Where are your limits on when you will stop campaigning for bans?

I'll give you people a quick history of anti-smoking groups and their targets by stealth: this pattern has happened in different parts of the world:

25 years ago they "just" wanted short haul flights to be smoke-free. Then buses. Then they "just" wanted trains to be smoke-free. Then taxi's. Then offices. Then pubs. Then parks. Then beaches. Then sports stadia. Then private cars. Then whole towns (see Calabasas and Belmont in California). Then whole countries (look at Bhutan).

I try to keep an open mind on this topic although I get very tired of gloating remarks from non-smokers who seem to enjoy nothing more than rubbing a smoker's lifestyle choice in their face.

Another interesting point

"70% of people supported an indoor ban, the percentage of smokers in England is c.30%"

That's what annoys me. The ban as it is now (as opposed to a more reasonable partial ban) has public support from people not so much for moral reasons than because it happens to suit them. There would be no real difference between a total ban and a partial ban for non-smokers, and for that reason exactly most people don't care which one we have. That's why most people making one-off posts on this group's wall say things like "It's great not having to come home smelling of smoke" instead of "I think it's the fair thing to do".

Tyranny of the majority again, I think.
 

Pythagoras

Active Member
I read an interesting argument recently.

Read and comment ...



I try to keep an open mind on this topic although I get very tired of gloating remarks from non-smokers who seem to enjoy nothing more than rubbing a smoker's lifestyle choice in their face.

Another interesting point

As opposed to a smoker's lifestyle choice making the rest of us stink of smoke and potentially give us lung cancer? Unless smokers are somewhere where there are no non-smokers and no non-smokers have to come and clean up or serve them there, they can't use the 'I'm hurting no one but myself argument'.

The trouble with a partial ban is that a lot of pubs would find ways to make this as much like things were (No protection for staff, some pubs without any non-smoking area) as possible.
 
Last edited:

Cornet Nev.

Member
Yes, well, right then is it? NO it isn't, the landlord, the landlady , the four staff, plus most of the customers including myself, all smoke. Yet we are forced to go outside if we want to light up. Ludicrous is what I call it, what is going to happen in winter when it is freezing outside? just typical of all none smokers, you won't care will you? That is when a lot of folk will be wishing a curse on the anti smoking brigade. (I would like to use some slightly stiffer language about none smokers but this is a family forum after all.)
 

leisa

Active Member
While the people in the office who don't smoke have less breaks


this used to really annoy me when i did summer work in an office, it was in a hospital as well med records n we used to get one break at 10 then an hour for lunch whereas the smokers would have two or three smoking breaks in the morning their hour for lunch then another two or three breaks in the afternoon - hardly fair!!! what used to annoy me more thou was when i worked in the hospitl shop next to the lung centre and people used to kick off cos we didnt sell cigarettes!!

I think the smoking ban is a brilliant idea, why should none-smokers have to inhale the stuff! my auntie has just been diagnosed with lung cancer after years of working in pubs when she was younger. she has neever smoked a cigarette in her life, doesnt drink and is really healthy. If you smoke its your decision but you shouldnt put other people at risk. IF people have a problem with it they should try and quit!! :cool:
 

WoodenFlugel

Moderator
Staff member
Yes, well, right then is it? NO it isn't, the landlord, the landlady , the four staff, plus most of the customers including myself, all smoke. Yet we are forced to go outside if we want to light up. Ludicrous is what I call it, what is going to happen in winter when it is freezing outside? just typical of all none smokers, you won't care will you? That is when a lot of folk will be wishing a curse on the anti smoking brigade. (I would like to use some slightly stiffer language about none smokers but this is a family forum after all.)

Well no not really. No-one is forcing you to smoke, unlike before when smokers were forcing people to breathe in their carcinogenic fumes. I'm sorry, but the new legislation makes a lot of sense to me - if you want to smoke - so be it, but do it where no-one else is involuntarily subjected to the by-product of it. In other words: outside.

If its cold then by a bigger coat, or use a pub with a patio heater outside. Personally I'm loving the fact that I don't have to breathe in stinking harmful fumes, when I'm having a quiet drink.

Oh and while I'm venting, anyone remember Roy Castle? A life long non-smoker who was killed by lung cancer caused by him playing in smokey clubs for years. Was (is) it fair for Roy and the hundreds of other non smokers who work in pubs and clubs around the UK to be put at risk of cancer just because of their chosen occupation?
 

WoodenFlugel

Moderator
Staff member
SCOTLAND'S biggest cities are in the grip of record levels of potentially deadly pollution as a result of unusually warm weather and an unprecedented rash of roadworks
Unusually warm weather? When was that?? :confused:

Well I suppose we can be thankful that our lungs are untainted by pollution while we're pickling our livers....;)
 

DannyCollin

Member
Oh and while I'm venting, anyone remember Roy Castle? A life long non-smoker who was killed by lung cancer caused by him playing in smokey clubs for years. Was (is) it fair for Roy and the hundreds of other non smokers who work in pubs and clubs around the UK to be put at risk of cancer just because of their chosen occupation?


Was he forced to ply his trade in these establishments??
 

Morghoven

Member
Oh and while I'm venting, anyone remember Roy Castle? A life long non-smoker who was killed by lung cancer caused by him playing in smokey clubs for years. Was (is) it fair for Roy and the hundreds of other non smokers who work in pubs and clubs around the UK to be put at risk of cancer just because of their chosen occupation?


Was he forced to ply his trade in these establishments??

Don't bother Danny. That apparently logical argument seems to be invalid these days.

But just for the record: smoking has a proven link to lung cancer, but it's not exclusive - that is to say, it is contributory but not the only cause. It's perfectly possible to suffer from lung cancer and smoking not to be a factor, just like any other cancer. There has also never been a study that has similarly proved any link between passive smoking and cancer.

But it's always been very inconvenient to have to prove things with facts and reason when one is up on a soapbox.
 
Yes, well, right then is it? NO it isn't, the landlord, the landlady , the four staff, plus most of the customers including myself, all smoke. Yet we are forced to go outside if we want to light up. Ludicrous is what I call it, what is going to happen in winter when it is freezing outside? just typical of all none smokers, you won't care will you? That is when a lot of folk will be wishing a curse on the anti smoking brigade. (I would like to use some slightly stiffer language about none smokers but this is a family forum after all.)

In winter? Are you suggesting that non smokers should be worried about your health in case you catch a cold when you're going outside to breathe in your cigarette fumes. Now that is funny.
 

WoodenFlugel

Moderator
Staff member
Was he forced to ply his trade in these establishments??

Well maybe not forced, but without playing in clubs and bars he would've seriously restricted his earning potential just like a taxi driver choosing only to drive up and down a couple of streets. No-one forced him to be a comedian / musician either, but if that was what he was good at then why shouldn't he? So if thats what he does for a living he owes it to himself and his dependants to go where he can earn the most money - the clubs. Maybe he wasn't forced in the literal sense, but I don't see that he had a lot of choice in the matter.

Morghoven said:
That apparently logical argument seems to be invalid these days.

How about the equally sensible statement that sitting / working in a smokey atmosphere isn't pleasant if you don't happen to be a smoker?

Morghoven said:
It's perfectly possible to suffer from lung cancer and smoking not to be a factor, just like any other cancer.

True. But if you smoke you are something like 10 times more likely to catch lung cancer - its a proven fact. Of the 40000 people who die of this per year (on average) then about 4000 are non-smokers. Maybe that's a significant figure - it does still seem high to me, but 10 times more likely is significantly more likely in my book!

Morghoven said:
There has also never been a study that has similarly proved any link between passive smoking and cancer.
Perhaps not, but there have been many studies that prove that tobacco smoke is the primary cause of lung cancer. Unless it magically morphs into something much less harmful in the atmosphere (which it doesn't) then I would argue that there is a link between the inhalation of tobacco smoke (ie passive smoking) and a heightened risk of contracting lung cancer.

Tobacco smoke in atmosphere is still tobacco smoke - the carcinogens are still in it - albeit in obviously diluted proportions. I should know, I work for a company who (amongst other things) make lab equipment to test cigarettes - robotic beagles if you like.

Morghoven said:
But it's always been very inconvenient to have to prove things with facts and reason when one is up on a soapbox.
So 40-odd years of worldwide government studies, countless amounts of scientific research, numerous medical papers, lectures, real-life case studies and millions of deaths are all just examples of soapboxing then?
 
Top