General Business Forum Brought to you by Total Gas & Power

The Smoking Ban

Discussion in 'General Business Forum' started by lightload, Jun 21, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Matt1959

    Matt1959 UKBF Legend Free Member

    6,295 1,226
    blimey, thats something coming from a smoker, well done;) Must say, its great to go to the pub now and not have a stinky shirt the morning after:)
     
    Posted: Dec 23, 2010 By: Matt1959 Member since: Sep 8, 2006
  2. movietub

    movietub UKBF Big Shot Free Member

    4,859 1,109
    In a seperate room the smoke won't escape if it's properly managed witht the right equipment. It's zero risk because staff can enter to clean in between the room being in use, and it will be safe.

    You're wrong that being able to smell smoke causes harm. You will still smell it a long time after it's lost the density to do you any harm whatsoever. Even at full density (ie smoking it directly) you need to smoke a full cig at least every 4 hours to stand a chance of clogging your lungs as fast as the cilia will clear them. The other toxins, many as there are, are trace amounts and you encounter stronger doses all the time without thinking about it.

    The smoke from a log fire is certainly more toxic than a cigarette scented room that has had the air scrubbed with carbon. As is a tomato and basil salad in fact, or a sandwich made on a kitchen that has had bleach based spray used to clean it recently, or a glass of tap water.

    Remember, the air outside the room would not smell of smoke. Go in to any of the humidor shops with smoking rooms and you will see the proof.
     
    Posted: Dec 23, 2010 By: movietub Member since: Nov 6, 2008
  3. yuzi87

    yuzi87 UKBF Contributor Free Member

    72 7
    It's killing you and you don't have the will power or determination to stop just face it, there is no way me drinking a glass of water or eating a dam salad is more dangerous than smoking lmao
     
    Posted: Dec 23, 2010 By: yuzi87 Member since: Jan 6, 2010
  4. JohnnyCash

    JohnnyCash Guest

    1,427 480
    Having worked in bars before, it doesn't seem to me to be a very practical solution. How can you have a room that (for hours at a time) staff can't collect glasses from, empty ashtrays, deliver food to tables, offer table service, stock vending machines, fix pool tables, clear up smashed pint glasses, mop up spilled drinks (both of those health hazards) and a million other things that come up in the day to day working environment?
     
    Posted: Dec 23, 2010 By: JohnnyCash Member since: Dec 8, 2010
  5. movietub

    movietub UKBF Big Shot Free Member

    4,859 1,109
    Please don't make this personal. I never said doing any of those things was more dangerous than smoking - I said they were more dangerous than smelling the trace of smoke in a smoking room with air scrubbers.

    If you had bothered to keeo track and read the thread, you would have seen that.

    Clearly smoking is very dangerous if you have the fag in your mouth no matter how well the surrounding air is cleaned.

    But why do you assume it has anything to do with will-power? Smoking is a choice you know. I enjoy smoking, and I am only saying there are valid ways that I can continue to enjoy it, without harming anyone else AND without being asked to leave the building to light up.
     
    Posted: Dec 23, 2010 By: movietub Member since: Nov 6, 2008
  6. movietub

    movietub UKBF Big Shot Free Member

    4,859 1,109
    Having worked in bars before?? Try running one as your own business! You would soon realise that equipping a pub so that you could be the only one within 10 miles that could allow smoking would bring in a lot of custom.

    I also don't understand why you would drag vending machines and a pool table into the smoking room? I doubt smokers would want to stay in ther for longer than it takes to smoke their fag, let alone play a game of pool in a small room :|

    I also don't understand why you believe the staff would have to wait hours to gain access. Just wait til the smokers leave and then go in. True the smashed glass should be cleared straight away, but this is not going to happen every two minutes. And occasionally encountering smoke is not going to lead to 'passive smoking' problems. It's continuous exposure to smoke that harms.
     
    Posted: Dec 23, 2010 By: movietub Member since: Nov 6, 2008
  7. JohnnyCash

    JohnnyCash Guest

    1,427 480
    I don't need to have owned or ran one to understand the basic issues of day to day working there. A student getting £3 an hour to clear glasses can easily tell you the massive issues your plan has, its a non starter.

    Because pubs were built long before smoking regulations came into place. If a pub has 1 room you enter into from the street that is too narrow to have a pool table in, and a back room which is larger, which room is going to have the pool table in it, and which is going to be the smoking room? (hint, they're both the same ;) )

    Because on a busy night the room is going to be constantly in use. Surely between 8-12pm on a weekend night you're not going to have empty rooms at any point? If you do, then perhaps you have more problems than clearing glasses.

    I agree that when it won't happen often, but when it does you can't say "I'll clear it when the room is emptied", then 40 minutes later a fight starts or someone falls off their stool and someone is at the emergency room getting sewed back together. If you knew about it and never bothered clearing it, its not going to look great in the pending court documents is it? Or are you going to try and clear the room instantly if someone breaks something? Not ideal either.
     
    Posted: Dec 23, 2010 By: JohnnyCash Member since: Dec 8, 2010
  8. movietub

    movietub UKBF Big Shot Free Member

    4,859 1,109
    1) No student can be paid £3 an hour - just so you know!

    2) Of course both rooms won't be the same, irrespective of how the pub was built or how many rooms it has. We are not talking about the situation as it was.

    A problem with passive smoking was highlighted. Both as a smoker and non smoker I could see that was wrong. However, if people want to smoke indoors, and the pub is able (possibly through investment in equpment and divides) to offer smokers that freedom in a safe fashion, then that should have been made lawful. Not all pubs could or would make the effort, but there are many oubs that are struggling chiefly because of the ban. My point is that safety should regulate how they allow people to smoke in order to save their business. The law should not blanket ban it.

    3) We're after solutions here. You have raised a good point, which I would address by saying that staff that smoke could volunteer to do the glass collecting. Failing this, smokers could simply be asked to leave there glass on a bar just outside the room. This is prefereble to the current system where you have to leave your drink inside, and go outside - allowing anyone to meddle with, or simply tidy up your drink!

    4) What I'm suggesting is a better way, not a perfect way. There would still be problems to solve. But they are solvable. Is it unreasonable to enter a room instantly if it's to address a bigger health risk? I don't think so. So the glass could be cleared as it would be anywhere else in the pub.
     
    Posted: Dec 23, 2010 By: movietub Member since: Nov 6, 2008
  9. MASSEY

    MASSEY UKBF Legend Full Member

    10,328 1,783
    I completely disagree, It's not do-able.
     
    Posted: Dec 23, 2010 By: MASSEY Member since: Nov 29, 2009
  10. yuzi87

    yuzi87 UKBF Contributor Free Member

    72 7
    Smoking isn't a choice it's an addiction nobody in their right mind would choose to kill themselves. People who can't stop either rely on it to much to get them through the day or use it as a stress relief etc. they cannot stop because they are addicted and can not fight it.

    I hear so many people say "I could stop when ever i like but i enjoy smoking" or " It gives me something to do with my hands" they are all pathetic excuses for people with no will power.

    People start smoking due to peer presure or wanting to fit in with a crowd, caring to much about others and not themselves.

    If you are one of the few who could stop just like that then your an idiot and i hope my tax money doesn't pay for your treatment when your in hospital with some smoke related illness.

    I'm fed up of seeing little 10+ year olds smoking and cigerette butts everywhere, dirty yellow teeth and spitting.
    The goverment should ban smoking completely and make some money back by giving fines to people caught smoking still.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2010
    Posted: Dec 23, 2010 By: yuzi87 Member since: Jan 6, 2010
  11. JohnnyCash

    JohnnyCash Guest

    1,427 480
    I remember getting £2.40 an hour from one job, and £3 an hour from my other one at the same time. I was working in a sports shop during the day and a bar at night. I can't remember which one was the big payer though :D That was in the late 90's though, before any sort of minimum wage was introduced I guess.
     
    Posted: Dec 23, 2010 By: JohnnyCash Member since: Dec 8, 2010
  12. crossdaz

    crossdaz UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    2,773 778
    Agree with the sentiment but it would just make it more cool like other drugs.

    I think the current method of making smokers look like sad losers is probably more effective?
    I say that as an ex 40 a day man btw :)
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2010
    Posted: Dec 23, 2010 By: crossdaz Member since: Sep 3, 2008
  13. yuzi87

    yuzi87 UKBF Contributor Free Member

    72 7
    As many people are not prepared to break the law or do shady sidestreet deals i think at least 60% of smokers in this country would stop, and with all the imports and fines being given out i think it would be great.

    People would also be very nervous and get really paranoid if they tried to smoke in case they got seen.
     
    Posted: Dec 23, 2010 By: yuzi87 Member since: Jan 6, 2010
  14. JohnnyCash

    JohnnyCash Guest

    1,427 480
    Being born with orange hair isn't a choice. Getting cancer isn't a choice. Developing a brain tumour isn't a choice. Smoking, is 100% a choice.

    If they've smoked a pack every day, to the level they've given themselves cancer, then arguably they've already contributed more than enough tax payments to cover the hospital bills? I don't know how much cigarettes cost, what the tax rate is on them, or how much an average hospital trip is, so I'm guessing though.

    Then why not ban alcohol too? If people want to kill themselves, its their own business really. If the tax income from them doing it covers the medical expenses as they sign out of this world, I'm cool with it. The big problem with alcohol is that it causes significant problems for the people not even drinking it.

    If someone smokes in a bar, you can choose not to go there. You can't choose not be assaulted by a drunk in a kebab shop outside a pub at 11pm, and you can't choose not to be in a crash with a drunk driver either.

    Does anyone have to hand any reliable stats on how much tax income smoking brings in, against how much it costs the NHS?
     
    Posted: Dec 23, 2010 By: JohnnyCash Member since: Dec 8, 2010
  15. yuzi87

    yuzi87 UKBF Contributor Free Member

    72 7
    Lets not get into the alcohol debate, its even proven in moderate amounts something like a glass of wine a day is good for you. There is nothing good from smoking, I don't start coughing my guts up if i have a sip of wine.

    It's the kids of today im worried about, also kids who smoke are far more likely to do drugs and move up the scale of addiction.

    And when i said it's not a choice i meant it's not a choice to quit, everyone has a choice to start.
     
    Posted: Dec 24, 2010 By: yuzi87 Member since: Jan 6, 2010
  16. crossdaz

    crossdaz UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    2,773 778
    Well given that most people die of something that involves treatment in a hospital you can't really assign any cost purely to smoking.
    Then you take into account that someone getting a smoking related disease is likely to die before getting much of their state pension (versus someone who lives to a ripe old age) then it's obvious that smoking actually has a tax income benefit.
    Most smokers end up in hospices btw, which are charity funded, so that's another saving.

    The economic argument against smokers doesn't stack up really; it's a red herring. Which is why I think the current stance is probably the best one - to just make it socially unacceptable. No matter what the arguments, it's a wicked thing and the sooner it's consigned to history the better.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2010
    Posted: Dec 24, 2010 By: crossdaz Member since: Sep 3, 2008
  17. JohnnyCash

    JohnnyCash Guest

    1,427 480
    Yeah but the government should only be meddling things if doing it has an effect on other people. If smoking only harms the person doing it, and generates tax income, why should they ban it? You're an adult, you can think for yourself and decide to do it or not.

    There are multiple brilliant reasons for banning alcohol outright, there are very few for banning cigarettes. I don't want the government to ban anything at all, but I could certainly see why alcohol would get the chop before cigarettes.

    I'm sure you could say the same about alcohol though. Kids who drink are far more likely to move up that very same scale.


    Who would you like to get in an argument with on the way home? Someone who'd had a few pints, or someone who'd had a few cigarettes? And if someone was going to come close to knocking you down on the road, who would you rather rely on to be able to avoid you?

    I think the "ban smoking" stance is extremely weak in comparison the "ban alcohol" one.
     
    Posted: Dec 24, 2010 By: JohnnyCash Member since: Dec 8, 2010
  18. movietub

    movietub UKBF Big Shot Free Member

    4,859 1,109
    Will-power is of course important when a smoker is trying to quit. It takes a lot and a smoker with little willpower will struggle.

    But it makes you sound very short sighted to claim that 100% of smokers don't want to smoke. There may be a massive list of negatives but smoking is pleasurable, cigarettes are a luxury good.

    As for tax money, the average smoker statistically contributes much more tax then they cost the health service. If we all stopped, if fag were outlawed, your tax would have to increase.

    And to re-iterate - I stopped smoking for 4 years as I couldn't afford it. Other than the first 2 weeks it wasn't that bad. Difficulot nonetheless of course.

    I then started again because I missed it when I was having a drink. Hence, I smoke because I enjoy it.
     
    Posted: Dec 24, 2010 By: movietub Member since: Nov 6, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.