General rant about cig bans & tax issues.

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: Has there ever been such a stupid notion as the smoking ban?

The smoking ban was never going to be good for many businesses.
The main business affected, was of course the pub trade.
1409 pubs closed in 2007.
Or, to put it another way, nearly 27 pubs per month.
This is not a trend that seems to be showing promise of improvement.

The worse the weather got in the run up to winter last year, the more people were not prepared to spend all night nipping out for a ciggie.
Whereas you used to go to the pub, get rained on on the way there, but then stayed dry all night, you were suddenly getting soaked in the rain on the way to the pub, and then getting a fresh soaking every time you want a cig.

The result of this is that more people stayed at home where they could smoke as much as they please.
During these winter months, these people discovered they COULD have a good night in the house in front of the telly, with perhaps some friends round, and some cheap cans from the off licence, for a FRACTION of the cost to have a night out in the pub.
When the better weather comes back, why should these happy souls leave their couches and come back to pub life?
So that they can pay an arm and a leg to stand at a bar and still be relegated to smoking outside?


But it not just the pub trade at stake here, and this is where I feel the government have been very short sighted in what it has tried to achieve.


Although not entirely dependent on it, a big portion of a lot of cabbies wages come from people going on nights out.
But again, people are not happy to go into town in their best get ups, only to stand shivering in doorways of night clubs.
Sometimes there are issues of people being refused re-entry because they've gone outside for a fag.
And so the taxi game is suffering a massive blow because there are less people going out, and less people wanting lifts home.

Entertainment.
The entertainment game is also dying a death.
With pubs losing so much money, they have to do something to curb their spending.
Naturally, the first thing to go will be the karaoke on a Saturday, or the DJ on the Sunday, or the singer.
The fact that there are 1409 less venues to play since last year is bad enough, but the fact that entertainers are the first with their neck on the block is doing nothing for the industry.
Not just the entertainers are suffering here.There are entertainment agents who are not getting their fees because their acts have nowhere to work, and there are roadies who have no work because the act they drive isn't getting gigs.


Ashtrays.
Yep, you heard it.
Ashtrays.
Although not exactly a massive industry, somebody is paid to make those plastic ashtrays for pubs.
Or should I say were paid.
Somebody was paid to pack them.
Somebody was paid to deliver them.

The lighters and matches that used to be sold in pubs for crying out loud......


These might seem like trivial matters, but a lot of trivial matters can add up to one hell of a mess.



Now the big problem.
People who ARE still going to the pub are tending to smoke a lot less (my own smoking is less than a third of what it used to be in a pub) so that's a lot of tax that is no longer going to the government.
I find it very very hard to believe that the government, who are known to claim up to 80% in tax on a single pack of cigarettes, did not think of the massive hole that would leave in the tax income.
It appears that's what's happened :nuts:
So what then is the logical solution?
You've lost money, you need to make more :roll:
INCREASE TAX ON BEER AND FUEL.

Congratulations, you've been screwed by your country again :doh:
England has always had a bad deal compared to most when it comes to paying fuel tax.
Now, with so much tax money lost from the tobacco industry, it's up to the beer drinkers and the drivers to put their hands in their pockets.



Predicted results?

Beer tax.
Higher costs of beer.
More people buying cheap cans and staying at home.
Adios to more pubs, professional entertainers and taxis :wave: .

Fuel tax?
You really have to feel sorry for the cabbies here.Everyone is out to screw them out of a living :shock:
Not to mention the average car owner who is spending more on fuel (which also leaves less free cash to throw away on that night out. Closing time for more pubs :devil: )




Seems to me that the smoking ban must be one of the great financial blunders of living memory :oops:

[duke knooby]

something vexes thee???? :twisted:

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: Somthing would be vexing thee if you worked in one of the businesses mentioned above, or if you had any interest in the price of a pint of beer or a ltr of petrol :wink:

[Deb]

I understand where you're coming from Neil as you're a smoker and work in the industry. But I have to say that i really do love the smoking ban :-) and from what i've witnessed it seems to be doing ok. granted there's all the lost taxes etc. But think of all the healthier people that have cut down or stopped :D I could stay on my soap box forever about this one and a zillion others lately lol.

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: How can the ban be doing ok when so many pubs are closing, and the buisnesses around pubs are failing? :shock:
Let's see, on average 27 pubs per month closing.
Say each pub has 4 bar staff (most have more than that, but who's counting :wink: )
That's 108 bar staff put out of work every month.
I cannot say that that is a system that's working "OK".

My smoking has cut down quite a bit while i'm at work, but these days I only tend to go out when i'm working.
What's the point in going out with friends and family when I spend half the night outside? :lol:


And the tax thing?
Well i've already gone into that one well enough, and sorry Deb, with reference to the thread that prompted this one, you can't have the tax issue both ways :shrug: :wink:

[AndyK]

I can see both sides to this argument so clearly (as there's less smoke now lol) ... as a smoker I don't mind the smoking ban pubs too much I can cope and not have to nip outside every ten minutes I know that there are alot of pubs, clubs and associated industries that have suffered as a result of this. There's no easy answer though really, whatever was doen (or not) woud never have pleased everyone.

[Battybarb]

There is never going to be an answer to keep everybody happy....at first our pub went quiet,but now it is just as busy as ever but i guess we are just one of the lucky ones because some around are closing down.

[AndyK]

Without taking away from the issue, pubs have been going to the wall for years though haven't they? Society has changed so much over the last 20 years that going to the boozer for a nigth out is no longer the thing it used to be ... the commercial rates that the service companies (breweries, electricity and gas suppliers, coucnil tax etc etc) are continuing to rise and pushing the publicans out of business.

The pub I used to drink in was run by a guy who could only afford to run it because he had an army pension, he said that if it wasn't for that income he couldn't afford to live off the income from the bar alone because of the charges he had to pay.

The smoking ban hasn't helped, but it's not the only nail in the coffin I don't think.

[Deb]

:twisted: How can the ban be doing ok when so many pubs are closing, and the buisnesses around pubs are failing? :shock:
Let's see, on average 27 pubs per month closing.
Say each pub has 4 bar staff (most have more than that, but who's counting :wink: )
That's 108 bar staff put out of work every month.
I cannot say that that is a system that's working "OK".

My smoking has cut down quite a bit while i'm at work, but these days I only tend to go out when i'm working.
What's the point in going out with friends and family when I spend half the night outside? :lol:


And the tax thing?
Well i've already gone into that one well enough, and sorry Deb, with reference to the thread that prompted this one, you can't have the tax issue both ways :shrug: :wink:


I think you read my post TOTALY worng Neil lol.

Only issues I have here are the fact I can go out to eat / drink without being gassed and the other isue is I don't want to pay £120 + for petrol lol. There may well be lost jobs etc, but that wasn't what i meant by succesful, I meant I can go out and breathe and so can many others. The isnide world is a cleaner place and thats all that bothers me in all this i'm afraid :-)

[djfierce]

I understand where you're coming from Neil as you're a smoker and work in the industry. But I have to say that i really do love the smoking ban :-)

:up: yep sorry guys i know you're addicted and stuff but restaurants/pubs etc are much nicer places to be, as far as their business being affected, i know two landlords personally and they noticed a small drop in the first few months but are now back to norm, i dont think its too much to ask for us non smokers to be able to walk into a building without the smell of smoke choking the hell out of you,

[Deb]

Without taking away from the issue, pubs have been going to the wall for years though haven't they? Society has changed so much over the last 20 years that going to the boozer for a nigth out is no longer the thing it used to be ...

The smoking ban hasn't helped, but it's not the only nail in the coffin I don't think.

Totally agree here Andy. IMO one of the big turning points was all day drinking. It killed a lot of the social side of it. People went to the pub during the set hrs to meet up with friends. Once they introduced the all day drinking the whole dynamics changed

[djfierce]

:twisted: How can the ban be doing ok when so many pubs are closing, and the buisnesses around pubs are failing? :shock:
Let's see, on average 27 pubs per month closing.
Say each pub has 4 bar staff (most have more than that, but who's counting :wink: )
That's 108 bar staff put out of work every month.
I cannot say that that is a system that's working "OK".



Then the blame lies with the smokers who want it all their own way imo, i know lots of smokers who have qute gracefully accepted the ban and some even understand it, if others want to spit their dummies out rather than their fags then thats their selfish perrogative.

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: It doesn't bother me too much either Andy.
I mean, it's a pain in the backside leaving the company every time you need a fag, but I don't find it too bad.
It's still not the kind of thing though that is going to twist my arm to go out to the pub more often though :roll:

What DOES bother me is that businesses are going broke over it all.
A lot of people have stopped going out as much which is leading to a dramatic drop in business for many industries.


As for inconvieniance, here's a little tale of a chap my brother picked up in his taxi on the run up to Christmas.........

John was hailed by a gentleman who was a little less than pleased :roll:
Apparently, this chap owned his own business with a main office here in Liverpool, and two out of town offices (I forget where they were, say Preston & Rhyl).

For the company Xmas do, this bloke booked the Adelphi hotel function room (it's quite a nice one).
For his staff from Preston and Rhyl, this chap payed for transport for them all to come to Liverpool, and forked out for hotel rooms for them all there at the Adelphi (not the cheapest place in town :roll: )
It's fair to say he'd spent a few quid on the whole shindig :yep:

While the party's in full swing, the gaffer goes outside for a drag.
On attempting to re-enter the premises, he is told by security that he can't come in because he was not a resident and it was after hours.
Explaining to the chap on the door that he had in fact paid for the whole sodding thing, as well as splashing out on rooms for his out of town staff did nothing to relieve the situation, so he had to sod off into the sunset, barred out of his own party :doh:

[RadioMaster]

after reading my following statement again, i noticed it might appear a little harsh.
Please note that none of the following is meant to offend anyone.
I dont (usually) have a problem with smokers, it's just a general annoyment at this discussion that speaks from the following post

We're cool Neil :)):up:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

oh for ~~~~s sake!

could you please for one moment look at the other side of the arguement?

For decades non smokers have been constatntly bothered by a level of smoke in pubs, that would actually justify the waitresses to wear gas masks (fact!), not even to mention the helth risks of second hand smoking, but i dont wanna get into a smoking: pro/contra debate here.

So for one second, could you please think of those people who finally can happily go out and have a nice night at a pub without coughing and suffering constantly?
But NOOO, that's not important, it IS however much more of a problem and a burdon to go outside the door, to the fresh air for five minutes.

That's exactly the thing that annoys me of the smokers arguements on this debate, they're just thinking of themselves, who have it SOOO hard.
Smokers are not a ethnical minority or an endangered species, it's their free decision to smoke, and if they want to, they can easily stay at home, but ffs stop whining about something that actually isnt really a problem.

A lot of countries have banned smoking from bars and are doing fine (Italy, Germany is in the process at the moment), its just that they have to think of some other business idea to keep guests coming....and that's the base of every economical system, isnt it? :wtf:

It's just that everything that's new causes whining and moaning everywhere.

And for once, you could also try to see the positive side on this:

Healthier people
less tax money spent on the treatment of smoking-caused illnesses (not the right term, i know, but im too lazy to look it up)
more money in your pocket

On one point i agree with you though:
It's is a shame that the government (in the UK same as here) has to regulate everything. The government isnt everybody's parents, decisions as wether pubs allow their guests to smoke or not should be made by the pub owners and not the government.
Would be the same if the government would come to your house and tell you what you have to cook for dinner.

[Monstro]

I hated the smoking ban and to an extent believe there's still room for moderation as far as pubs etc are concerned but have to admit I've come around to it, anyone who smokes knows the risks involved and only a fool would think that smoking less is anything but better. I still miss a smoke after a meal but don't miss making non smokers uncomfortable and to be honest I gave up pubs before the smoking ban so no dif to me there.

Our flat's a smoke free zone for obvious reasons but I've got to admit I like it, first time in my life there's no ashtrays, fag ash everywhere and no stale odour. Can be a pain in the backside at work but same again, makes for a cleaner/healthier environment.

With regards to taxes yep they're too high but not just on booze, fags and petrol, we're a nation of whingers and moaners but when it comes down to it we do sod all about it and we've allowed a succession of governments to get away with it for too long to be able to realistically be able to do anything about it now. Only time we did anything was on the poll tax and that soon went away, then we just sat back and let them tax us in other ways. There are too many drains on our nations purse and not enough ways to pay for them, we moan because we can't have a smoke in a pub but are quite happy to have two or three generations of a family on benefits, we whinge when 10p goes on a pint and then sit back and watch news footage of our nation firing missiles at a £1,000,000 a pop. Personally I think the problem goes a lot deeper than most people think.

[Monstro]

going outside for a fag now lol

[AndrewG]

In my opinion if pubs are closing that is a shame for the owners and staff, however if it helps to cut down the tremendous amount of policing of drunk people in this country I think that is a very good thing. Perhaps the police can then spend time sorting out this murdering carry on which has spiralled out of control recently.
Look at other European countries, there is nothing like the policing of drunk people on this scale over there, in fact whenever I've seen trouble on holiday there has been British people involved, I really feel ashamed how this country deals with "coolness" of getting drunk. It's probably got a lot to do with me not being interested in drink that much but I've seen a lot of bad things happen cuz of the stuff, certainly when I was living in Glasgow and also being held at knife point twice, honestly it is not nice! I say tax drink more! Being able to drink 65p vodka cokes at Uni and Uni itself actually recommending getting pissed cheaply is not a good thing for many irresponsible people in my opinion at all.

[Deb]

Andy, M, Rj and Anji great posts :-)

here's my shortened version of RJ's lol

I dont give a shit about the pubs going out of business, i care that less people are passive smoking.

All of you are far better off by not smoiknig so much and you allsmell far better :lol:

[djfierce]

All of you are far better off by not smoiknig so much and you allsmell far better :lol:

Now dont get too carried away Deb ;) ;P

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: Actually, I don't have anything against restaurants or bars having separate smoking/no smoking areas.
And, as for myself, I don't mind going outside for a ciggie.
There's no need to apologize to me for being addicted, because going outside isn't too bad for me :shrug:

What I DO mind is that we have had our rights to decide taken away by the nanny state.
I DO mind that smokers have left the pubs.
I DO mind that all the non smokers (and please, this is NOT a smokers Vs non smokers debate here :wink: ) who were used as an excuse i'e "Once the smoking ban comes in, all the non smokers will come out to play" have NOT come out to play.

For people in an affected industry, it's not for me to tell customers to "spit your dummy out if you like" :raspberry: .
It is not an option for people who work in a business dependent on keeping drinkers in pubs to say "if you don't like it, screw you".
It just isn't good customer relations :lmao:


YES, there are exceptions to the rule.
Some pubs have actually done BETTER since the smoking ban came in.
Hey, salute, happy days 8)
But most other places have suffered.


Now the health of bar staff in particular was a factor that helped the smoking ban get passed through.
And to a certain extent, I agree with that notion.
However, I believe it is up to the person themselves to decide if they wish to work in a smoky atmosphere.

For one, I have always that a pub should be allowed to have a smoking bar, and a non smoking bar.
This was done in the past, so why not in the future?

Any bar staff who wanted to apply to work at a smoking bar should be sent away with a DVD and booklet detailing all the horrors of what can happen through working in a smoky atmosphere.
This should be in depth, with input from doctors, cancer researchers, people in the pub industry, cancer sufferers.
When that person comes back, they should have the right to sign a paper saying they have read/watched the media and are in possession of all the facts about the risks they are taking, and they they accept those risks.


As I say, i've always believed a bar should be allowed to have smoking/non smoking sections, but let's take the idea a step further.

What would happen if a licence was created where landlords could allow their customers to smoke on the premises?

I predict 2 things.

1 - 97% of pubs would apply for a licence.

2 - The licence fee would go up and up every year.Just one more way the government of "wetting it's beak".



I think one of the biggest indicators of how bad the implications of the smoking ban were to be was this.

How long did Tony Blaire stay as Prime Minister after announcing he was stepping down?

How close to the smoking ban coming out did Blaire finally do a runner?

Coincidence? :roll:

[Monstro]

Now the health of bar staff in particular was a factor that helped the smoking ban get passed through.
And to a certain extent, I agree with that notion.
However, I believe it is up to the person themselves to decide if they wish to work in a smoky atmosphere.



Until that person gets a respiratory disease and then sues the employer because under Health and Safety Law an employer has a legal responsibility to provide a safe working environment, doesn't matter what employee signs.

[Deb]

[QUOTE=The Flying Mouse;413203
What I DO mind is that we have had our rights to decide taken away by the nanny state.[/QUOTE]

Well I didn't like the fact us non smokers (and our chiLdren in restaurants) DIDN'T have the right to decide before.

[The Flying Mouse]

Until that person gets a respiratory disease and then sues the employer because under Health and Safety Law an employer has a legal responsibility to provide a safe working environment, doesn't matter what employee signs.

:twisted: This is what i'm saying Michael.
That it SHOULD be acceptable for somebody who is possession of all the facts to be able to sign a waver declaring that they are aware of the risks, the risks are there own, and they agree that their employer is not at liberty to take any blame for any illness that should come about through passive smoking.

Would you rather be given the option of taking responsibility for yourself, or losing your job?

Well I didn't like the fact us non smokers (and our chiLdren in restaurants) DIDN'T have the right to decide before.

Again Deb, no disagreement from me here.
Yes, you should have the option of going to eat at a non smoking restaurant.
But restaurants should also have the right to decide if they are going to be smoking, non smoking, or have areas that cater for both.

[RadioMaster]

Well I didn't like the fact us non smokers (and our chiLdren in restaurants) DIDN'T have the right to decide before.

i have to take neils side here (lol)

We had the right, it was our decision to visit a smoking or a non smoking etablissment (sp?)

Im totally with Neil here, the state doesnt have to make rules for everything.

[Deb]

Never as long as I have a (oh never mind lol) will you get me to see anything for smoking lol. There are other countries that have the no smoking ban, it;s not just ours. I actually found it really offensive last yr when i went to the likes of Basel where they allowed smoking in the actuall venue :shock: it;s primative. There is not one good thing to come from smoking. It smells, the person doing it smells, it kills you and it kills those around you breathing it in. It costs way too much. It makes everything yellow. I could go on and on and on lol...

[djfierce]

i have to take neils side here (lol)

We had the right, it was our decision to visit a smoking or a non smoking etablissment (sp?)

Im totally with Neil here, the state doesnt have to make rules for everything.

we didnt in the uk RJ, where i used to live there were no non-smoking establishments, not a single one,it was sit in smoke or dont go. I really dont see where the hardship is for the smokers, most pubs/clubs/restaurants where i live have moved with the times and incorporated sheltered smoking areas for their clients, it is those places that have had the foresight to do something about it that seem to be surviving this supposed chokehold the ban has on the industry.

[Deb]

i have to take neils side here (lol)

We had the right, it was our decision to visit a smoking or a non smoking etablissment (sp?)

Im totally with Neil here, the state doesnt have to make rules for everything.


I was waiting for this one ;-)

It is also the people who smokes right to not visit now :D

[RadioMaster]

alright, sorry, didnt know that

[The Flying Mouse]

we didnt in the uk RJ, where i used to live there were no non-smoking establishments, not a single one,it was sit in smoke or dont go. I really dont see where the hardship is for the smokers, most pubs/clubs/restaurants where i live have moved with the times and incorporated sheltered smoking areas for their clients, it is those places that have had the foresight to do something about it that seem to be surviving this supposed chokehold the ban has on the industry.

:twisted: But there it is right there.

When places had the option of closing it's doors to smokers, it didn't.
Why?
Because it was bad for business.

On one hand, I agree that there should be more non smoking pubs than before the ban came into place, but it should still be up to the landlord to decide who he wants to serve in his pub.

As mentioned on this thread, some places (the minority to be sure, but some) have actually faired better, and would probably stay no smoking if they had the choice.

I think many restaurants (especially, but not exclusivley, fast food places such as McDonalds and Burger King) would stay no smoking if the ban was repealed and places were given free choice.

[duke knooby]

this is gonna be a great thread when it gets to infringement of human rights and freedom of choice etc etc etc lol

[Deb]

The Nanny state has taken over in many ways. Bus lane cameras, speeding cameras, seat belt wearing compulsery, no talking on mobiLes while driving, drinking and driving. IMO the smoking one is far less important than any of these. but these are becoming all widely accepted. A friend of mine from the US really notices all these I've mentioned far more than I do as they don't have them as much there. Now all of these make for far more of a Nanny state IMO. As far as I can see Neil, you're the only smoker who's really against this and that seems to be mostly down to the fact you work in the industry and smoke.

[duke knooby]

and don't forget manchester is lucky enough to be trialing road pricing cameras for the next 5 years

[The Flying Mouse]

As far as I can see Neil, you're the only smoker who's really against this and that seems to be mostly down to the fact you work in the industry and smoke.

:twisted: Because i'm a smoker?
Not so much.
As I say, going out for a smoke doesn't overly bother me, apart from the break in conversation.

As someone who works around the pub industry?
As someone who sees empty pubs?
Friends going out of business and losing their jobs?
HELL YES.


All this aside from the fact that drinkers and drivers are getting shoved up the ass to compensate for the loss of tax revenue.

[Deb]

Andy and Michael are smokers and seem to be far more understanding on this than you, who is also a smoker.

I'm on the total opposite end of this to you. I really don't care about the lost jobs, empty pubs and the lost work in the industry.

What I do care about is the fact that smoking kills and is VERY anti social. My Step Mum had a stroke through smoking, she never cared if she smoked in front of my kids (even as babies) as it was her house and if we didn't like it, well ... So I have first hand experience on the other side of this. She now can't do ANYTHING for herself even a yr and a half on.

[Deb]

All this aside from the fact that drinkers and drivers are getting shoved up the ass to compensate for the loss of tax revenue.


Actually I think we're all getting shoved up the arse to pay for the war :roll: And it goes far worse than just the drivers and smokers

[SamCat]

I cant find any official info but a couple of pro/anti smoking websites say the figures are roughly 8 billion pounds collected in tobacco taxes and smokers cost the NHS about 3 billion pounds a year so if every smoker stopped everyone would have to pay a lot more tax on probably just about everything!!

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: Well i'm very sorry to hear that Deb, and I can only say that it was very irresponsible of her to smoke around your children like that.

Non smokers do have the right to be able to go for a beer or a meal without suffering second hand smoke.
That is a given.

But I argue that smokers have that same right.

Difference of opinion.

Supose we should just agree to differ on this :shrug:

[Deb]

Yep, the tax the goverment gets from smokers is the only down side of not smoking lol

[SamCat]

And anyone thinking of giving up and needs a little push theres a horrendous photo on this site please please please dont look if youre the slightest bit squeamish but it might help someone give up

http://www.mrcrip.com/blog/why-smokers-should-be-refused-nhs-treatments-period/

[Deb]

:twisted: Well i'm very sorry to hear that Deb, and I can only say that it was very irresponsible of her to smoke around your children like that.

Non smokers do have the right to be able to go for a beer or a meal without suffering second hand smoke.
That is a given.

But I argue that smokers have that same right.

Difference of opinion.

Supose we should just agree to differ on this :shrug:

Well I guess it's just old values where people don't see a problem with smoking. Thankfully more and more do hence the smoking bans.

The thing with this both have the right, doesn't really work as really and truly it has to be one or the other. Unless smokers only mix with smokers and vice versa

[Monstro]

I cant find any official info but a couple of pro/anti smoking websites say the figures are roughly 8 billion pounds collected in tobacco taxes and smokers cost the NHS about 3 billion pounds a year so if every smoker stopped everyone would have to pay a lot more tax on probably just about everything!!

Tis true, if we all gave up smoking and drinking on Monday morning the country would be bankrupt by Wednesday lunchtime!!!

[djfierce]

so we'd all better start smoking then


That gives a whole new meaning to the term 'dying for your country' lol

[ChoccyBat]

I am in agreement with Deb - the world is a much better place for the smoking ban. I don't smoke, tho a lot of my mates do. We do go out less often, but that is due to prices shooting up so us having less disposable income. And that is due to profiteering oil companies. EVERYTHING goes by road - believe me I used to work in haulage - and thus when diesel/petrol shoots up, so does the price of everything being carried by it, as everyone along the line has to meet costs.
Pubs have been going bust for years, and the stats show it has NOT got worse since the smoking ban. Those going bust are the lazy ones who can't be bothered to adapt - the same as when Sky Sports came out, and those pubs who couldn't afford it bleated that they would go out of business, rather than coming up with novel ideas to keep the punters coming in. Look up and down the country and music arenas are still packed, good pubs are thriving and restaurants are doing fine. Those that are going down the pan are those that haven't adapted, or were already struggling. In times like this the companies/services at the bottom end of the food chain in terms of appeal will suffer. Fast cars will suffer because we can't afford the petrol, big homes will suffer because we can't afford the mortgages, so prices will come down. And poor pubs will suffer because we have less cash to spend so we will be more choosy over where we spend it. The smoking ban is not killing good pubs, restaurants or venues, it is just finishing off those that were on borrowed time. And that is a small price to pay for taking the family for a nice meal, or being able to watch the football without coming home stinking of smoke. Amen!

[Deb]

:up: to all that...

oh thats another thing I forgot. it's wonderful to come home from a restaurant or pub without stinking of smoke. There was a time when no matter where I went when going out, that i'd have to wash all my clothes and hair the next day cause of the smell. Now thats not always the case :cool: So think of the ozone layer on the energy saved lol

[The Flying Mouse]

Tis true, if we all gave up smoking and drinking on Monday morning the country would be bankrupt by Wednesday lunchtime!!!

:twisted: What Michael said :up:

[Deb]

None of us are saying thats not the case though :lol: my points are all for social and health reasons, oh and the cost and the smell and the... lol

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: It can't be for the social reasons as no ~~~~~~ goes out anymore :lmao:

Health reasons and the smell of smoke can be avoided by going to non smoking places.
As i've said right through this thread, i'm not against places having the option of being smoking or non smoking, in fact I would PREFARE them to have the option rather than say tell them what they're going to be.

The cost?
Don't know what you mean by that Deb, but it's the smokers who are paying 8 Billion pounds a year in tax for fags.
Perhaps, as we give the country 5 Billion pounds a year profit, we should all be put on private health care for free :mrgreen:

[Deb]

Oh but people do go out lol. The restaurants I go in are packed now days :-)

By the cost I mean - how much they cost for smokers to buy... just another down side to smoking imo..

Out of that 5 billion how much goes on medical care for smoking related illnesses?

[ChoccyBat]

Funny that, last weekend I had to queue to get into most pubs and we even got refused from a nightclub cos it was full. And my city, York, has a booming hotel and b&b trade right now, which suggests people are still visiting and having nights out. And the whole "give the pub the option of smoking and non smoking areas" is rubbish. My local where I watch football (and have done for 6 years since I moved here) had a tiny non smoking area, without any tvs for the football, a grand total of TWO tables for eating, and was right at the opposite end of the pub from the toilet. Many other pubs were like this. In reality, give the pub a choice and there is no choice - it's breath in smoke or go home. To be honest, we have the best compromise now. Everyone can go out, and those that want to smoke will be provided with somewhere to do so - usually a covered area to the back, sometimes even heated.

[Deb]

well said yet again :-)

Thats another thing i've noticed, how many pubs are adding outdoor smoking areas. neil have you thought that maybe it's just Liverpool thats suffering from this lol.

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: Tax collected per year for tobacco = 8 Billion pounds.

Money spent per year on tobacco related illnessess = 3 Billion pounds.


The 5 Billion pounds is what is left over AFTER you've accounted for smoking related illness Deb.

[Deb]

Depends what they put down to smoking related illnesses really. I'm sure my step mums strokes wont go down in the statistics as smoke related but it sure as hell was. How many more are there like that.

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: Deb, you can go to a doctors with your arm hanging off and with an alligator chewing on your left leg, and the first thing the doctor will ask is do you smoke?

Believe me, if an illness is down to smoking, they're WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYy onto it.

[The Flying Mouse]

neil have you thought that maybe it's just Liverpool thats suffering from this lol.

:twisted: Can't quite grasp what you mean by this Deb.

[Deb]

Thats bollox. There is no way ever single illness related to smoking is correct and that them figures are correct either. I could use a thousand examples but I can't be arsed.

[Deb]

:twisted: Can't quite grasp what you mean by this Deb.

I mean you seem to be the only one seeing it as a major problem, so maybe all the problems are just in Liverpool

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: You mean that Liverpool, and Liverpool alone has suffered under the smoking ban? :rly:

[Deb]

Take it how ever you like. My comments have for the most part been in humour and tongue in cheek. But I do sense you don't like the fact i'm not agreeing with you here.

[Battybarb]

I am a non smoker and i can see both sides,a lot of people only have a fag with a drink,but it is nice after going in the pub now not to have clothes smelling of smoke,i think the ideal solution would of been to have like in the part of Spain where my sister in law has a villa.one pub is non smoking then the next pub is smoking,then at least everyone has a choice.It is true it is not just the smoking the nanny state is trying to control and it certainly wont be the last,bet the next thing will be you will only be able to have two pints..lol

[RadioMaster]

Non smokers do have the right to be able to go for a beer or a meal without suffering second hand smoke.
That is a given.

But I argue that smokers have that same right.


But the big difference here is that smoking in a pub is bothering non smokers big time, but is non-smoking bothering smokers? :wtf:
So you have to decide who's right to express their personality is more important.


A little different view on this:
Over here the smoking ban in countries as the UK is always mentioned as a good example.
Because it is strict and doesnt allow exceptions (as far as i know).
While here it is completely different: For one or two years the government is trying to establish a smoking ban.
1st problem: we have 16 states, and this is somethning that has to be decided by the state-government (right word?), so you have 16 different laws on smoking in bars and pubs, some strict, some without any ban and a lot in the middle.
2nd problem: Theres a lot of bars complaining that they would run out of business if a smoking ban was established, especially the small ones who cant afford to build a seperate smoking room. So there is a lot of discussion going on for this, before the government will decide what to do.
3rd problem: there are many exceptions to the rule, the biggest that's debated right now is the Oktoberfest, which's organizers are also afraid that they will lose a lot of money if a smoking ban is established.
4th problem: Among the smokers the ban isnt really popular (of curse), and there are upcoming elections in a few states, so you have it, for example, in Bavaria, that the biggest party is promising the cancel the smoking ban again, just to get better election results.
So all in all you have a system that's different in every other city, and people from other countries most of the time dont even know if theyre allowed to smoke or not. And not even the status quo is safe, as the non-smoking-laws keep being changed all the time.

And from this point of view id rather like to see a strict smoking ban like in the UK.

[djfierce]

well said yet again :-)

Thats another thing i've noticed, how many pubs are adding outdoor smoking areas. neil have you thought that maybe it's just Liverpool thats suffering from this lol.

i wasnt gonna post aagain seeing the way this was heading but i would like to point out an example where everyone had fun.


Deb: remember the pub we went to see the slaves at??
That place had a lovely sheltered place for the smokers, where they could have a smoke and not miss the music, in fact i seem to remember it was nice enough that i sat out there with M for quite a while.

Just thought i would throw in an example of one of the many many pubs/clubs which have adapted rather than go all anal and complain. Once again if there is a drop in business for any pubs/clubs which is DIRECTLY and not just finished off by the ban then there are two parts to blame, the smokers who just wanna complain about something and the establishments who wont make the neccessary changes to accomodate everyone.

Many towns didnt have alternate venues/sections for non smokers or those that did try had the sections so close together that you might as well have been been sitting with the smokers. Smokers choose to smoke, we didn't. Life is much better for the evryday person.

And i'm sorry but the fact that alot of money tax wise comes from smokers is the most ridiculous reason i've ever heard in my life for people to smoke or be able to ignore everyone elses wishes. That just means we need a better government who doesnt throw money we dont have at stupid bloody ventures/schemes.

[KebLou]

Quick question, you are quoting the number of pubs which closed last year but are not quoting how many opened... So how many new pubs or old pubs opened/reopened? Also I don't think the smoking ban can be to blame for most of those closures as the smoking ban came in July of last year(2007) which would be almost straight away 50 odd pubs closed down in July because of the smoking ban, before the smoking ban should really have an affect on businesses in that way.

I also disagree with that people would now rather stay in that go out and get rained on every five minutes just to have a cigarette. Everywhere you go where there is pub there are masses of people standing outside even when it is pouring with rain just to have a cigarette. The only place I haven't seen that is at my local pub in the village, but then normally there is about 10 people in the pub and there were less before the smoking ban. Personally I find myself going into pubs more now that the smoking ban is in place because I don't go home feeling incredibly ill from all the smoke and then having to spend a whole week trying to recover.

[daveake]

:twisted: Tax collected per year for tobacco = 8 Billion pounds.

Money spent per year on tobacco related illnessess = 3 Billion pounds.


The 5 Billion pounds is what is left over AFTER you've accounted for smoking related illness Deb.

This 5 billion doesn't of course disappear - it just gets spent on other things. So for every one of the businesses you mention that are suffering a loss as a result of the smoking ban, another business benefits.

For what it's worth, I'm quite happy for smokers to continue to fund the rest of the economy via taxes. So if they're spending less on tobacco because of the smoking ban, then we should put the tax up to compensate. Then they can continue to kill themselves in the privacy of their own homes, happy in the knowledge that their funding of government spending continues undiminished. Oh, and I agree that there should be pubs where you can all smoke, but I'd like all smoking in the open air banned. And that especially includes just outside shops, businesses and airports, where the rest of us currently have to hold our breaths.

Dave

[KebLou]

Oh, and I agree that there should be pubs where you can all smoke, but I'd like all smoking in the open air banned. And that especially includes just outside shops, businesses and airports, where the rest of us currently have to hold our breaths.

Dave

Brilliant, I actually agree with that especially that second part. It mystifies me as to why people have to stand directly in the doorway to do anything, it's just plain annoying.

[AndyK]

It mystifies me as to why people have to stand directly in the doorway to do anything, it's just plain annoying.


Now that deserves a whole new rant thread of it's own! Why do people think it's acceptable to stop in a doorway and dither, chat, smoke, talk on the phone, pick their nose etc etc etc. One of the little things in life that really annoys me ... get out the ~~~~ing way!!! :bicker:

[Deb]

But the big difference here is that smoking in a pub is bothering non smokers big time, but is non-smoking bothering smokers? :wtf:
So you have to decide who's right to express their personality is more important.




My thoughts exactly RJ


Deb: remember the pub we went to see the slaves at??
That place had a lovely sheltered place for the smokers, where they could have a smoke and not miss the music, in fact i seem to remember it was nice enough that i sat out there with M for quite a while.


Yep :cool: It was like a social gathering lol.


For what it's worth, I'm quite happy for smokers to continue to fund the rest of the economy via taxes. So if they're spending less on tobacco because of the smoking ban, then we should put the tax up to compensate. Then they can continue to kill themselves in the privacy of their own homes, happy in the knowledge that their funding of government spending continues undiminished. Oh, and I agree that there should be pubs where you can all smoke, but I'd like all smoking in the open air banned. And that especially includes just outside shops, businesses and airports, where the rest of us currently have to hold our breaths.

Dave

I love this :cool::lol:

[SamCat]

What i think you have to ask is why isn't tobacco banned at all If a new drug was discovered today that was highly addictive and caused hundreds of different medical problems it would be declared illegal immediately In Victorian times cocaine and heroin were readily available and were even sent to the trenches in the 1st WW yet these are illegal now. Governments know they can make shed loads of money from tobacco taxes so why ban it, after all it takes years to kill the smoker whereas other drugs kill a lot quicker!!

[samurai7]

Very good point, Emma. And as we're going down that route, why is alcohol legal as well? fags n beer are just taxable drugs. And I'm saying that as both a smoker and a drinker ;)

what baffles me, is why they are both legal, yet other substances that are significantly less dangerous are controlled... :wtf:

[Pudding]

No good can come of smoking, so we should tax the b@st@rds as much as we can.

I wonder how many would complain if there was a tax on soap???

Pud

[duke knooby]

In Victorian times cocaine and heroin were readily available and were even sent to the trenches in the 1st WW yet these are illegal now. lucky ~~~~~~~s lol sssshhh (only messing)

[Monstro]

I wonder how many would complain if there was a tax on soap???

Pud

VAT do ya?

[RadioMaster]

what baffles me, is why they are both legal, yet other substances that are significantly less dangerous are controlled... :wtf:

:? not really an argument, you cant justify a drug being legal with the fact that there are more dangerous drugs legal. A drug is still a drug, and so is dangerous.

Would be the same thing if you allowed people to be stabbed with knifes, with the argument that it couldnt be that bad if youre also allowed to own a gun.

But the result (in both cases) stays the same: youre dead

[Monstro]

the thing that gets me is that smokers, drinkers and drivers are just easy targets, bung a couple of pence on the tax levels here and there and it's done and we're also an easy target for those who want to snipe. What Neil said is right, you walk into the Dr's with any ailment and it's immediately put down to smoking and in the GP's eyes you're nothing but a waste of money. I had a somewhat overheated discussion with a GP some time about ago about this, replying to her comments about smokers being a drain on public spending I mentioned the fact that nigh on the biggest drain was the benefits system and as long as GP's were issuing mickey mouse sicknotes to anyone that walked in complaining of an ailment that most people would just get on with this wasn't gonna change. Don't think she appreciated it but the look on her face was worth it.

[The Flying Mouse]

Take it how ever you like. My comments have for the most part been in humour and tongue in cheek. But I do sense you don't like the fact i'm not agreeing with you here.

:twisted: Problem is Deb, I don't know how to take that one :wtf:

It just seems like a very out of context thing to say.
Perhaps it was a dig at me for having a different opinion, or was it a dig at Liverpool itself?

I just don't know what prompted that particular remark halfway through what I thought was an open and healthy debate :shrug:


Either way, it's water off a ducks back to me :wink: .

And i'd have to be a little green in the gills to start a thread like this here and get pissy over people not agreeing with me :lmao:


But back on point...........


Yes, smoking is a horrible habit that's a pain in the backside (coming from a smoker here) but can anyone give me a reason why places cannot allow smoking if they so choose.

None smoking pubs for those who don't wish to sit in a smoky pub.
Smoking pubs for those who want a ciggie with their pint.

What is wrong with that?
Except perhaps, that most pubs would go smoking if they had the choice :wink:

[Deb]

:twisted: Problem is Deb, I don't know how to take that one :wtf:

It just seems like a very out of context thing to say.
Perhaps it was a dig at me for having a different opinion, or was it a dig at Liverpool itself?

I just don't know what prompted that particular remark halfway through what I thought was an open and healthy debate :shrug:


Either way, it's water off a ducks back to me :wink: .



Ok looks like I have to spell this out... :?

You see me to be the only one thinking along the lines you are that all the pubs are shutting and the trade is doing so badly. So as you are in Liverpool and we aren't then maybe it's only Liverpool thats being affected.

[MeatGrl1]

As a non smoker I am glad that this has been put into place because to be honest it made me gag everytime I stepped foot into a club, bar or whatever because of the smoke from ciggys. Also the stale smoke would cling to your hair and add to the groogy dirty feeling the morning after a night out.
However I can also see from the smokers view how this was a bad idea as I am friends with people who smoke :p !
But all in all I am glad this has been put into place, now we need to work on the public places because there is nothing worse when your a non smoker and you pass a smoker in the street and they puff that smoke in your face :shock:.. It makes me gag, I can't help it.

That's my view on that :lol: !

[The Flying Mouse]

But the result (in both cases) stays the same: youre dead

:twisted: Smoking is something I (not completly) jokingly refare to as suicide on the instalment plan.

However, that is pretty much what it is.
SELF harm.

When is the last time a kid doped out on tobacco held up an off licence to feed his habit :wtf:

The last drive by shooting over the tobacco dealing business?

When was the last time somebody was overcome with the affects of tobacco and ran down a child?

When's the last time a bloke went home and beat his wife because he'd had a couple of cigarettes too many?

When's the last time there was a fist fight fueled by tobacco?


Unlike other drugs, both legal and illegal, smokers are far more apt to do harm to themselves and themselves alone.


YES Passive smoking (a Self-contradictory term if ever there was one) IS an unacceptable by product of smoking.
That is the exact reason that non smoking bars should exist.So that people who do not want to smoke or sit in a smoky atmosphere risking damage to their health can eat drink and be merry far from the smoky cloud created by the puffers of the world.


But I fear that I still cannot see a single compelling argument to say why it is illegal for Landlords to have the right to decide if they want to run a smoking or a none smoking pub.

Non smokers would still have places to drink in smoke free bliss, and would never have to cross the door of a smokers pub.







One thing that DOES gall me BTW, is that smoking is still permitted in the bars at the houses of parliament.
One rule for one eh? :roll:

[The Flying Mouse]

Ok looks like I have to spell this out... :?

You see me to be the only one thinking along the lines you are that all the pubs are shutting and the trade is doing so badly. So as you are in Liverpool and we aren't then maybe it's only Liverpool thats being affected.

:twisted: Sorry Deb, but that is as ridiculous as me saying that the smoking ban only works in your street.

[Deb]

As I also said most of what i'd posted was tongue in cheek and a joke. You don't actually think I meant it was just Liverpool surely.

[Deb]

:twisted:
However, that is pretty much what it is.
SELF harm.



but not self harm to those who have to passively inhale it.



But I fear that I still cannot see a single compelling argument to say why it is illegal for Landlords to have the right to decide if they want to run a smoking or a none smoking pub.



So should they also make it the drivers choice to wear a seatbelt? there's many things the goverment has taken the rights away for.

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted:


but not self harm to those who have to passively inhale it.




YES Passive smoking (a Self-contradictory term if ever there was one) IS an unacceptable by product of smoking.
That is the exact reason that non smoking bars should exist.So that people who do not want to smoke or sit in a smoky atmosphere risking damage to their health can eat drink and be merry far from the smoky cloud created by the puffers of the world.



I've nothing more to add to that here.

[Deb]

So what happens outside of bars and restaurants? how many people are putting their loved ones at risk in their own homes / cars and many other places?

Another thing, it's not only bars and restaurants thats had this ban, but I don't see these places being moaned about. The work place, that must affect many. shopping centres. Tons of public places have been affected.

[Hypnobabe]

...As I say, i've always believed a bar should be allowed to have smoking/non smoking sections, but let's take the idea a step further...


The only problem with this is that if you have a smoking and non smoking SECTION in a bar or restaurant, they're both smoking sections. I'm a non-smoker, and always have been. Before the ban, if I went out to a pub, I'd stay in the non smoking section, as very few of my friends (apart from the ones on here, that is) are smokers. I would still return home with a tight chest, stinking of cigarette smoke, because smoke is airborne, and it travels. You don't need to be in the same section for it to affect you. The best solution for me is to ban smoking altogether, since the nation would be much healthier, but it's not going to happen, is it?


:twisted: Tax collected per year for tobacco = 8 Billion pounds.

Money spent per year on tobacco related illnessess = 3 Billion pounds.


The 5 Billion pounds is what is left over AFTER you've accounted for smoking related illness Deb.

As others have said, there are figures that are directly related to the smokers, but I'm sure there are other factors to take into consideration. As a hypnotherapist, I've had clients come for smoking cessation. One lady in particular wanted to have an elective operation, and was told in no uncertain terms by her surgeon that he wouldn't operate if she was still smoking. Not because he was being awkward, but because smoking extends healing and recovery times. That means the patient is under the care of the surgeon/GP/district nurse/clinic nurse/whoever for longer, which costs money, and means someone else has to wait longer to be treated. It also means they need more dressings/prescriptions, as they take longer to recover, and although the majority of people pay for their prescriptions, in a lot of cases the actual cost of the drugs or dressings is subsidised by the NHS, so that's more money.

I believe we should ALL have the right to choose, and my choice is not to smoke, or to go to places where I'll have someone else doing it in my face. Neil, you say that landlords should be allowed to choose - what if all the pubs where I live choose to serve smokers? That takes away MY choice, is that then fair?

Incidentally, I'd like to jump on the stop standing in doorways bandwagon too, it does sort of defeat the object of having a smoking ban if you have to walk through a cloud of smoke to get into or out of your smoke free environment :?

[RadioMaster]

But I fear that I still cannot see a single compelling argument to say why it is illegal for Landlords to have the right to decide if they want to run a smoking or a none smoking pub.




Something we have to keep in mind here is that we lived in a 'mixed' society. Smokers are friends of non smokers and vice versa. (Hell, just look at people on this forum!!)

So, would bars for smokers and for non smokers be a help? Not really as youd generate a two class society.
Non smoking friends of smokers will always want to spend time with their friends, so its highly unlikely that a group of people would divide into two because some of them smoke and some dont.

So they'll all visit one pub together, now what would be best, to have a smoking ban, or not?
If some of them smoke all the non smokers will be affected and suffer.
Will the smokers be affected and suffering if they all went to a bar with smoking ban, because their friends dont smoke and they have to go outside for five minutes? Maybe, but as I said earlier, it's has to be decided who's personal right to express themseves is more imprtant...

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: OK, just to clarify here..............

I am saying that pubs should have the right to be smoking or non smoking.
I am saying that after a long day's work, Joe Bloggs should be able to pop into the pub and enjoy a ciggie and a drink, which has been the simple pleasure of many of the working class since pubs, beer, working class people, and cigarettes were all invented.


What i'm NOT trying to say that smoking anywhere you want with no regard for other people and stifling everybody with unwanted second hand smoke is ok.


People who put their families in harms way because they want to smoke in front of them are irrisponsable.
I'm not arguing that at all.
The same time, it's none of my business, and not really what the thread is supposed to be about.


I can see the wisdom of not having smoking in offices as people who are not smokers are required to work there.
As for shopping centres, I don't think i've EVER pushed a trolly around Asda while sucking on a cancer stick.
To be honest, it's not something that i've ever wanted to do.


The thing about a pub is that is a ADULT RECREATION AREA.

Passive smoking to children is not an option as children shouldn't be in the pub in the first place.

The only passive smoking going on is to other adults in the room, who are old enough to be aware of the health implications.
If non smokers do not want to be in that enviroment, there should be non smoking pubs for them to drink in.



Smoking, as i've said before on this thread, is a horrible habit.
I'm not diputing that.

I'm putting forward an argument for debate that there should be places to suit both smokers and non smokers.

[daveake]

Another thing, it's not only bars and restaurants thats had this ban, but I don't see these places being moaned about. The work place, that must affect many. shopping centres. Tons of public places have been affected.

Well, the common argument is that pubs rely on their regular drink 'n' smoke clientele for a large part of their business. The problem with that argument is that as has been demonstrated by the pubs that have been non-smoking since before the ban came into force, they find that they sell more food once they do ban smoking. For example, Wetherspoons had an *increase* in turnover of an average 12% in the pubs where they banned smoking themselves.

Dave

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: It's pretty much a given that some pubs that do food are going to see an increase in food sales.

What about pubs that don't do food?

[Lord Kagan]

For example, Wetherspoons
Dave

excellent place for cheap drink... well cheaper than other bars...

[daveake]

:twisted: It's pretty much a given that some pubs that do food are going to see an increase in food sales.

What about pubs that don't do food?

Like any other business, they need to respond to market changes in the way that they see is best. Anyone who runs a business and allows it to fail by not making those changes is someone who needs to not be running a business.

Dave

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: Coming back to the NHS issue Claire, go to any A&E on a Saturday night, and you'll see more NHS pounds being literally bled all over the floor as a result of drunken fights, people hit by drink drivers, and drunken antics gone wrong than anything a smokers recovery time can do to a budget.


In fact, if you think about it, with all the fights alcohol provokes, with all the people run down by drunken drivers, alcohol must be the costliest drug there is in terms of NHS treatment and police manpower.

But that is, as I say, besides the point on wether we should be allowed to have smoking and non smoking pubs.

[Deb]

:twisted: OK, just to clarify here..............

I am saying that pubs should have the right to be smoking or non smoking.
I am saying that after a long day's work, Joe Bloggs should be able to pop into the pub and enjoy a ciggie and a drink, which has been the simple pleasure of many of the working class since pubs, beer, working class people, and cigarettes were all invented.

The thing about a pub is that is a ADULT RECREATION AREA.

The only passive smoking going on is to other adults in the room, who are old enough to be aware of the health implications.
If non smokers do not want to be in that enviroment, there should be non smoking pubs for them to drink in.



Many things that were once seen as ok, now aren't. More and more people have learnt smoking really isn't. Because it was acceptable yrs ago doesn't mean it has to stay that way. Not wearing seatblets was once ok, talking on mobiles, even drink driving yrs ago was seen as an ok thing to do. eating the unhealthy British diet is now known to be bad for us.

Like others have said why should they make the 2 options as that then again takes away our right as to what we do and we didn't decide to take up this disgusting habit. like RJ says having two options takes away ours and who has more of a right? IMO the non smokers and as far as i can see, you really are the only one seeing it the other way. Hence why there is a total no smoking ban I guess.

[The Flying Mouse]

Like any other business, they need to respond to market changes in the way that they see is best. Anyone who runs a business and allows it to fail by not making those changes is someone who needs to not be running a business.

Dave


:twisted: Sorry Dave, but I just can't agree with that.

How many pubs do you know?
How many sell food?
How many have the facilities to make and sell food?
How many would you eat at on a regular basis?

Take The Cuckoo for instance.
A pub I used to be the entertainments manager of, and was hit hard by the smoking ban.

Most of the regulars are local to the area.This is the case of most "boozers".
Who is going to pay for meals at the pub when they can go and eat whatever they want at home?

You're not going to get anywhere selling food and drink in a place where it's not what the customer wants there and then.
You might as well stock McDonalds with beer and call it a shrewd business maneuver.

How many people eat at Wetherspoons 3/4/5 times a week?

Wetherspoons is good at being what it is, and that is a licenced restaurant that does cheap and cheerful grub.
Wetherspoons is not a local pub dependant on local trade.
Wetherspoons is a high street brand like WH Smiths, Woolworths, or Burger King.
They live off passing trade.
Wetherspoons, to me, is not a pub.
Just somewhere that happens to sell food and drink.

[djfierce]

:yawn:


When i moved to herts some years ago, i became a bus driver and on my travels i found a pub that had a very successful gimmick, the sign outside said.........



We're smoke-free


this was four years before the smoking ban came in place, but they were always really busy everytime i went past.That's great right? Well when the smoking ban came in place they had to find a new gimmick as people could then go anywhere for a smoke free drink, also had to spend a fortune rebranding and removing their nolonger valid gimmick from their leaflets,sign, ads etc :twisted: yet another business affected by the smoking ban ;)

[daveake]

:twisted: Sorry Dave, but I just can't agree with that.

That's fine. The Wetherspoon figure came from, er, Wetherspoons. You're welcome to enlighten them as to the error of their ways. They've shown that it's perfectly possible to increase turnover whilst banning smoking.

Every business has to live with change. The ones that do best are the ones that embrace change and adapt quickly. I have zero sympathy for business people that blindly assume this not to be the case.

Dave

[djfierce]

actually neil where i live and used to live, every small and big pub does food of some description.

And the small local village 'boozer' i used to work at did food too, and alot of regulars had food almost every day, people do eat out of their own homes, either because the food is so cheap or because it is so good, or as the dreaded social occasion

[The Flying Mouse]

takes away our right as to what we do

:twisted: Of course you have the right to decide.

You have the right to be a non smoker in a non smoking pub.

You have the right to be a smoker in a smoking pub.

You have the right to be a non smoker sitting with friends in a smoking pub.

You have the right to be a smoker sitting with friends in a non smoking pub.

You have the right to be a smoker sitting alone in a non smoking pub with a diet coke instead of a beer.

You have the right to stop smoking.

You have the right to START smoking.


You have the right to do whatever the hell you want.


What is the problem with allowing some pubs to be smoking and the rest non smoking?

[djfierce]

Every business has to live with change. The ones that do best are the ones that embrace change and adapt quickly. I have zero sympathy for business people that blindly assume this not to be the case.

Dave

:up:

absoutely, i think it's called um ... progress

[The Flying Mouse]

actually neil where i live and used to live, every small and big pub does food of some description.

And the small local village 'boozer' i used to work at did food too, and alot of regulars had food almost every day, people do eat out of their own homes, either because the food is so cheap or because it is so good, or as the dreaded social occasion

:twisted: Well that's very different from this neck of the woods hun.

Some pubs do food, but most are still places of DRINK.

[djfierce]

Neil...i'm just wondering something


Just say there were two pubs one smoking one not like you want.

And i agree to meet you for a drink to catch up with you.

Where would you insist we go??

[daveake]

Wetherspoons, to me, is not a pub.
Just somewhere that happens to sell food and drink.

Sorry, I missed this bit.

OK, how about Mitchells & Butlers (M&B)? Do they run pubs worthy of the name? Guess what happened when they banned smoking at 200 of their pubs in England and Wales? The effect on sales growth was less than 1% for the following quarter.

Dave

[Deb]

:twisted:
Wetherspoons is good at being what it is, and that is a licenced restaurant that does cheap and cheerful grub.
Wetherspoons is not a local pub dependant on local trade.
Wetherspoons is a high street brand like WH Smiths, Woolworths, or Burger King.
They live off passing trade.
Wetherspoons, to me, is not a pub.
Just somewhere that happens to sell food and drink.

I disagree 100%

Stevenage has two of them and they are 'local pubs' who do not rely on passing trade. People have made them their locals cause they cottened on to something clever. That people wanted cheaper food and drink. And IMO this is whats needed to over come the smoking ban and turn things around. Take a local near me, theyve turned themselves into a bikers pub, with secure parking for the bikes. They also built a proper smoking garden. And guess what, it worked. Everyone just has to find that something that will work, rather than keep blaming the smoking ban.

[The Flying Mouse]

That's fine. The Wetherspoon figure came from, er, Wetherspoons. You're welcome to enlighten them as to the error of their ways. They've shown that it's perfectly possible to increase turnover whilst banning smoking.


:twisted:

:
Wetherspoons is good at being what it is, and that is a licenced restaurant that does cheap and cheerful grub.
Wetherspoons is not a local pub dependant on local trade.
Wetherspoons is a high street brand like WH Smiths, Woolworths, or Burger King.
They live off passing trade.
Wetherspoons, to me, is not a pub.
Just somewhere that happens to sell food and drink.


For the second time in this thread, i've nothing to add I ain't already said :wink:

[daveake]

:twisted: Well that's very different from this neck of the woods hun.

Some pubs do food, but most are still places of DRINK.

I thought they were all going bust due to lack of trade? Ah well, maybe things aren't so bad ...

Dave

[Deb]

:twisted: Of course you have the right to decide.

You have the right to be a non smoker in a non smoking pub.

You have the right to be a smoker in a smoking pub.

You have the right to be a non smoker sitting with friends in a smoking pub.

You have the right to be a smoker sitting with friends in a non smoking pub.

You have the right to be a smoker sitting alone in a non smoking pub with a diet coke instead of a beer.

You have the right to stop smoking.

You have the right to START smoking.


You have the right to do whatever the hell you want.


What is the problem with allowing some pubs to be smoking and the rest non smoking?

There are many problems with allowing that as I and everyone else here is saying. You are just choosing to ignore them.

[Hypnobabe]

:twisted: Coming back to the NHS issue Claire, go to any A&E on a Saturday night, and you'll see more NHS pounds being literally bled all over the floor as a result of drunken fights, people hit by drink drivers, and drunken antics gone wrong than anything a smokers recovery time can do to a budget.


Fair point, as it happens I don't agree with money being spent by the NHS on idiots who don't know when to stop drinking either, but I don't think a quarter of the population are in A&E on a Saturday night, and that's the proportion of smokers in the UK. If you want to make that comparison, the drunken idiots who injure others through their actions are generally prosecuted, and there are more people at risk from passive smoking than getting lamped by someone down the pub.

And as for the cost, I come back to my earlier point, how many of those people injured by the drunken idiots are smokers, and have the excessive cost of recovery compared to the non-smokers? Do we put that down to the drunken idiot who injured them in the first place, or to the fact that they're smokers?

I still believe that we should all have a choice, but it does seem to me that until the ban came in, we non-smokers didn't really have one. I'm sorry for those people whose livelihoods are being affected, but that may also be down to the credit crunch as much as the smoking ban, there's less disposable income around, so people can't afford to go out as much as they used to.

[daveake]

:twisted:

(two separate quotes)

For the second time in this thread, i've nothing to add I ain't already said :wink:

You seem to have missed my reply re M&B ...

Dave

[The Flying Mouse]

I disagree 100%

Stevenage has two of them and they are 'local pubs' who do not rely on passing trade.

:twisted: Really?
That does actually come as a surprise.
But you've got to admit that there are exceptons to every rule.
As i've said pretty much through this thread, there are pubs that have done better, but IMHO they are in the minority.

[djfierce]

but that may also be down to the credit crunch as much as the smoking ban, there's less disposable income around, so people can't afford to go out as much as they used to.

yep, i can only afford to go to a few Meat concerts this year ;) :p

sorry just thought someone needed to take a breath here lol

[~Helen~]

I was really trying to stay out of this discussion but I just wanted to add a point that I don't think anyone has added yet, and that's you really can't have establishments with smoking/non smoking areas/rooms - as the smoke travels. I remember in the past dining at a restaurant where I had specifically requested the non-smoking area and the lady on the table next to me was smoking. She was in the smoking area. It reminds me of a cartoon I saw once, with two men standing at a bar (one smoking, one not), there's dotted line between them which is preventing the smoking man's smoke from spreading into the other man's 'area' which is identified as non-smoking. The caption is something along the lines of 'regulatory line which smoke must not cross'.

Of course I've hunted for ages for said cartoon and had no luck. So here's one suitable fitting to my theme instead

http://media.mlxxfc.net/cgo0023l.jpg

And this one just made me chuckle...

http://media.mlxxfc.net/cgo0013l.jpg

[Deb]

:twisted: Really?
That does actually come as a surprise.
But you've got to admit that there are exceptons to every rule.
As i've said pretty much through this thread, there are pubs that have done better, but IMHO they are in the minority.

And who's to say the pubs by you aren't that exception? or are the rest of us just idiots when it comes to knowing anything about drinking and eating :?

[The Flying Mouse]

or are the rest of us just idiots when it comes to knowing anything about drinking and eating :?

:twisted: I don't see anyone calling anyone an idiot here Deb.

*sigh* I think we've just about got here...........



http://media.mlxxfc.net/stalemate.jpg
Stalemate.

[Deb]

Oh I think we got there the second nobody agreed that we didn't want smoking or no smoking pubs

[The Flying Mouse]

Supose we should just agree to differ on this :shrug:

:twisted: Which is why I said that two pages ago :lmao:

[Deb]

So why carry on trying to convince us there should be both type of pubs then :?

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: Because the thread stayed active.

[Deb]

you obviously have to have the last word so i'll bow out now

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: Actually Deb, it was because there were several more points brought up (in 8 posts)that I thought worth discussing and elaborating on.


Not because i've got to have the "last word" :wtf:
That makes it all sound rather childish.

Debate and discussion is what a forum is for isn't it?

[djfierce]

:yawn:

[Monstro]

:lurk:

[duke knooby]

lets have a poll... democracy lol

[KebLou]

The thing about a pub is that is a ADULT RECREATION AREA.

Passive smoking to children is not an option as children shouldn't be in the pub in the first place.


When do you become an adult? As you could be a *child* in a pub legally. Why shouldn't children be in a pub? I think it depends on the pub...

You still haven't answered my earlier question... You haven't proven that the smoking ban has had a detrimental effect to pubs.

[KebLou]

Most of the regulars are local to the area.This is the case of most "boozers".
Who is going to pay for meals at the pub when they can go and eat whatever they want at home?

You're not going to get anywhere selling food and drink in a place where it's not what the customer wants there and then.
You might as well stock McDonalds with beer and call it a shrewd business maneuver.

How many people eat at Wetherspoons 3/4/5 times a week?

Wetherspoons is good at being what it is, and that is a licenced restaurant that does cheap and cheerful grub.
Wetherspoons is not a local pub dependant on local trade.
Wetherspoons is a high street brand like WH Smiths, Woolworths, or Burger King.
They live off passing trade.
Wetherspoons, to me, is not a pub.
Just somewhere that happens to sell food and drink.

Sorry but 'Spoons is a brilliant place. Every Wednesday all of my student mates go to 'Spoons and have a few drinks and a meal and every week we see the same faces. So thats passing trade? Strange passing trade to me.

[SamCat]

I remembered earlier about how years ago British Rail used to make some carriages half smoking and half non-smoking We used to sit near the divide for the pure entertainment value of the bloody mindedness of both sides!!!

[Pudding]

If some pubs go bust because people can't smoke inside them then that's not such a bad thing.

Pud :twisted:

[AndyK]

Anyone got a light? :lmao:

[duke knooby]

just read on teletext... air quality in bars is 93% cleaner a year after the smoking ban was introduced according to new research. air particulates including nicotine were measured in more than 80 bars before and after the ban. there was a 72% reduction in the number of people who reported symptoms or side effects attributable to tobacco smoke.

[duke knooby]

heres a link...

http://www1.u.tv/news/LocalNews/index.asp?id=89359&sel2=1&sel=1&local=1

[djfierce]

:up:

[Mick Loaf]

I thought they went too far with the ban, for goodness sake Mel Smith was doing a
show about Winston Churchill at last year's Edinburgh Festival and was warned that
the show would be shut down if he lit up his cigar on stage!

They could have found a middle way - I don't want smoke about when I'm eating but if
I'm the bar/snug pasrt of a pub where they don't serve food I'd like the choice.

PS I was smoking in a pub the other week, it was after hours and the barmaid put an
ashtray on the bar so we could smoke - it was awesome!! And remember we've had the ban up here for longer!

[SamCat]

It is strange being allowed to smoke indoors in a public place now!! In Korea there was ashtrays all over the hotel room including the bathroom but i still rang down to reception to double check The only sign was one asking people not too smoke in bed!!

[Sarge]

I thought they went too far with the ban, for goodness sake Mel Smith was doing a
show about Winston Churchill at last year's Edinburgh Festival and was warned that
the show would be shut down if he lit up his cigar on stage!

Now the anti-smoking hysteria even makes people tamper with history. :roll: They also erased Paul McCartney's cigarette from the cover of the Abbey Road LP. :mad:


I am saying that pubs should have the right to be smoking or non smoking.
I am saying that after a long day's work, Joe Bloggs should be able to pop into the pub and enjoy a ciggie and a drink, which has been the simple pleasure of many of the working class since pubs, beer, working class people, and cigarettes were all invented.
[...]
The thing about a pub is that is a ADULT RECREATION AREA.


You're right, pubs are not meant to be health resorts. ;) I am not a "real" smoker, I only smoke occasionally but I miss having a small cigar along with a good Irish beer.

It depends on where you ban smoking. I am glad that no one is allowed to smoke in cafeterias anymore because it was really annoying to eat while the room was filled with smoke but pubs have always been places you frequent in order to sin - to drink and smoke.

Let's face it - people have the habit of doing things that are not healthy or "decent". It's alright as long as it does not exceed a certain level. It's the minor sins that make life interesting. ;)

Who determines what's right and what's wrong?

I don't believe that bans make any sense - but mutual respect does.

Politicians are always looking for scapegoats - currently they have chosen smokers. :mad:

[djfierce]

i consider something wrong if it affects other people, if it only affects you then thats you're choice and eventually your problem

[Sarge]

I agree but I doubt that the current ban on smoking is based on philanthropy only. ;)

[Pudding]

They could have found a middle way

They did, they could stand outside the pub.

Most smokers stink and they get accustomed to their own stench, thinking that that is normal, which is probably why some look like they haven't had a wash in months, and they probably haven't. However, most non-smokers don't stink and they shouldn't have to go home with a stench of filth all over their clothes.

Pud :twisted:

[Battybarb]

A lot of my friends smoke and as i am a non smoker whenever they have visited my house they have always either gone out the front or in the garden for a ciggie,i have never asked them to they have just done it,long before the ban was ever thought of and they do thr same to other friends who are also non smokers..

[~Helen~]

A lot of my friends smoke and as i am a non smoker whenever they have visited my house they have always either gone out the front or in the garden for a ciggie,i have never asked them to they have just done it,long before the ban was ever thought of and they do thr same to other friends who are also non smokers..


Luckily I don't know many people who smoke now, however I remember when I was a lot younger, we had a neighbour who smoked and would sometimes pop 'round to chat with my mum. Even though both of my parents no longer smoked at this point, she would still always light up in the living room (as a matter of course) and I remember my mum used to keep an ashtray for when she visited, and then spend a fair while after she left trying to get rid of the smell. Nowadays that would be considered very inpolite & inconsiderate, but then (20 years or so ago) it seemed to be acceptable - I guess more people smoked and the health risks were perhaps less well known, but times do seem to have changed considerably on that.

I also had a great uncle who would smoke a pipe and throw lit matches into the gas fire :? but we laugh about that!

[djfierce]

They did, they could stand outside the pub.

Most smokers stink and they get accustomed to their own stench, thinking that that is normal, which is probably why some look like they haven't had a wash in months, and they probably haven't. However, most non-smokers don't stink and they shouldn't have to go home with a stench of filth all over their clothes.

Pud :twisted:

my mum smokes, and although she doesnt smoke in the house when casey stays with her, i have to re-wash all caseys clothes when she gets back even though my mum washes it all for me before i pick her up. I showed them to m this week and he couldnt smell what i meant, guess smokers really cant smell smoke on stuff.

[Deb]

Yep same here Anji, when my kids go to the in laws their grandad smokes but apparently outside lol. Yet even if their clothes have been washed I wash everything again. Even brand new presents that have been sitting in their house have to be washed. Tiger came home last week as a belated pressie for Chloe, he went straight off to the washing machine lol.

[djfierce]

i'm surprised your kids havent seen the inside of the washing machine too Deb :lmao: ;)

[Pudding]

Another thing that pisses me off about smokers. When they do smoke outside, they take their last drag, put out the fag, then exhale when they're going back inside, so the place smells of smoke anyway :evil:

Pud :twisted:

[~Helen~]

A wild guess would suggest you're not keen on smokers pud...

[Pudding]

You get that impression??? LOL :lmao:

Pud :twisted:

[samurai7]

Another thing that pisses me off about smokers. When they do smoke outside, they take their last drag, put out the fag, then exhale when they're going back inside, so the place smells of smoke anyway :evil:

Pud :twisted:

I do that. I'm glad you find it so annoying ;) :twisted:

[Monstro]

I do that. I'm glad you find it so annoying ;) :twisted:

PMSL

[Battybarb]

Although the ban is for outside the pubs, some people are standing just outside the doors so the smoke is blowing inside, my brother in law has had so my rows with people over this and has even barred a couple, as the rule is that it has to be so many yards(i dont know how many)away from the entrance, but people dont seem to be taking notice of this.

[Monstro]

I think it's five metres

[Battybarb]

Think thats it...

[geordieloaf]

The trouble is the over the top anti smokers, who think if there within 100 yards of a lit ciggie they will drop down dead there and then.
The ban is here non smokers be happy you got what you wanted, smokers just keep blowing that smoke in the little shelter's they provide for you, (normally right next to the door of the bar lol).

[MeatGrl1]

But in the meantime you still have to go outside sometimes when it's cold as ice to feed your craving... It makes no sense to me :? !

[djfierce]

personally i see a big difference between sitting next to someone smoking in a restaurant and just passing by someone smoking, i think its getting a little picky to go on about them outside the door or smoking in the street, at least you have some fresh air to counteract it, i think the ban is fine as it is

[The Flying Mouse]

But in the meantime you still have to go outside sometimes when it's cold as ice to feed your craving... It makes no sense to me :? !

:twisted: Actually, they don't.
They just don't bother going out in inclement weather.

If it doesn't make sense, get addicted to nicotine, believe me, it'll make sense.

Interesting thing my dad said to me the other day, is that he doesn't go out as much now because his friends (particularly Alan, who is his best drinking buddy)keep popping outside for a ciggie so he's left with nobody to talk to, that's besides the point that his pals are more reluctant to go out in the first place these days.

BTW, my dad has never smoked in his life.

[Paul191]

To move away from the initial question for a second, this all links very nicely into the ~~~~er argument for global warming. Charges for filling up your rubbish bin, Charges for not recycling and increased tax on fuel is all being backed up by the green communists who want to take us back to the dark ages in order to save us all from some kind of apocalyptic oblivion. It's these people who also want to save us all from smoking related lung cancers and brain tumours the size of footballs. The reason the government is backing this socialist nonsense is because they conveniently get a nice little share from it. Charges, charges, charges = more money for the government.

I am not a smoker and I despise the smoking ban! Again the stupid autocrats in power find it OK to deduce, yet, another of our civil liberties.

What really annoys me about all of this is the fact that the government are proving they really don't care about anything further than their own snivelling noses. They just follow a few simple rules laid out by the illusive PC brigade. That makes them happy and it gives the government a great reason to tax the shit out of us!

I'm sorry Neil but I think the government knew about all of the points you made in your initial post, loss of jobs etc, but they went right ahead with it because it gave then a great excuse to fill their own back pockets! Because they really, really 'care' about our health. They save a fortune in NHS costs (After the temporary increase in people wanting help to give up smoking) and they make a great deal in fines. It's only a matter of time before the ~~~~~~~s begin poking their little snouts into every other corner of our lives in order to 'save' or 'free' us. It's for the 'greater good' apparently. Very 1984esque if you ask me.

[Deb]

:twisted: Actually, they don't.
They just don't bother going out in inclement weather.



LOL they do ;) I've seen Ansy outside in the freezing cold on more than one occasion lol. Also had him on the fone getting blown around in blizzards while popping out for one :D I've seen M go out in the cold many times as well.

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: My dad's friend Alan doesn't go the pub when the weather is bad anymore, but I supose that could just be him alone, and only in Liverpool :lmao:

[Deb]

Glad to see you're seeing things my way Neil :lmao:

[djfierce]

i dont wanna go out in the bloody cold either and i dont smoke ;)

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: I didn't ask you to hun :shock:

[djfierce]

eh?? i give up, i meant less people wanna go out in bad weather anyway, smokers or not :roll:

[allrevvedup]

it's a good job that i don't smoke... or pay taxes (in england that is)

[Pudding]

Interesting thing my dad said to me the other day, is that he doesn't go out as much now because his friends (particularly Alan, who is his best drinking buddy)keep popping outside for a ciggie so he's left with nobody to talk to

If someone chooses a cig over a friendship, then the friendship couldn't have been really worth much. Seems like it's Alan's loss not your Dads.

Pud :twisted:

[AndyK]

LOL they do ;) I've seen Ansy outside in the freezing cold on more than one occasion lol. Also had him on the fone getting blown around in blizzards while popping out for one :D I've seen M go out in the cold many times as well.


That's a two fold reason though Des ... we're not supposed to have our mobile phones on in the office, let alone talk on them, so if I have to go outside to make a phonecall I might as well have a smoke while I'm at it :))

[Deb]

Ah but it's not just work you go out and freeze for one lol. I've seen you outside freezing in many places lol.

[RadioMaster]

To move away from the initial question for a second, this all links very nicely into the ~~~~er argument for global warming. Charges for filling up your rubbish bin, Charges for not recycling and increased tax on fuel is all being backed up by the green communists who want to take us back to the dark ages in order to save us all from some kind of apocalyptic oblivion. It's these people who also want to save us all from smoking related lung cancers and brain tumours the size of footballs. The reason the government is backing this socialist nonsense is because they conveniently get a nice little share from it. Charges, charges, charges = more money for the government.

I am not a smoker and I despise the smoking ban! Again the stupid autocrats in power find it OK to deduce, yet, another of our civil liberties.

What really annoys me about all of this is the fact that the government are proving they really don't care about anything further than their own snivelling noses. They just follow a few simple rules laid out by the illusive PC brigade. That makes them happy and it gives the government a great reason to tax the shit out of us!

I'm sorry Neil but I think the government knew about all of the points you made in your initial post, loss of jobs etc, but they went right ahead with it because it gave then a great excuse to fill their own back pockets! Because they really, really 'care' about our health. They save a fortune in NHS costs (After the temporary increase in people wanting help to give up smoking) and they make a great deal in fines. It's only a matter of time before the ~~~~~~~s begin poking their little snouts into every other corner of our lives in order to 'save' or 'free' us. It's for the 'greater good' apparently. Very 1984esque if you ask me.

Sorry Paul, but that's the biggest bunch of bollocks I've heard in a long time...

[RadioMaster]

a little side note:
the smoking ban was established at all German railway stations last year as well. But if smokers were waiting for a train, they couldnt send them out of the building, so they might miss their train.
So, what was the solution for this problem?
http://www.agentur-65.com/bahnblog/raucher-ecke-bonn.jpg
As you see, every station now has this yellow square somewhere on all the platforms, where people who want to smoke have to go. But the joke on all this is that it doesnt help anyone. As you see the non-smokers have to sit right next to the square, and there is no kind of seperation. To make it comfortable they also put the yellow suqares right to the centre of the platforms, so the majority of non-smokers has to either walk by or stand near.

And now the funniest thing:
This was established to 'save' non-smokers, BUT a lot of stations were strictly non-smoking before the 'ban' :lmao:

[AndyK]

Ah but it's not just work you go out and freeze for one lol. I've seen you outside freezing in many places lol.

True enough ... and on the flip side I've been outside smoking in some lovely sunshine too.

[KebLou]

The reason the government is backing this socialist nonsense is because they conveniently get a nice little share from it. Charges, charges, charges = more money for the government.

They save a fortune in NHS costs (After the temporary increase in people wanting help to give up smoking) and they make a great deal in fines.

It's all rubbish but these bits stand out, I think if you look at the figures the Government makes more money if you smoke and if you can tell me how many people have actually been fined? :roll:

Plus if all the Government is interested in is themselves and making money what about the people who have suffered smoke related illness without smoking a cigarette in their lives, but have worked in pub...

[Pudding]

Plus if all the Government is interested in is themselves and making money what about the people who have suffered smoke related illness without smoking a cigarette in their lives, but have worked in pub...

Thousands of passive smokers die of lung cancer and smoking related illnesses each, Roy Castle being a classic example.

Pud :twisted:

[Paul191]

Sorry Paul, but that's the biggest bunch of bollocks I've heard in a long time...

Why?

[Paul191]

It's all rubbish but these bits stand out, I think if you look at the figures the Government makes more money if you smoke and if you can tell me how many people have actually been fined? :roll:

Plus if all the Government is interested in is themselves and making money what about the people who have suffered smoke related illness without smoking a cigarette in their lives, but have worked in pub...

It's all common sense.

It's not about how many people have been fined. It's the fact they are being forced to correspond to the rubbish the government spurts out with the consequence of being fined. I wouldn't expect easily driven people to understand.

Hahaha, You are telling me that Cherie Blair didn't spend £200,000 of taxpayers money on renovating 10 Downing street 2 years ago and that MPs have not been given, almost, a 30% pay rise in the last 10 years whilst public sector workers rages have simply been rising with inflataion? YES THEY DO ONLY CARE ABOUT THEIR BACK POCKETS.


Now, you wanted to know about the people who have suffered smoke related illness without smoking a cigarette in their lives, but have worked in pub. I can tell you that one of the great things about this country is that we used to have a choice. Now we don't because we are shovel fed shit through our arses.

[AndrewG]

I can tell you that one of the great things about this country is that we used to have a choice. Now we don't because we are shovel fed shit through our arses.

I think this is bollocks as the smoking ban has come in effect in many European countries and not just in the UK, after many states in the US proved it could be done. You were already not able to smoke in restaurants in the early nineties in California, that's quite a long time ago when you consider banning smoking.

If it was really all about making money from the taxes the governments in Europe would not be banning smoking obviously!
:roll:

[Paul191]

I think this is bollocks as the smoking ban has come in effect in many European countries and not just in the UK, after many states in the US proved it could be done. You were already not able to smoke in restaurants in the early nineties in California, that's quite a long time ago when you consider banning smoking.

If it was really all about making money from the taxes the governments in Europe would not be banning smoking obviously!
:roll:

I would appreciate it if people actually looked at what I wrote initially. I didn't say it was PURELY for money. I said they were trying to impress the PC committee because not only does it keep their mouths shut, it gives the government extra bonuses as well. It's a two way deal. Trust me, if the government didn't get anything out of it they wouldn't ban it. Read up no the local politics this week about macmillian and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

[Pudding]

I didn't say it was PURELY for money. I said they were trying to impress the PC committee because not only does it keep their mouths shut, it gives the government extra bonuses as well.

Complete hogwash. You sound like a typical lefty conspiracy theorist who's arguments always lacks facts and are based on hysteria :roll:

The government isn't trying to impress anyone, especially the PC committee, because if they were then they'd have done something a lot sooner. The smoking ban is in place because it's an health issue and the cost of treating smoking related illness is spiralling out of control.

Also where's this bonus money coming from? certainly not the taxes, because less smokers mean less taxes and certainly not the tobacco companies.

Trust me

Not today ;)

I wish the government would put the same amount of effort into banning fast food outlets so we can save money on obesity related illnesses, because fatties are clogging up the health system quicker than their arteries. But that's another topic for another thread.

Pud :twisted:

[Paul191]

Complete hogwash. You sound like a typical lefty conspiracy theorist who's arguments always lacks facts and are based on hysteria :roll:

The government isn't trying to impress anyone, especially the PC committee, because if they were then they'd have done something a lot sooner. The smoking ban is in place because it's an health issue and the cost of treating smoking related illness is spiralling out of control.

Also where's this bonus money coming from? certainly not the taxes, because less smokers mean less taxes and certainly not the tobacco companies.



Not today ;)

I wish the government would put the same amount of effort into banning fast food outlets so we can save money on obesity related illnesses, because fatties are clogging up the health system quicker than their arteries. But that's another topic for another thread.

Pud :twisted:

I knew it would on ly be a matter of time before the 'conspiracy theorist' jibes were coming out. Lacks facts? I swear I had 2 facts in my reply to Keb Lou. Hysteria? I have to agree with that one mate.


Since when were the governemnt not trying to impress the PC committee? Plastic bags, Car fuel, Global Warming, Radiation etc all come about because of some PC loon who can't keep his head on his shoulders. The government has done nothing but ~~~~ them up the arse for two reason. Because they can and because they get something out of it. Whether it's credability or money. Either way, someone slowly begins to see their choices and liberties swept away from them under their feet. Where is the free society we are supposed to live in?

Anyway, better get back to my kebab. Sooner I finish it the sooner I get to bed considering I have an appointment at the hospital tomorrow for chronic heart desease.

[Pudding]

Here's a radical theory for you Paul, it's a little far-fetched I know and it has a few flaws, but give it a whirl for a few minutes ;)

Perhaps the government banned smoking from public places because it was the right thing to do and there is and never was any overt or covert agenda :shock:

Hope you enjoyed your kebab.

Pud :twisted:

[RadioMaster]

Why?

to make it short:
It is stupid to say the government is just filling their back pockets. If you look what they really do youll notice that it's a group of very intelligent top people whos job it is to do the best for the people and the country. And that's all they do. Of course there are black sheep, but youll find them everywhere else as well. People who are nagging the government are just lazy, selfish b@stards only have fun complaining about every little bit they find.

For the rest Ill agree with the Pudding.

[wolfy35]

I have many friends in the brewing industry and they dont tell me that the smoking ban is the cause of pubs going out of business.

They all say that the cause is Supermarkets. In my local pub I have to pay an average of £1.89 for a pint of Budweiser or £1.50 for a bottle, If I go to a "Weatherspoon" type discount pub I get the same for £1.50 / £1.25.
In my local Tesco I can get a 15 pack of 500ml cans of budweiser for £9.99, thats around 70p a pint.

The brewing industry is selling more beer and alcopops than ever before the difference is that more and more people are choosing by cost rather than visiting their local. This trend will only accelerate now that we are heading into a climate of economic instability and tightening budgets.

Its strange that I have not yet read anything on here about the large amount of non smokers that for years avoided going into a pub because they didn't want to go into a smoke filled atmosphere but are now customers of many pubs.

Only people that are so narrow minded to be unwilling to see the bigger overall picture of the decline that has been affecting pubs in general for years before the smoking ban came into force would blame not being able to smoke for the closure of pubs. Strangely enough the breweries that are selling more beer and alcopops than ever before dont seem to be complaining just issuing statements that they continue to support pubs in any way they can.

[Deb]

Good points wolfy :-)

I totally forgot about the cost of drink and that's a huge reason many people I know don't go to pubs anymore.

And i'm also one of them that avoided them before because of the smell.

[Pudding]

The brewing industry is selling more beer and alcopops than ever before the difference is that more and more people are choosing by cost rather than visiting their local. This trend will only accelerate now that we are heading into a climate of economic instability and tightening budgets.

Good point. On my most recent trip back to the UK I could purchase a box of 20 bottles of Grolsch for 7 quid at Asda, if I went to a pub I'd be lucky to get 3 bottles for the same price. Plus I could take a shit or piss at my own leisure and not worry about the state of the toilets, and I wouldn't have to suffer some deaf trout belting out a Bonnie Tyler song at the top of her lungs on some karaoke machine.

Pud :twisted:

[Hypnobabe]

I knew it would on ly be a matter of time before the 'conspiracy theorist' jibes were coming out. Lacks facts? I swear I had 2 facts in my reply to Keb Lou.

I for one would have more confidence in your 'facts' if you would cite your sources...

[Monstro]

They all say that the cause is Supermarkets. In my local pub I have to pay an average of £1.89 for a pint of Budweiser or £1.50 for a bottle, If I go to a "Weatherspoon" type discount pub I get the same for £1.50 / £1.25.
In my local Tesco I can get a 15 pack of 500ml cans of budweiser for £9.99, thats around 70p a pint.

The brewing industry is selling more beer and alcopops than ever before the difference is that more and more people are choosing by cost rather than visiting their local. This trend will only accelerate now that we are heading into a climate of economic instability and tightening budgets.

Can't believe this never came up before either. As most know I like my whisky, large one with proper coke in a pub is pushing £6 now, indoors it's under a quid.

Good point. On my most recent trip back to the UK I could purchase a box of 20 bottles of Grolsch for 7 quid at Asda, if I went to a pub I'd be lucky to get 3 bottles for the same price. Plus I could take a shit or piss at my own leisure and not worry about the state of the toilets, and I wouldn't have to suffer some deaf trout belting out a Bonnie Tyler song at the top of her lungs on some karaoke machine.

Pud :twisted:

I do sometimes have dodgy singing issues when pissed indoors though :mrgreen:

[Paul191]

I have many friends in the brewing industry and they dont tell me that the smoking ban is the cause of pubs going out of business.

They all say that the cause is Supermarkets. In my local pub I have to pay an average of £1.89 for a pint of Budweiser or £1.50 for a bottle, If I go to a "Weatherspoon" type discount pub I get the same for £1.50 / £1.25.
In my local Tesco I can get a 15 pack of 500ml cans of budweiser for £9.99, thats around 70p a pint.

The brewing industry is selling more beer and alcopops than ever before the difference is that more and more people are choosing by cost rather than visiting their local. This trend will only accelerate now that we are heading into a climate of economic instability and tightening budgets.

Its strange that I have not yet read anything on here about the large amount of non smokers that for years avoided going into a pub because they didn't want to go into a smoke filled atmosphere but are now customers of many pubs.

Only people that are so narrow minded to be unwilling to see the bigger overall picture of the decline that has been affecting pubs in general for years before the smoking ban came into force would blame not being able to smoke for the closure of pubs. Strangely enough the breweries that are selling more beer and alcopops than ever before dont seem to be complaining just issuing statements that they continue to support pubs in any way they can.

Your the one unable to see the wider picture. I agree with a couple of points Neil made in his first post. That was probably too long ago for you to remember. Think it was something like 1409 pubs close in 2007. So, great for the local buisneses!

[Deb]

As a friend pointed out to me, the clamp down on drink driving over the recent yrs is another big factor in people not going out as much.

[RadioMaster]

Good point. On my most recent trip back to the UK I could purchase a box of 20 bottles of Grolsch for 7 quid at Asda, if I went to a pub I'd be lucky to get 3 bottles for the same price. Plus I could take a shit or piss at my own leisure and not worry about the state of the toilets, and I wouldn't have to suffer some deaf trout belting out a Bonnie Tyler song at the top of her lungs on some karaoke machine.

Pud :twisted:

basically that's true, but you forget that you do not only pay for the drink itself, but for the oportunity to spend the time in the pub with your friends, etc. Nobody would go to a pub to buy drinks and take them home. A pub is not just a place of purchasing goods. You dont want lets say 15 friends staying half the night at your house, totally pissed, probably smashing some dishes and wracking the toilet. Id rather go to a pub in that case as well, it IS expensive, but once in a while it's a nice thing to do.

Another thing that didnt come up yet:
People say that pubs got so expensive, but have you been to McDonalds, Burger King, Subway, etc lately?
I went to Burger King on my way home last week, cause i was too lazy to cook. I bought, 9 of those nuggets and a small milkshake, and paid nearly 8€! :angry:
But still fast food restaurats are florishing, so good that theres 8 McDonalds and 3 Buger King in an 800m radius of the cologne central station (according to google maps)

So why are they doing that good, but pubs arent?

[Monstro]

The closing of pubs is not a new issue, although the rate has risen I'd be interested to see how this compares to growth in other leasure industries (Gyms health spa's etc) as the nation as a whole becomes more healthy in it's attitude.

And to prove it's not a new issue..

Pub closures
The government think-tank the New Economics Foundation (NEF) reckons the closure of community pubs is creating a 'ghost town Britain'. With the decline of local economies and the closure of 20 pubs a week, as well as loss of banks and shops, more communities have no access to essential local services.
One of the main drivers of closures is the current churn in pub operating companies: the giants such as Enterprise Inns and Punch are swallowing middling companies, with smaller ones grabbing their leftovers and the occasional Free House. Most of this activity is driven by private investment groups and banks.

A current example is Enterprise Inns, which has become the UK's largest pubco (over 9,000 pubs) upon taking over the Unique Pub Company. To satisfy competition rules, they have to sell 250 pubs: the usual rule is to own no more than 25% of pubs in any licensing area.

Enterprise Inns is selling the pubs to a new group, Admiral Pub Company, for £62.6M. The Evening Standard (19-Mar-2004) said 155 of the pubs will immediately be sold on to County Estate Management, a pub and property company, with the rest turned into apartments and other uses.

[wolfy35]

Your the one unable to see the wider picture. I agree with a couple of points Neil made in his first post. That was probably too long ago for you to remember. Think it was something like 1409 pubs close in 2007. So, great for the local buisneses!

Strangely enough I do remember Neils first post and I take offence to your reference that I would not.

Yes pub closures have accelerated but at nowhere near the rate that sales by supermarkets have increased. Unfortunately again it all comes down to people voting with their wallet. People who really like pubs will always go there but the vast majority of people will go where they can get the best value for money experience.

At opposite ends of the road where I live there are 2 pubs. One a really nice older style pub with really friendly staff and good quality atmosphere the other is an impersonal major chain type with no charactor or friendly staff that because it is part of the major chain can do the price promotions. One is struggling to survive the other needs door staff to stop it becoming overcrowded.

Unfortunately the nature of all retail business be it a pub, greengrocer or butcher is that customers demand the product they want at the price they are willing to pay and if one shop/pub doesnt provide this they go elsewhere. Because of this it is inevitable that some very good pubs etc. will close through no fault of their own other than the fact that consumer demand has shifted.

The very nature of all business is that while you have customers and turn a profit you stay but when your customers go elsewhere and you make a loss you go. I personally would love to see some of the excellent local pubs that have had to close for lack of trade reopen but until such a time as consumer demand moves back to wanting this it simply will not happen and we have to be realistic and admit that more very good pubs are likely to close.

As far as related industries are concerned, Most manufacturers and installers of anything that can be used as a smoking shelter are having a field day now that all pubs need their products. I have a friend who has made sheds and garden furniture for years that says with the demand for smoking shelters plus the fact that pubs are now making sure that their outdoor areas are better furnished and maintained his biggest problems are getting enough good quality timber, materials and craftsmen to make his products.
Lest we not forget all the landscaping teams and gardeners that are now enjoying extra work because of pubs taking better care of their outdoor areas, its simply not acceptable to have the odd few plastic chairs or wooden table and call it a beer garden.
Yes we are losing jobs in one sector but jobs are being created in others to accomodate the shift in demand.

[~Helen~]

:shock: :roll: :bicker: :wall: :faint:

[djfierce]

:shock: :roll: :bicker: :wall: :faint:

lol you missed one


:yawn:

[The Flying Mouse]

:shock: :roll: :bicker: :wall: :faint:

lol you missed one


:yawn:


:twisted: Can I remind you both, please, that the web staff here have posted several times in the post the very sound advice "if you don't like a thread don't read it" :nope:

If you are getting annoyed, frustrated, or bored with a thread, it is your own fault for reading it in the first place.


However I do think this thread has run it's course, and i'm going to take Jonty's advice.............

lets have a poll... democracy lol


Meant as a joke, but actually a good suggestion :up:

I think everyone has had ample time to bring up any points they think relevant, and had all the opportunity to argue their case.

We've heard the manifestos, now let's have the vote.

Poll will be added directly.

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: Poll added.

Let's the votes decide :up:

[AndyK]

OK, there's been a good exchange of views in this thread, but it's starting to spiral out of control a little. This is a general warning within this thread, the specific offender(s) will be contacted shortly.

Having an opinion is fine, disagreeing with someone else's opinion is also fine (and encourages healthy debate). But, if you can't disagree with someone elses's opinion without resorting to insults and patronising comments then please don't bother posting.

[~Helen~]

:shock: :roll: :bicker: :wall: :faint:

:twisted: Can I remind you both, please, that the web staff here have posted several times in the post the very sound advice "if you don't like a thread don't read it" :nope:

If you are getting annoyed, frustrated, or bored with a thread, it is your own fault for reading it in the first place.

I think the poll is a good idea :-) everyone is entitled to their own opinion and a little bit of lively debate is healthy (excepting of course if it is made personal).

And I just wanted to add also that my emoticons were meant in good humour, no criticism or offense offended to anyone :-) so I hope they weren't taken that way. :-)

[allrevvedup]

I wouldn't have to suffer some deaf trout belting out a Bonnie Tyler song at the top of her lungs on some karaoke machine.
Pud :twisted:


You've heard my singing then!

[Deb]

:twisted:

If you are getting annoyed, frustrated, or bored with a thread, it is your own fault for reading it in the first place.



I'm actually very offended by that

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: Why?

I'm merely pointing out the simple truth that if something bugs you, you should stop reading it.

Forum members are not required to read and comment on every thread, only on the ones they choose too, so if you find a thread that you find boring/annoying/irritating, you don't have to read it.
Just leave it alone.

However, it was not my intent to offend anyone by pointing that out, so apologies if any offense was given.

[djfierce]

to be honest my smiley was me being refrained and not getting into an argument, the actual subject isnt boring however the insults and jibes are getting a little too common place round here, and since i harp on about this site being so much better than the 'other' site in clamping down on that when i see stuff go out of control over there, i feel justified to feel a little dissapointed, couldnt find a i'm dissapointed no one has done anything yet smiley, sorry. Any new people reading these last couple of pages wouldve thought i was lying about the excellent moderation.

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: Well, common respect didn't have long to live in this thread since we started replying "Bollocks" "That's complete bollocks" etc etc etc in reply to each others post, just because somebody else just happens to think differently (and sorry Anji, but I personally find yawning at what people have to say offensive, perhaps it's just me :shrug: ).

Since coming online today, the volume of insult and disrespect has reached a level where I thought it best to lock the thread and let people say their bit by voting in the poll.

Unfortunatly, it isn't possible to have a poll still running when a thread is locked, so the thread has been left open with the hope that everyone will have the good sense to leave the posting alone.


This thread has been taken FAR too personally.
It's a debate on a forum, nothing more.
What is the point of a forum where adults can not hold an open debate without resorting to mockery of other people's ideas.

I think this thread has run it's course.


Thread, and poll :lock:

[AndyK]

Having finally stopped sneezing long enough to focus on the screen, this thread has been tidied somewhat. Unfortunately, even the mods get ill sometimes ;-)

As a general reminder to everyone if you see a post that you think is out of order then please, use the "report post" link on the post in question and someone will deal with it.

Normal service can now be resumed :))

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: Well, in an epic bit of timing, it looks like Andy and I have posted at the same time, and he has now gone offline :lmao:

I'm happy to defere to Andy on this one and reopen the thread, but again I would like to point out that this is a discussion on a forum, nothing more important than that.
No matter what side of the debate you're on, things should not be taken personally, and things should not be posted in reply that are personally abusive or offensive.

If anybody has anything left to say (and I think it's ALL been said here) please post it in a respectful manner which is neither insulting nor ridiculing what others have to say.

Thread reopened.

[duke knooby]

In my local pub I have to pay an average of £1.89 for a pint of Budweiser

:shock: thats very cheap... 3 quid a pint last night

[Deb]

:twisted: Why?

I'm merely pointing out the simple truth that if something bugs you, you should stop reading it.

Forum members are not required to read and comment on every thread, only on the ones they choose too, so if you find a thread that you find boring/annoying/irritating, you don't have to read it.
Just leave it alone.



Now thats fair enough, but that isn't what you said in the original post.

You said: If you are getting annoyed, frustrated, or bored with a thread, it is your own fault for reading it in the first place.

I find that offensive coming from a mod.

Thank you for reopening the thread Andy.

[The Flying Mouse]

You said: If you are getting annoyed, frustrated, or bored with a thread, it is your own fault for reading it in the first place.


:twisted: What I meant to say was If you are getting annoyed, frustrated, or bored with a thread, it is your own fault for continuing to read it in the first place.

Still, you have my most humble apologies for mixing up three words in a sentence.


I've already apologized for that small error once, this post makes it twice (two out of three ain't bad), but i'll continue to apologize a third time if it means that much.




Thank you for reopening the thread Andy.

Actually, Andy didn't lock or reopen the thread.

Andy was in the act of posting as I posted and locked the thread.

Andy then went offline without knowing the thread was locked.

Choosing to concur with Andy in his absence, I decided to reopen the thread, so if you wish to say thanks for reopening the thread, you're more than welcome :mrgreen:



Now can this thread go back on topic in the near future please folks?

[Deb]

OK, Thank you for reopening it.

And thank you Andy for tidying it rather than locking it

[Pudding]

basically that's true, but you forget that you do not only pay for the drink itself, but for the oportunity to spend the time in the pub with your friends, etc.

I don't need an opportunity to spend time with friends, they can come to my house anytime and vice versa. That said, I am going to the pub on Friday because the landlord is a friend and I can get cheaper beer :D

Pud :twisted:

[djfierce]

You dont want lets say 15 friends staying half the night at your house, totally pissed, probably smashing some dishes and wracking the toilet.



<<<books a hotel for RJ :p

[Pudding]

I'm merely pointing out the simple truth that if something bugs you, you should stop reading it.

Forum members are not required to read and comment on every thread, only on the ones they choose too, so if you find a thread that you find boring/annoying/irritating, you don't have to read it.
Just leave it alone.

That's a good point, so why do threads get locked so often then? because a thread would naturally run its course and eventually end up redundant. People would have either stopped reading it or posting in it and over-zealous moderators wouldn't feel the need to make themselves noticed at ever slight opportunity.

Just a thought.

Pud :twisted:

[Hypnobabe]

<<<books a hotel for RJ :p

:lmao:

[rabblerouser]

I can say that it is nicer to go out when there is eough money ( which is not every often).
BUT who will the govenernment pick on NEXT?
Pepole who drink.
Pepole who drive.
Fadt food places.
What next!

[Pudding]

It's not a case of the government picking on anyone. In society there's a certain freedom, but with freedom comes responsibility, unfortunately some people can't cope with responsibilty or think of others and how things affect them, that's why we have laws.

It's OK for people to bemoan the government and how they're infracting on their civil liberties, but what about the civil liberties of the people they're surrounded by, or the civil liberties of society at large?

I'm betting we all know some lazy-arsed git who drinks, smokes, bets on the gee-gee's almost daily, yet they sponge dole off the government weekly and refuses to work. Then they'll have some chronic illness because they're over-weight, have a disease due to smoking or have pickled their liver through drink. Then they'll clog up the health system but moan about the waiting list and how medical staff are under-paid and then expect a pension at the age of 65 without actually contributing much to paying taxes to help pay for all the things they've abused over the years.

So if the government decideds to make things a little harder for some, so it makes things a lot easier for most, then I'm all for it.

Pud :twisted:

[daveake]

I can say that it is nicer to go out when there is eough money ( which is not every often).
BUT who will the govenernment pick on NEXT?
Pepole who drink.
Pepole who drive.
Fadt food places.
What next!

They've done all those. It'll be people that can't spell next ...

Dave :twisted:

[AndyK]

They've done all those. It'll be people that can't spell next ...

Dave :twisted:

So it bloody should be :))

[Pudding]

I'm all for a law on bad spelling and one for fat women who wear lycra pants and crop-tops :barf:

Pud :twisted:

[Paul191]

Strangely enough I do remember Neils first post and I take offence to your reference that I would not.

Yes pub closures have accelerated but at nowhere near the rate that sales by supermarkets have increased. Unfortunately again it all comes down to people voting with their wallet. People who really like pubs will always go there but the vast majority of people will go where they can get the best value for money experience.



Yes, unfortunate but true. It's ashame it took the smoking ban before most of the general public realised that supermarkets are cheaper. I have to be honest if I'd ever planned a heavy night of drinking down the pub i'd usually have got a few cans down the local supermarket before-hand for that exact reason.

[Paul191]

It's not a case of the government picking on anyone. In society there's a certain freedom, but with freedom comes responsibility, unfortunately some people can't cope with responsibilty or think of others and how things affect them, that's why we have laws.

It's OK for people to bemoan the government and how they're infracting on their civil liberties, but what about the civil liberties of the people they're surrounded by, or the civil liberties of society at large?

I'm betting we all know some lazy-arsed git who drinks, smokes, bets on the gee-gee's almost daily, yet they sponge dole off the government weekly and refuses to work. Then they'll have some chronic illness because they're over-weight, have a disease due to smoking or have pickled their liver through drink. Then they'll clog up the health system but moan about the waiting list and how medical staff are under-paid and then expect a pension at the age of 65 without actually contributing much to paying taxes to help pay for all the things they've abused over the years.

So if the government decideds to make things a little harder for some, so it makes things a lot easier for most, then I'm all for it.

Pud :twisted:

Well said. I would like to add to it though. I'm not 'for' the government putting infringments on everyday law abinding people. My answer to the problems in your statement would be to get everyone out to work. That's a great solution because you don't get the fat lazy gits not contributing. The laws should be to get people motivated and i'm sorry but if that hard working civilian then want's to go to the pub and have a relaxing smoke, (Whether it's in a designated smoking area or not) they should be able too.

[Pudding]

Unfortunately the average hardworking civilian can't afford to go to the pub these days, not when they've got a mortgage, fuel and rising food bills to pay for. Plus they're working their grollies off paying taxes, so lazy dolite shits CAN afford to go to the pub

Pud :twisted:

[Paul191]

Unfortunately the average hardworking civilian can't afford to go to the pub these days, not when they've got a mortgage, fuel and rising food bills to pay for. Plus they're working their grollies off paying taxes, so lazy dolite shits CAN afford to go to the pub

Pud :twisted:

That's how the system works mate and that's why there is uproar in this country at the moment.

[Hypnobabe]

That's how the system works mate and that's why there is uproar in this country at the moment.

The same thing could be said for the smoking ban.

[samurai7]

the only problem I hqave with the ban is that I wasn't asked for my opininon before it was imposed. Neither was anyone I know. Democracy? My arse...