Wales stubs out smoking in public places

[vidcc]

I doesn't matter if you think membership is too easy, the point is the person has to decide if they wish to join so they can enter and expose themself to the smoke. As long as they are made fully aware that the smoke is there I see no problem. A private club is a private club no matter how lax gaining membership is. If it would make you any happier and allow others to decide for themselves to inhale second hand smoke I would have no problem if the rules for membership for such clubs were officially tightened.

My meters are on outside walls. They are locked but can be accessed by the reader. Do you have to let them into your house.

My house has them outside, a couple of the properties I own in the UK have them inside. I'm guessing that's not unique.

[JPaul]

You must see that it defeats the purpose of the ban (which you support) if every establishment can simply ignore it.

[vidcc]

You must see that it defeats the purpose of the ban (which you support) if every establishment can simply ignore it.

You are trying to phrase it differently to how I see it. I'm not saying every establishment can ignore it. Those that wish to have open doors have to abide by the rule. I am for the ban in places that give open access to the general public. I do not include private clubs in this group.
Those that don't wish to have open doors, which you or I as non smokers or smokers would be prohibited from entering unless we decide to join and accept their terms and conditions of membership regarding smoking, should be allowed to apply for an exemption. we would be making that choice for ourselves with open (if a little bit watery from the smoke) eyes.

As I said if it makes you happier I would have no problem if such clubs had to abide by stricter membership rules.

If this means that every establishment in existence wishes to become a private club, so be it. They are not obligated to run open houses.

[JPaul]

If this means that every establishment in existence wishes to become a private club, so be it. They are not obligated to run open houses.

So you are happy that every pub and restaurant becomes a "private club", fine.

That's why they won't give exemptions to private clubs, it would defeat the purpose of the ban (which you support).

[vidcc]

If this means that every establishment in existence wishes to become a private club, so be it. They are not obligated to run open houses.

So you are happy that every pub and restaurant becomes a "private club", fine.

That's why they won't give exemptions to private clubs, it would defeat the purpose of the ban (which you support).

Obviously yes. But if they want my and probably (especially with restaurants) most peoples custom they would be making a bad business decision in doing so.

They are not providing an essential service here, they are trying to make money. Very few establishments survive purely on regular customers.

The purpose of the ban is to protect people in open public areas from second hand smoke. A private club is not an open public area.

It seems the point of the ban as you see it is defeated buy allowing people to smoke in their own homes.

Would you support a ban on drinking in public places (this would include bars and just for this private bars) because many people that haven't touched a drop have died because of the actions of drinkers due to the effect alcohol has on the drinker.

[JPaul]

Do you understand that I'm saying that every establishment could become a "private club". However they really wouldn't be a "private club" they would let anyone join. At short notice for a nominal fee.
As such the ban would become meaningless, if private clubs were given an exemption.
Do you understand that people don't have to be regulars to be members.
Can you see beyond the words "private club" and see that people would abuse the idea.
Do you understand that such an exemption would make the ban pointless.

[Busyman™]

That's what I was saying earlier.

Let the market decide. If every bar became a private smoking bar and business went well then it obviously means that enough smokers and, most likely, non-smokers didn't mind the smoke.

I don't smoke but don't mind going into bars that have smoking. So I could be one of folks in a smoking bar but am a non-smoker.

At the same time, a normal bar might be packed in the same area.

A private bar doesn't circumvent the ban. It's private so it shouldn't even be part of the ban.

The way GayPaul puts it, bars are obligated to serve to serve liquor to everyone cuz it's custom.

Also as a technician, I have refused to work in certain establishments under many conditions.

Do you understand that I'm saying that every establishment could become a "private club". However they really wouldn't be a "private club" they would let anyone join. At short notice for a nominal fee.
As such the ban would become meaningless, if private clubs were given an exemption.
Do you understand that people don't have to be regulars to be members.
Can you see beyond the words "private club" and see that people would abuse the idea.
Do you understand that such an exemption would make the ban pointless.

Do you understand that the ban is for public places?

A private club should not be included. It is private.

Actually the private club would not let anyone join. They would let people join that agree to the terms of membership.

One could say that anyone could get a credit card but that's simply not true.

[vidcc]

Do you understand that I'm saying that every establishment could become a "private club". However they really wouldn't be a "private club" they would let anyone join. At short notice for a nominal fee.
As such the ban would become meaningless, if private clubs were given an exemption.
Do you understand that people don't have to be regulars to be members.
Can you see beyond the words "private club" and see that people would abuse the idea.
Do you understand that such an exemption would make the ban pointless.

I understand what you are saying I just disagree. Do you understand that disagreeing is not the same as failing to understand?

What is it you object to about private clubs-
That they don't allow anyone to join or that they allow anyone to join.

So what if the idea is abused. nobody will be forced to join those clubs

[JPaul]

My point is, if you give exemptions to "private clubs" then they will all become "private clubs", however the membership rules will be nominal and they will allow anyone in. They will effectively be open to the public.

The ban will then be meaningless. Which is contrary to the wishes of the democratically elected governments of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England.

I can't really make that any clearer. My bad.

[vidcc]

My point is, if you give exemptions to "private clubs" then they will all become "private clubs", however the membership rules will be nominal and they will allow anyone in. They will effectively be open to the public.
The ban will then be meaningless. Which is contrary to the wishes of the democratically elected governments of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England.
I can't really make that any clearer. My bad.

Well then that's the choice of the people that decide to become members. I agree with the ban in open public places which is where the protection is supposed to be applied. If a pub or restaurant have an open door policy I should expect to be able to walk in there and not have my lungs subjected to someones second hand smoke. I do not expect to enjoy the same protection in a club where I have to become a member (however easy that is) and it clearly states in it's terms that smoking is permitted. This is because I do not feel that a private club that requires me to join to enter (no matter how many of them exist) meets the criteria of an open public place, I'm sorry I can't be any clearer on this little point....my bad.

Can you see the meaningless of banning smoking in public places and not allowing private smoking clubs where non smoker do not have the automatic right to enter while not actually banning smoking altogether