Smoking Ban Comes Into Force In Scotland

[JPaul]

It's a good thing and prevents smokers forcing their habit on members of the public and staff doing their job. Their choice to live is more important than another person's right to slowly commit suicide.

[Carcinus]

Surely death by passive smoking is murder not suicide.

[JPaul]

Surely death by passive smoking is murder not suicide.
I was talking about the smoker commiting suicide. Sorry if I didn't write that very well.

[Carcinus]

Gotcha.:P



.

[JPaul]

I think we'll let the listeners pass judgement on your poor manners.

Oh and my obvious class in the face of extreme provocation.

[Skillian]

A super rod but I'll bite.

There's no pub in Scotland that forces it's patrons to smoke. If you want to protect your staff and offer clean air to your customers, just make it a non-smoking pub. Problem solved.

The whole thing will be fun to watch tho, knowing we're gonna be going through it in England pretty soon.

[JPaul]

If you want to protect your staff and offer clean air to your customers, just make it a non-smoking pub. Problem solved.

No point mate, they're all no smoking pubs now.

Oh and restaurants, theatres, cinemas .... job's a good 'un.

[Skillian]

I know, I was just saying my idea would have been better. :P

[JPaul]

I know, I was just saying my idea would have been better. :P
There already were some non-smoking pubs, restaurants. This is more a statement from our Executive with regard to the health of the nation and people being able to go wherever they want without others forcing poison into their lungs.

[Skillian]

No-one was being forced to go to smokey pubs. If you don't want to smell smoke, go to a non-smoking bar.

As an aside, what will happens in nightclubs etc? I used to go clubbing for 5-6 hours at a time, and I can't see ticketed events just letting people in and out to smoke all the time.

[JPaul]

No-one was being forced to go to smokey pubs. If you don't want to smell smoke, go to a non-smoking bar.

As an aside, what will happens in nightclubs etc? I used to go clubbing for 5-6 hours at a time, and I can't see ticketed events just letting people in and out to smoke all the time.
This way the people who chose not to poison themselves and others get to go where they want. In fact everyone gets to go where they want. People just don't get to do something which has no saving virtues and don't get to pollute other people's lungs as well as their own.

Re Nightclubs etc. I believe they are in exactly the same position as everyone else. How they manage it is a matter for them.

[Skillian]

But I won't get to go out to the pub or a decent nightclub anymore. It sucks.

Personally I'm all for smoking bans in workplaces, restaurants, nearly all public places. But a pub is somewhere you can go to have a pint and a smoke after work and unwind. Not anymore.

I just don't see how you can't satisfy smokers and non-smokers by having smoking and non-smoking venues.

[Skillian]

No, no smoking in bars now, and soon, no drinking and no talking. Be careful, Scotland! You’re supposed to be the crazy state, the out there, wild ones, you know? In the future, everyone’s going to say, “Come down to the library, we’ll have a wild time, shall we? Don’t know where that fucking book is, mate, it could be anywhere! There’s a lot of ‘em about! :D

/obscure?

[JPaul]

But I won't get to go out to the pub or a decent nightclub anymore. It sucks.

Personally I'm all for smoking bans in workplaces, restaurants, nearly all public places. But a pub is somewhere you can go to have a pint and a smoke after work and unwind. Not anymore.

I just don't see how you can't satisfy smokers and non-smokers by having smoking and non-smoking venues.
Why should non-smokers be limited in where they are allowed to go. Their freedom of choice is more important than a smoker's freedom to smoke.

[JPaul]

No, no smoking in bars now, and soon, no drinking and no talking. Be careful, Scotland! You’re supposed to be the crazy state, the out there, wild ones, you know? In the future, everyone’s going to say, “Come down to the library, we’ll have a wild time, shall we? Don’t know where that fucking book is, mate, it could be anywhere! There’s a lot of ‘em about! :D

/obscure?
Eddie Izzard.

[MagicNakor]

There has been a ban on smoking in public areas (cinemas, restaurants, pubs, and so forth) here for years and years now. It truly is far more pleasant.

Regarding nightclubs and going in and out to have a smoke, here you end up getting a stamp on the back of your hand to prove you've paid up and whatnot. You can enter and leave as many times as you please. I imagine they'd do something similar over your way.

:shuriken:

[JPaul]

There has been a ban on smoking in public areas (cinemas, restaurants, pubs, and so forth) here for years and years now. It truly is far more pleasant.

Regarding nightclubs and going in and out to have a smoke, here you end up getting a stamp on the back of your hand to prove you've paid up and whatnot. You can enter and leave as many times as you please. I imagine they'd do something similar over your way.

:shuriken:
That makes sense.

[Skillian]

Lots of clubs I go to search everyone when they enter the premises. Having to do this every time someone goes out for a cig sounds like a bit of a logistical nightmare (as well as drugs/weapons issues), not to mention the problems with loads of people entering and exiting, and queues around entrances.

I think the most likely scenario in these places would be the ban is ignored - sounds good to me :)

edit: has the media come up with the word smokeasy (as in speakeasy) yet? If not, I'm claiming it now :D

[DrBeerMan]

Welcome to California!

[Busyman]

But I won't get to go out to the pub or a decent nightclub anymore. It sucks.

Personally I'm all for smoking bans in workplaces, restaurants, nearly all public places. But a pub is somewhere you can go to have a pint and a smoke after work and unwind. Not anymore.

I just don't see how you can't satisfy smokers and non-smokers by having smoking and non-smoking venues.
So a person can't have a bar smoking bar in Scotland...as in THE FOLKS HERE COME IN HERE TO SMOKE AND DRINK?

I'd think an owner would have the right to that say if a person doesn't like smoke, GTFO.:dry:

The owner would pay the price in the market. He/she wouldn't get non-smoker business.

A place specifically for the purpose and a sign on the door sounds good enough. A non-smoker comes in, he can't complain. Otherwise, he's just being a bitch. He'd be like a guy going into a nudey bar complaining about the nekkid ladies. GTFO then.:unsure:

[Barbarossa]

But I won't get to go out to the pub or a decent nightclub anymore. It sucks.

Personally I'm all for smoking bans in workplaces, restaurants, nearly all public places. But a pub is somewhere you can go to have a pint and a smoke after work and unwind. Not anymore.

I just don't see how you can't satisfy smokers and non-smokers by having smoking and non-smoking venues.
So a person can't have a bar smoking bar in Scotland...as in THE FOLKS HERE COME IN HERE TO SMOKE AND DRINK?

I'd think an owner would have the right to that say if a person doesn't like smoke, GTFO.:dry:

The owner would pay the price in the market. He/she wouldn't get non-smoker business.

A place specifically for the purpose and a sign on the door sounds good enough. A non-smoker comes in, he can't complain. Otherwise, he's just being a bitch. He'd be like a guy going into a nudey bar complaining about the nekkid ladies. GTFO then.:unsure:

The law is also in place to protect the people who work in clubs and bars. People have a right not to be forced to endure passive smoking in the workplace.

It's nothing like your analogy about a bloke complaining about seeing naked women. You can't die from looking at naked women. You can die from passive smoking. :blink:

[Skillian]

If it's a bar that allows smoking (maybe with a sign saying Beware: Dirty smokers inside) then neither staff or customers are being "forced" to breathe smoke.

The analogy is fine - you don't like naked women, you don't go to a strip club. As consumers we make these kinds of choices every day.

[Barbarossa]

If it's a bar that allows smoking (maybe with a sign saying Beware: Dirty smokers inside) then neither staff or customers are being "forced" to breathe smoke.

It's very hard for bar-staff to serve drinks from outside the pub.

[Skillian]

And illegal, natch.

What I'm saying is that they've chosen to work there, just like the girls in the strip club aren't being forced to take off their clothes. It is a career choice.

[Barbarossa]

Working behind a bar is a career choice? :blink:

Don't think so. Usually, someone does it because they desperately need the money. I suppose, if you want to keep this wacky analogy, it's similar to the strippers, except they get paid alot more.

All the strippers really need to worry about is maybe catching a bit of a chill while at work, whereas the bar-staff need to worry about the possibility of throat-cancer, because apparently that's an acceptable occupational hazard for bar staff in your world :frusty:

Bring on the ban in England too.

[Skillian]

What about the Muslims and Mormons who are forced to sell alcohol when working in these bars? Ban alcohol now!

[Barbarossa]

The trap you're trying to set for me is that you think I'm going to say "But they wouldn't choose to work there", from which you will counter that the same should be true for non-smokers.

However, I think it would be OK for a Muslim to work behind a bar, so long as you don't force them have a drink! ;)

[Skillian]

http://homepage.mac.com/jaffa/wolverine_its_a_trap.jpg

:D

It's definitely not OK for Muslims to work serving alcohol, so they choose not to work there if it is offensive to them.

Anyway, I've already lost this argument - the ban comes into force next year here. Guess I should start to appreciate the taste of canned beer instead of draft (draught?).

[Barbarossa]

:lol:

You could always try quitting smoking? :whistling:

Or at least, waiting until you're out in the open air. I'm thinking pub crawls are going to be even more common than they were before...

[Skillian]

You could always try quitting smoking? :whistling:.

Heh, yeah that's true. But it's my perverse nature. If the government want to force me to quit, I'm gonna start smoking two packs a day instead of one - that'll show 'em. :lol:

[Biggles]

I have to admit to being slightly surprised by the "civil liberties" argument in response to curtailing smoking in enclosed public spaces. Smoking has banned on buses, planes and trains for years. Most restaurants prefer if smoking is done in the bar or side room rather than the main restaurant.

Consequently, the extension to bars was hardly a huge step. Only about 27% of the adult population smoke. Often I have been in bars and been surprised how smokey just a handful of smokers can make the place.

Civil Liberties are important but they cut both ways. Non smokers should also have the right not to smell like an ashtray after being in the pub. My local has erected a rather pleasant gazebo in the garden for smokers to retire to with their drink if they wish a puff. This would seem a reasonable compromise to me. Only a chain smoker would feel hard done to.

[Skillian]

Non smokers should also have the right not to smell like an ashtray after being in the pub.

Then have non-smoking pubs. Or rather a have a few places that do allow smoking. Sorry to keep repeating myself but I don't see how that isn't the most sensible solution.

Just because you don't want to smell smoke, doesn't mean that I shouldn't either in a building 2 miles away.

[Biggles]

Perhaps the old Victorian "smoking rooms" will reappear - although I do not know how that would sit with the law. Also, a couple of smokers at work were not too happy with the idea of a smoking only pub, they thought the air might be a bit noxious - even for them.

[Skillian]

Perhaps they will - though they will certainly be illegal.

I'm probably being a bit obnoxious in this thread, but it's such a shame for me that watching the football in a pub with a pint and a cigarette, which has been a staple for me for the last 10 years, has suddenly been made illegal.

I always figured it would happen sometime in my lifetime, but it kinda took me by surprise.

[JPaul]

I have to admit to being slightly surprised by the "civil liberties" argument in response to curtailing smoking in enclosed public spaces. Smoking has banned on buses, planes and trains for years. Most restaurants prefer if smoking is done in the bar or side room rather than the main restaurant.

Consequently, the extension to bars was hardly a huge step. Only about 27% of the adult population smoke. Often I have been in bars and been surprised how smokey just a handful of smokers can make the place.

Civil Liberties are important but they cut both ways. Non smokers should also have the right not to smell like an ashtray after being in the pub. My local has erected a rather pleasant gazebo in the garden for smokers to retire to with their drink if they wish a puff. This would seem a reasonable compromise to me. Only a chain smoker would feel hard done to.

I agree and have said it often, here and elsewhere. My right to go wherever I want > the right of someone to poison themselves and others.

In Ireland I believe it is quite common to have these gazebos of which you speak.

Are you getting someone to come to your work and tell the smokers how far away from the front door they need to stand, to comply with the law. That's not a joke btw chaps.

[JPaul]

Perhaps the old Victorian "smoking rooms" will reappear - although I do not know how that would sit with the law.

I s'pose that depends on the definition of Public Place they used.

[Skillian]

I agree and have said it often, here and elsewhere. My right to go wherever I want > the right of someone to poison themselves and others.

So if I opened a bar on my street that allowed smoking you would see that as violating your rights to go where you want.

I can't see that logic clearly.

[JPaul]

‘NO-SMOKING PREMISES’ (as listed in Schedule 1 to the Regulations)

Those premises which fall within the scope of the legislation, having been classed as ‘no-smoking premises’, are:

1. Restaurants.
2. Bars and public houses.
3. Shops and shopping centres.
4. Hotels.
5. Libraries, archives, museums and galleries.
6. Cinemas, concert halls, theatres, bingo halls, gaming and amusement arcades, casinos, dance halls,
discotheques and other premises used for the entertainment of members of the public.
7. Premises used as a broadcasting studio or film studio or for the recordingof a performance with
a view to its use in a programme service or in a film intended for public exhibition.
8. Halls and any other premises used for the assembly of members of the public for social or
recreational purposes.
9. Conference centres, public halls and exhibition halls.
10. Public toilets.
11. Club premises.
12. Offices, factories and other premises that are non-domestic premises in which one or more
persons work.
13. Offshore installations.
14. Educational institution premises.
15. Premises providing care home services, sheltered housing or secure accommodation services
and premises that are non-domestic premises which provide offender accommodation services.
16. Hospitals, hospices, psychiatric hospitals, psychiatric units and health care premises.
17. Crèches, day nurseries, day centres and other premises used for the day care of children or adults.
18. Premises used for, or in connection with, public worship or religious instruction, or the social or
recreational activities of a religious body.
19. Sports centres.
20. Airport passenger terminals and any other public transportation facilities.
21. Public transportation vehicles.
22. Vehicles which one or more persons use for work.
23. Public telephone kiosks.


EXEMPTIONS (as listed in Schedule 2 to the Regulations)

Those premises (or parts of premises) which are exempt from the legislation are:

1. Residential accommodation.
2. Designated rooms in adult care homes.
3. Adult hospices.
4. Designated rooms in psychiatric hospitals and psychiatric units.
5. Designated hotel bedrooms.
6. Detention or interview rooms which are designated rooms.
7. Designated rooms in offshore installations.
8. Private vehicles.

[JPaul]

I agree and have said it often, here and elsewhere. My right to go wherever I want > the right of someone to poison themselves and others.

So if I opened a bar on my street that allowed smoking you would see that as violating your rights to go where you want.

I can't see that logic clearly.
I posted my last before I read this, so don't take it as a reply to your question.

Edit - You couldn't because you wouldn't get a licence to do it. Well at least not in Scotland.

[Skillian]

So did anyone go the pub in Scotland this weekend?

How was it compared to life before the ban?

[JPaul]

I never go to pubs in Scotland.

Well I do, strictly speaking. However that's just Mrs JP and I going for a bite to eat and they're only really pubs in name. More licenced restaurants made to look like pubs.

[Busyman]

So a person can't have a bar smoking bar in Scotland...as in THE FOLKS HERE COME IN HERE TO SMOKE AND DRINK?

I'd think an owner would have the right to that say if a person doesn't like smoke, GTFO.:dry:

The owner would pay the price in the market. He/she wouldn't get non-smoker business.

A place specifically for the purpose and a sign on the door sounds good enough. A non-smoker comes in, he can't complain. Otherwise, he's just being a bitch. He'd be like a guy going into a nudey bar complaining about the nekkid ladies. GTFO then.:unsure:

The law is also in place to protect the people who work in clubs and bars. People have a right not to be forced to endure passive smoking in the workplace.

It's nothing like your analogy about a bloke complaining about seeing naked women. You can't die from looking at naked women. You can die from passive smoking. :blink:
To your first, good point. To your second, it was a perfect analogy so why the :blink: like you haven't a clue?:ermm:

You have to look at idea that's being compared and not at how they are different.

They both are instances of going into an area where you don't feel comfortable. The fact that one is unhealthy for your matters not if you went in knowing it.

[JPaul]

The law is also in place to protect the people who work in clubs and bars. People have a right not to be forced to endure passive smoking in the workplace.

It's nothing like your analogy about a bloke complaining about seeing naked women. You can't die from looking at naked women. You can die from passive smoking. :blink:
To your first, good point. To your second, it was a perfect analogy so why the :blink: like you haven't a clue?:ermm:

You have to look at idea that's being compared and not at how they are different.

They both are instances of going into an area where you don't feel comfortable. The fact that one is unhealthy for your matters not if you went in knowing it.
:lol:

Sadly he doesn't actually see the difference.

[lynx]

My right to go wherever I wantThis right is written down where, exactly?

In Engalnd you certainly don't have an automatic right of entry into a public bar, the person in charge can refuse you admission without giving any reason. I imagine the same is true in Scotland.

[sArA]

Talking to my local pub landlord the other day, he reckons over half his customers are smokers and a significant number are old blokes who like a pint and a fag whilst playing dominoes (type thing) and who will not adapt well to going outside in the wind and the rain.

Whilst I agree with many of the non-smoking arguments I still find myself pissed off that there was no scope for licencing premises for smoking or something similar. Surely if only a few premises in an area were licenced in this way, bar staff would be left with a huge choice of which type of premises to work in. Besides, many bar staff smoke and so would not mind either way anyway.

[Mr JP Fugley]

My right to go wherever I wantThis right is written down where, exactly?

In Engalnd you certainly don't have an automatic right of entry into a public bar, the person in charge can refuse you admission without giving any reason. I imagine the same is true in Scotland.

Indeed, however I don't normally write down evey possible condition when making a statement, certainly not on an internet forum. "My right to go wherever I want, subject to the normal condition that I may be banned from a set of premises, or that the Publican or his employees may refuse me entry without having to give me a reason for taking this stance" whilst more thorough is just a bit unwieldy. I had assumed that most people would take the normal rules as being read.

Sorry if the economy of words led to a misunderstanding.

[Seedler]

...

The law's stupid, because now people will just illegally trafick cigs just like drugs.

[lynx]

This right is written down where, exactly?

In Engalnd you certainly don't have an automatic right of entry into a public bar, the person in charge can refuse you admission without giving any reason. I imagine the same is true in Scotland.

Indeed, however I don't normally write down evey possible condition when making a statement, certainly not on an internet forum. "My right to go wherever I want, subject to the normal condition that I may be banned from a set of premises, or that the Publican or his employees may refuse me entry without having to give me a reason for taking this stance" whilst more thorough is just a bit unwieldy. I had assumed that most people would take the normal rules as being read.

Sorry if the economy of words led to a misunderstanding.
Likewise, I didn't expand the full range of possibilities of where you don't have the right to go.

Your claim:
"My right to go wherever I want > the right of someone to poison themselves and others. "

I've not seen anyone claiming a "right to poison themselves or others" either, so I assume you made that up.

So when it comes down to it, what you are really saying is that your non-existent right to go wherever you want > the non-existent right of someone to poison themselves and others.

Doesn't actually make a whole lot of sense does it.

[JPaul]

Indeed, however I don't normally write down evey possible condition when making a statement, certainly not on an internet forum. "My right to go wherever I want, subject to the normal condition that I may be banned from a set of premises, or that the Publican or his employees may refuse me entry without having to give me a reason for taking this stance" whilst more thorough is just a bit unwieldy. I had assumed that most people would take the normal rules as being read.

Sorry if the economy of words led to a misunderstanding.
Likewise, I didn't expand the full range of possibilities of where you don't have the right to go.

Your claim:
"My right to go wherever I want > the right of someone to poison themselves and others. "

I've not seen anyone claiming a "right to poison themselves or others" either, so I assume you made that up.

So when it comes down to it, what you are really saying is that your non-existent right to go wherever you want > the non-existent right of someone to poison themselves and others.

Doesn't actually make a whole lot of sense does it.

I would go further, you make absolutely no sense at all.

Smoking cigarettes is poisoning yourself and other people who inhale your smoke. To claim you have a right to smoke in public is to claim you have a right to produce poisonous substances and inhale them yourself, in addition to putting them into the air which other people breathe.

We decided that to do it in enclosed spaces is not acceptable behaviour. Like I said, I think that's a good thing. You disagree, no problem.

[lynx]

Likewise, I didn't expand the full range of possibilities of where you don't have the right to go.

Your claim:
"My right to go wherever I want > the right of someone to poison themselves and others. "

I've not seen anyone claiming a "right to poison themselves or others" either, so I assume you made that up.

So when it comes down to it, what you are really saying is that your non-existent right to go wherever you want > the non-existent right of someone to poison themselves and others.

Doesn't actually make a whole lot of sense does it.

I would go further, you make absolutely no sense at all.

Smoking cigarettes is poisoning yourself and other people who inhale your smoke. To claim you have a right to smoke in public is to claim you have a right to produce poisonous substances and inhale them yourself, in addition to putting them into the air which other people breathe.

We decided that to do it in enclosed spaces is not acceptable behaviour. Like I said, I think that's a good thing. You disagree, no problem.Let's clear one or two things up.

A smoker (not me, I don't smoke) does have a right to inhale smoke, even if you want to try to muddy the waters with your emotive "poisonous substances". The law hasn't changed that, only where they can do it.

If a smoker (not me, I don't smoke) were to claim that they should be able to force others to enter areas where their presence is otherwise purely optional, you would be correct. Obviously this precludes most of the areas on your list. However, I haven't met a single one who has claimed that. If you have, please produce some evidence.

The issue regarding other premises (largely bars and public houses) could have easily accomodated all parties. Strict enforcement of the restriction of smoking to designated areas (away from the bar) with adequate ventilation such that smoke cannot drift into non-smoking areas could have been introduced. Any premises unable to comply would simply have to become completely non-smoking. Only a few who wished to show that they can bully the minority would have objected. However, those in power have no time for minorities, and will trample roughshod over the rights of the owners of such premises.

Never mind though, cider is increasingly used by those of an unruly nature as a means of getting drunk quickly. As this grows, so will calls for it to be banned. Perhaps you should think of finding another tipple.

[JPaul]

Never mind though, cider is increasingly used by those of an unruly nature as a means of getting drunk quickly. As this grows, so will calls for it to be banned. Perhaps you should think of finding another tipple.
What pray tell does that relate to.

Could another mod please ask lynx to stay on topic in the Drawing Room and not post thinly veiled personal abuse. I would very much appreciate it. I was placed on moderation for asking an obviously jocular question "do you have an unfeasibly small penis".

I would appreciate it if the rules also counted for mods.

Thanks in advance.

Edit - Oh wait, he's trolling. I'm supposed to react to that. :lol:

[lynx]

I was implying that something you like could just as easily get banned, and was therefore completely on topic.

Still, never let it be said that you resort to "smear a mod" tactics when you haven't got a valid answer.

[JPaul]

I've already answered and don't intend getting involved in a circular non-argument. I really can't be bothered.

"Smear a mod":lol:

Hands up anyone who doesn't think
Never mind though, cider is increasingly used by those of an unruly nature as a means of getting drunk quickly. wasn't intended as a cheap pop.

It's you who's trying to muddy the waters, because you know you are in the wrong and haven't the decency to just admit it.

As a mod you had a cheap dig at a member, in The Drawing Room. I don't suppose anything will get done about it, but don't try to kid on it didn't happen.

Here, I'll say my mantra again. The posts are all there for people to read and make up their own mind.

[lynx]

As a mod you had a cheap dig at a member, in The Drawing Room. I don't suppose anything will get done about it, but don't try to kid on it didn't happen.In your mind only.

But here's the thing. You often have a dig at other members, even in The Drawing Room. But you don't think mods can have a go too, even though they are members too.

Talk about dual standards. :dry:

[JPaul]

As a mod you had a cheap dig at a member, in The Drawing Room. I don't suppose anything will get done about it, but don't try to kid on it didn't happen.In your mind only.

I refer you to my post of some moments ago. Other people read the posts, they can make up their own minds about who said what to whom.

Re the rest. Whatever. You're above the rules, so say what you want.

[zedaxax]

so.. i turn to this topic to reply in my sencerist with a great statement
clik on last reply...
only to find it is on incestious bitching about leadership
i retrieve my non post

[manker]

Talk about dual standards. :dry:That's a fecking laugh!

You insult JP, JP insults you back. He gets put on moderation, you don't.

You can't have it both ways.

No, sorry, you can have it both ways because you're a moderator. Just don't try to pretend it's otherwise.

[Busyman]

Never mind though, cider is increasingly used by those of an unruly nature as a means of getting drunk quickly. As this grows, so will calls for it to be banned. Perhaps you should think of finding another tipple.

This is in no way an insult and it is not trolling.:dry: