Smoking in Scotland

Scotsman


I have been following the smoking ban in certain places in Scotland. What are the view and concerns of people in Scotland, and England about this?

I am a sometimes smoker that doesn't smoke in public because of the secondhand smoke issue.

Do you think this will have any effect on the pubs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Everose

Scotsman


I have been following the smoking ban in certain places in Scotland. What are the view and concerns of people in Scotland, and England about this?

I am a sometimes smoker that doesn't smoke in public because of the secondhand smoke issue.

Do you think this will have any effect on the pubs?

---

As someone who has given up smoking I am fairly content with the proposals. My local actually has two rooms, one of which is non-smoking. Unforunately the TVs to watch the Rugby and Football are in the other. :dry:

There may be some drop off in drinking, but then given the alcohol consumption in Scotland this might not be an entirely bad thing.

I really don't like people lighting up in restaurants as most are not large enough to effectively segregate. Most other public places, offices, galleries, shops etc., are already non-smoking so it shouldn't make much difference.

I think if pubs could effectively segregate and have two rooms - a smokers bar and a non-smokers bar then that should suffice. The bill is in an early stage and is not clear where it will go - but the Irish example looks like being the template and that appears to have had little impact on the bar trade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

As someone who has given up smoking I am fairly content with the proposals. My local actually has two rooms, one of which is non-smoking. Unforunately the TVs to watch the Rugby and Football are in the other. :dry:

There may be some drop off in drinking, but then given the alcohol consumption in Scotland this might not be an entirely bad thing.

I really don't like people lighting up in restaurants as most are not large enough to effectively segregate. Most other public places, offices, galleries, shops etc., are already non-smoking so it shouldn't make much difference.

I think if pubs could effectively segregate and have two rooms - a smokers bar and a non-smokers bar then that should suffice. The bill is in an early stage and is not clear where it will go - but the Irish example looks like being the template and that appears to have had little impact on the bar trade.

---

**********************************************************

I would think it would be financially hard for the pubs to have two sections, but that is the way a lot of restaurants are here. Some of the restaurants in my state ban smoking until after the dinner is served and families have left and then allow it. Others have one big room, which has a smoking section in it. I don't think this usually protects non smokers as much as they like to think. You would have to install a big exhaust fan over the smokers for it not to. ;)

What about the price of a pack of cigarettes in Scotland? $2.60 to almost $4.00 here. And the state is planning to tax them even further......with tax being used to help finance state health plans.

I think a packet of 20 costs about £4.00 these days - which is about $7.25

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

I think a packet of 20 costs about £4.00 these days - which is about $7.25

---

:ohmy: Wow. Is there a heavy tax on them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Everose

I would think it would be financially hard for the pubs to have two sections,

What about the price of a pack of cigarettes in Scotland? $2.60 to almost $4.00 here. And the state is planning to tax them even further......with tax being used to help finance state health plans.

---

Many British pubs have 2 bars already, one for the "lads" and one for the "gentlemen".... this i noticed is changing with modernisation... so the cost of seperate bars would be not too significant.

the price i am not sure of being a non smoker but i believe it is close to $10 at todays exchange rate for a pack of 20..wg=hen we have friends over from the uk they can't believe how cheap it is to smoke here

i support the ban in public places fully because it isn't a personal habit of the smoker alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Everose

:ohmy: Wow. Is there a heavy tax on them?

---

Absolutely enormous.

It is of course purely in the interests of encouraging the smokers to give up (the fact that demand for an addictive product is inelastic has not even been noticed at the Treasury :whistling )

Edit: saw Vidcc's post and checked. I am out of date, the average is about $8.50 rising to about $10.00 for the more expensive brands.


Likewise, we pay a large tax on petrol to encourage ust to use more economical cars - currently about $7.00 a gallon (although our gallons are slightly larger). This works to some extent - I am very fond of my 42 miles to the gallon car :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Many British pubs have 2 bars already, one for the "lads" and one for the "gentlemen".... this i noticed is changing with modernisation... so the cost of seperate bars would be not too significant.

the price i am not sure of being a non smoker but i believe it is close to $10 at todays exchange rate for a pack of 20

i support the ban in public places fully because it isn't a personal habit of the smoker alone.

---

I agree with you Vidcc. I am a smoker myself, but don't go into smoking sections because it is too smokey in there. I think it ruins the meals of people who don't smoke. Mostly I smoke on my own porch or deck because I really don't like much of it in my house.

Don't like it in my own lungs, either.....I hope to toss them soon. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Absolutely enormous.

It is of course purely in the interests of encouraging the smokers to give up (the fact that demand for an addictive product is inelastic has not even been noticed at the Treasury :whistling )


Likewise, we pay a large tax on petrol to encourage ust to use more economical cars - currently about $7.00 a gallon (although our gallons are slightly larger). This works to some extent - I am very fond of my 42 miles to the gallon car :)

---

And people are complaining here because our petrol is $1.90 a gallon, with a lot of road tax thrown in. My little car gets 54 miles to the gallon. In my city we have an alcohol plant which produces ethanol with outdated crop seed, such as corn, milo, wheat.....really any kind of grain. They do a lot of business, and are enlarging every day. I would like to see more of this done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

Good idea Everose. It is time to toss the fags, you know it makes sense.

---

:shifty:

Not quite sure how that translates having crossed teh pond.

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

I think a packet of 20 costs about £4.00 these days - which is about $7.25

---

Closer to £5

£4.81 for Lambert and Butler

Which is why i rarely buy them over the counter now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

It is time to toss the fags.

---

not sure if you realise just how funny that is in the USA :lol:

But as this isn't the lounge i shall not go further :lol:

:huh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

:naughty:

Carry on. (Which is quite appropriate}

We were discussing the bannage of smoking in public places in Scotland. A side helping of the high rates of Excise Duty in the UK and reason for such. Given Paul's comment I suspect we may have drifted towards the harmonization of Duty Rates across the European Trade Area.

---

Certainly, I took RF's comments to suggest that he was in the vanguard of the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

Good idea Everose. It is time to toss the fags, you know it makes sense.

---

Thank you Mr. Fugley. I do know, as I have quit often and always feel better after awhile. And I appreciate your pointing this out to me, it means even more because you have been there and know the psychological and physical addiction. Tis said it is harder than heroin to give up. No excuse though, as I have quit before. Tis just the pits!!!!! :D

Duty free stuff is a lifesaver, luckily my parents normally go away 2 or 3 times a year and bring me stuff back.

Last year I didn't have to buy any from a shop :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Closer to £5

£4.81 for Lambert and Butler

Which is why i rarely buy them over the counter now.

---

Uhm.....I understand what you are saying....parcel post works for me. :blushing:

I gave up 4 years ago, so I've no personal axe to grind. I fully support a ban on smoking in totally public places. But restaurants and public houses are not that. They are neither owned nor subsidised by the state, yet the state demands the right to control what free citizens do with their property.

More than this, many of those who support these bans do not frequent the establishments they wish to control, that hardly seems fair. There has been no serious attempt at finding a compromise solution. It has been argued that public houses have not made any attempt in that direction either, but given the fact that threats of this sort of ban have been around for a while who would invest in equipment to extract smoke when they could find that within a short period of time there are no smokers anyway.

Is there any sane reason why, if the state is allowed to make some sort of restriction, they can't say that 50% (for example) of the "public" area must be smoke free. And when I say smoke free I don't just mean without smokers, I mean that smoke from smoking areas does not contaminate this area. Obviously it would also be necessary to be able to use major facilities (entry ways, bars, toilets etc) without entering a smoking area.

Private members clubs will not be affected by the proposed bans, because they are treated as an extension of a members home, therefore Human Rights legislation comes in to play. I can easily foresee a large increase in membership of such clubs, and even some public houses becoming private members clubs.

It amazes me that so many are willing to restrict the freedom of others with so little thought. What will be next? Alcohol? That does far more harm to non-participants than smoking. Do I hear the same calls for a ban on that from those who have been so vocal in this thread?

Lets take the smoking out of the pubs and put it in the houses. That way the kids will suffer from secondary smoking.:( Sounds like a bad idea too me.

Incidentally where did the 'large' public consultation on the subject take place? On the back of doctors prescriptions.:cool: So they were asking people who already had something medically wrong with them. Sounds like a good idea to me, if I wanted to get 'public' backing.

Before I am 'attacked'. I dont smoke. Nobody in the house smokes. I hate it when I visit someone who smokes, or they visit me. You have to get your clothes washed/aired afterwards.

Anyone driving their kids to the school in the morning puts more 'shit' into the atmosphere than the occupants of their whole street cause by smoking. But the government wont tackle that 'head on'. Too much tax involved. Just as they did not tackle smoking 50 years ago. Because then there was too much tax involved. They did know about the hazards of smoking 50 years ago. They were calling cigarettes 'cancer sticks' when I was at school.

Finally, how many people have now ignored the early warning about mobile phones? Another conveniently forgotten risk because everyone is now using these 'Pratt Sticks' as I call them.:(

Right that is my sermon for today. I hope you enjoy the rest of the week.:)

I agree with you Boab, however i have to say that 2 wrongs don't make a right and just because something else needs "fixing" and isn't being fixed doesn't excuse a different "bad thing". All those issues you raised should also be addressed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

I gave up 4 years ago, so I've no personal axe to grind. I fully support a ban on smoking in totally public places. But restaurants and public houses are not that. They are neither owned nor subsidised by the state, yet the state demands the right to control what free citizens do with their property.

More than this, many of those who support these bans do not frequent the establishments they wish to control, that hardly seems fair. There has been no serious attempt at finding a compromise solution. It has been argued that public houses have not made any attempt in that direction either, but given the fact that threats of this sort of ban have been around for a while who would invest in equipment to extract smoke when they could find that within a short period of time there are no smokers anyway.

Is there any sane reason why, if the state is allowed to make some sort of restriction, they can't say that 50% (for example) of the "public" area must be smoke free. And when I say smoke free I don't just mean without smokers, I mean that smoke from smoking areas does not contaminate this area. Obviously it would also be necessary to be able to use major facilities (entry ways, bars, toilets etc) without entering a smoking area.

Private members clubs will not be affected by the proposed bans, because they are treated as an extension of a members home, therefore Human Rights legislation comes in to play. I can easily foresee a large increase in membership of such clubs, and even some public houses becoming private members clubs.

It amazes me that so many are willing to restrict the freedom of others with so little thought. What will be next? Alcohol? That does far more harm to non-participants than smoking. Do I hear the same calls for a ban on that from those who have been so vocal in this thread?

---

I understand your view, Lynx, and many smokers in this country are very vigilant and vocal about this. I guess I feel guilty for smoking around others who do not smoke, so, as I said in my first post, I rarely smoke in a public place so the bans don't really effect me. I have a right to smoke, but I don't have a right to force others to do so also. Drinking, I feel, is done only to oneself, while smoking effects the physical bodies of others. imo I am aware that overdrinking all the time does affect other people, too.

I like to drink, but I do not pour it in your throat nor spill it on your clothing.

Smoking is an invasion of my space.

My clothes smell like crap today because I was out at a club last night. Are those smokers going to come clean my jacket?

If they could smoke, smokelessly then I wouldn't care. But I am fully in support of banning something that interferes with others.

It to me is an extension of civil rights. You can pursue happiness as you please, but your pursuit may not impinge upon the happiness or health of others.

Drinking responsibly bothers no one, smoking responsibly does.

I smoke but I don't drive, why should I not be allowed to smoke in a public place yet you are allowed to drive your car everywhere causing just as much if not more damage to me?

Hmmm. I am a smoker, and I fully back smoking bans in restaurants, though I wish I could smoke there anyway...however, no one should have to breathe in my smoke..that's my addiction, not theirs. Cigarette smoke does stink..we only smoke inone room of the house. Our target date to quit is in Jan. This past year, I stopped for three months. It's a nasty, dirty, unhealthy habit, and we have no right to endanger others health, regardless of the fact we ignore our own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanB

I smoke but I don't drive, why should I not be allowed to smoke in a public place yet you are allowed to drive your car everywhere causing just as much if not more damage to me?

---

I agree, but as i said before 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Should i be allowed to stab anyone on sight because other people use guns ?:no:

So, no compromises then.

You may recall that I did not say that everyone who drinks causes problems, and I was suggesting a solution whereby those who smoke do not cause problems for those who do not want to be affected by smoke.

So lets have no compromises all round, close all the bars so that the problem drinkers don't affect anyone, and automatically we get the smoking ban at the same time. A perfect solution. Anyone disagree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

So, no compromises then.

You may recall that I did not say that everyone who drinks causes problems, and I was suggesting a solution whereby those who smoke do not cause problems for those who do not want to be affected by smoke.

So lets have no compromises all round, close all the bars so that the problem drinkers don't affect anyone, and automatically we get the smoking ban at the same time. A perfect solution. Anyone disagree?

---

Yes, I disagree. I prefer, as you say, to have totally separate rooms, totally seperate ventilation. I know this would put a lot of small businesses out of business, though, due to the expense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanB

I smoke but I don't drive, why should I not be allowed to smoke in a public place yet you are allowed to drive your car everywhere causing just as much if not more damage to me?

---

I drive on roads, where cars are intended to operate. I don't drive on the sidewalk you walk on.

If you want to talk about pollution, that is part of the risk/benefit ratio of living in a community. Cars are one piece to this very large puzzle.

There is no risk/benefit scenario with smoking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Everose

Yes, I disagree. I prefer, as you say, to have totally separate rooms, totally seperate ventilation. I know this would put a lot of small businesses out of business, though, due to the expense.

---

Those that can't afford the expense still have the option of being totally non-smoking.

Of course, the truth about the "success" of the Irish experience has yet to be seen, the smokers who have to stand outside still have to experience it during winter. If the coming winter is as harsh as has been predicted, I can't see them being quite as accepting. Mind you, if it really is that bad they probably won't be able to get to the pub anyway. No, forget that last bit, they always find a way to get to the pub.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

So, no compromises then.

You may recall that I did not say that everyone who drinks causes problems, and I was suggesting a solution whereby those who smoke do not cause problems for those who do not want to be affected by smoke.

So lets have no compromises all round, close all the bars so that the problem drinkers don't affect anyone, and automatically we get the smoking ban at the same time. A perfect solution. Anyone disagree?

---

I am content with whatever solution leaves the air I breathe smoke free. If this can accommodate smokers then a compromise proposition should be considered. The Bill has a little way to go before it is law and I would presume it will follow the normal consultative phase.

As Rose said, though, the small free house may not be able to install whatever it takes to achieve a smoke free atmosphere for customers and staff.

Just 2 days ago I visited the hypnotist for the second time this year to give up the evil weed, last time I went for 6 months without smoking, this time I hope it is for good.

I am as biased as hell and make no apologies - I want a total ban on cigarettes. They do no-one any good apart from the manufacturers and depending on which statistics you look at, cost the treasury more in health care than they rake in thro' Excise Duty and V.A.T.

If they are in Newsagents winking at me - yes they do - while I buy a Newspaper and in my friends hands while I'm drinking in pubs then my personal battle will never be over. Ban them, ban then today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

So, no compromises then.

You may recall that I did not say that everyone who drinks causes problems, and I was suggesting a solution whereby those who smoke do not cause problems for those who do not want to be affected by smoke.

So lets have no compromises all round, close all the bars so that the problem drinkers don't affect anyone, and automatically we get the smoking ban at the same time. A perfect solution. Anyone disagree?

---

I see what you are saying lynx. I think that any establishment that wishes to create a "smoking" area that is completely separate from the "non-smoking" area, they should have that right.

Is that what you were complaining about? Instead of a flat ban, make all places smoke-free, but allow the option to create a smoking area?

I do not know the particulars of the original article as the link requires me to register for the full article.

I think compromise is usually a good way to approach something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

I drive on roads, where cars are intended to operate. I don't drive on the sidewalk you walk on.

If you want to talk about pollution, that is part of the risk/benefit ratio of living in a community. Cars are one piece to this very large puzzle.

There is no risk/benefit scenario with smoking.

---

Its got nothing to do with driving on the pavement :lol:

I breathe in exhasut fumes just as you would breathe in my second hand smoke. But because cars are a benefit to society it is okay for us to breathe in ?

Oh well, I don't live in Scotland and its still just being muttered about here


edit - manker that would probably be the best way to do it but of course we know they won't due to the large amount of taxes it brings in

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

There is no risk/benefit scenario with smoking.

---

And the risk/benefit scenario of alcohol is ???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanB

Its got nothing to do with driving on the pavement :lol:

I breathe in exhasut fumes just as you would breathe in my second hand smoke. But because cars are a benefit to society it is okay for us to breathe in ?

Oh well, I don't live in Scotland and its still just being muttered about here

---

Yes, it is.

You don't need to drive a car to experience the benefits of one. How do you think all that fresh produce gets to the city everyday?

Ironically, after you get hit by a car, a smoke belching ambulance may come to save your life. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

And the risk/benefit scenario of alcohol is ???

---

There is none, if handled responsibily. My drinking will never impact upon you in any way. If I am drunk, that is illegal in public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Just 2 days ago I visited the hypnotist for the second time this year to give up the evil weed, last time I went for 6 months without smoking, this time I hope it is for good.

I am as biased as hell and make no apologies - I want a total ban on cigarettes. They do no-one any good apart from the manufacturers and depending on which statistics you look at, cost the treasury more in health care than they rake in thro' Excise Duty and V.A.T.


If they are in Newsagents winking at me - yes they do - while I buy a Newspaper and in my friends hands while I'm drinking in pubs then my personal battle will never be over. Ban them, ban then today.

---

I think this is a different argument altogether. However, for many the same would apply to alcohol. But given that neither is likely to happen soon (I think someone tried the alcohol ban with stunning failure :whistling ) I can't see it has much bearing on this discussion.

Edit: just realised what time it is. I'm off for some alcohol and second-hand smoke. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I agree, but as i said before 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Should i be allowed to stab anyone on sight because other people use guns ?:no:

---

Vidcc,

Lets run the logic of this by Busyman to see if it makes sense. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

The point chaps is that smoking has no redeeming features, for the smoker or anyone else.

---

Makes me feel better... :P

Although i admit, if i actually managed to give it up at some point id feel better again ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Makes me feel better... :P

Although i admit, if i actually managed to give it up at some point id feel better again ;)

---

You would feel better because you would be frigging rich. All that money you would save.

Smoking is the best habit I never started.

Are we allowed to drink on the forum, I'm about to start.