Wales stubs out smoking in public places

http://www.virginmedia.com/news/uk/u...toryid=5498920

Quote:

---

Smoking in public places in Wales has become illegal ahead of the English ban in July.

Any smokers caught lighting up now face a £50 fine and the Assembly Government has embarked on an advertising and publicity campaign to warn people about the ban.

English smokers will not have to stub out their cigarettes until July 1 and a backbench bid to delay the Welsh ban and bring both sides of the border into line was defeated in the Assembly earlier this year.

Ministers say the three smoke-free months could save 100 lives as passive smoking kills 400 people a year in Wales.

Wales was the first part of the UK to call for a ban, but because of the Assembly's limited law-making powers it had to wait until Parliament passed legislation last year.

Landlords and managers who do not display adequate no-smoking signs will be fined £200. They will face a fine of up to £2,500 if they allow people to smoke on their premises.

Anyone issued with a penalty notice can challenge it in court in the same way as a speeding ticket.

Health minister Brian Gibbons said: "I would be shocked if there is anybody who this is likely to affect in Wales who doesn't know that the ban is coming in."

The Scottish Executive heralded its year-old ban as a success last week when it said there had been more than 46,000 attempts to quit smoking since it began.

---

I've already said my piece re the ban in Scotland. In short, I think that it's a good thing, however I do see arguments on both sides.

Quote:

---

Ministers say the three smoke-free months could save 100 lives as passive smoking kills 400 people a year in Wales.

---

Anyone want to bet that there's absolutely no proof to back that up?

How many jobs and businesses are going to be lost over a ban that few wanted at this level? Most people expected a compromise situation, with enforced smoke free areas. Once again though this government has shown that it is really just a movement for bullies. I'm hardly surprised at those I find to be its backers.

The Irish are now finding many pub closures due to lack of business. Where are all the people who said they avoided pubs because of the smoky atmosphere? Were they invented, or simply liars?

Is it possible to make private clubs for smokers?

I don't like catching sidestream smoke but I think that banning it in bars is ridiculous.

I can see it now, some poor owner sets up a private club and some fuckhead non-smoker claims he should be let in and basically tries to close the place with legal action.

Hell make bar owners have to outfit their place with some overly great ventilation system. It's better than them closing the fuck down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Quote:

---

Ministers say the three smoke-free months could save 100 lives as passive smoking kills 400 people a year in Wales.

---

Anyone want to bet that there's absolutely no proof to back that up?

---

I'm guessing it's an average figure taken from documented statistics, however with something like smoking in public it's not purely a personal choice. The smoker gets to decide if he wants to take the risk, the non smoker has the choice made for him.

You absolutely have the right to smoke but others have the right not to share your smoke and seeing as they are not the ones inflicting their habit on others I don't see why they should be the ones that have to stay at home to avoid it.

I'm sure someone will bring up car pollution etc etc into the argument but that doesn't reduce the effects of passive smoking.

I think there should be smoking bars and non-smoking ones.

If you have the right to fuck off if you don't wanna deal with the smoke.

I think the market should choose.

Obviously there's seems to be a bigger market for smoking pubs than non-smoking ones.

The only thing that seems to have been achieved is shutting down an establishment and that's pretty fucked up.

So much for one's right to not have to be subjected to sidestream smoke in a bar.

Now the bar is gone. Nice going.:ermm: Now you can't subject yourself to the bar.

I think (and have always thought) the bigger picture is that the government just wants to stamp out smoking altogether and this is their fucked up way of going about it.

Why not outlaw it outright and grandfather cigs for current smokers? Shirley lives'll be saved. There'll be tons less new smokers and those that want cigs that are not grandfathered will be driven to an underground market.

It's funny how the US has big court cases about something and then other countries follow suit with action.

Phillip Morris and Microsoft spring to mind.

Traditional bars have been losing business for years before smoking bans started. Higher prices for beer and changes in the way people socialise in general are all factors. To place all the blame on smoking bans is a bit unfair.

Sure some smokers will stop going to bars, that's their choice. Everyone has their own likes and dislikes. My father stopped going to his local pub (he only ever went on a Sunday afternoon anyway) because they installed a TV and had the football on. His view was that he left the house to have a drink with some friends and to get away from football and TV in general. I know some people that will only go into bars that have the game showing.

how many smokers would appreciate going to a movie theater and have the person next to them talk on their phone through the film?

The onus is on the person that causes the interference not the one suffering it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Traditional bars have been losing business for years before smoking bans started. Higher prices for beer and changes in the way people socialise in general are all factors. To place all the blame on smoking bans is a bit unfair.

Sure some smokers will stop going to bars, that's their choice. Everyone has their own likes and dislikes. My father stopped going to his local pub (he only ever went on a Sunday afternoon anyway) because they installed a TV and had the football on. His view was that he left the house to have a drink with some friends and to get away from football and TV in general. I know some people that will only go into bars that have the game showing.

how many smokers would appreciate going to a movie theater and have the person next to them talk on their phone through the film?

The onus is on the person that causes the interference not the one suffering it.

---

Mmk. Explain the bar closings after the smoking ban then.

Whatever business they had, shrunk the fuck all.

What would you think about a private smoking only bar? Do you think you have the right to demand membership and then complain about the smoke?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Mmk. Explain the bar closings after the smoking ban then.

Whatever business they had, shrunk the fuck all.

What would you think about a private smoking only bar? Do you think you have the right to demand membership and then complain about the smoke?

---

Some bars will lose patronage but as i explained smoking would be just one among many reasons. I would guess that the bars that fell after the bans weren't doing so well before. I know people that prefer to drink at home because they can buy beer cheaper from walmart and don't have to worry about drinking too much.
I remember going into a bar about ten years ago that was the only non smoking bar in the area, it was packed and frankly hard to get to the bar through the crowd. The other bars in the area although not empty were not exactly overflowing.

The complaint that the bars are not suddenly filling up with non smokers that didn't go out before could be because maybe, just maybe those people don't go to bars anyway or the bars are not set up in a way that attracts them.

I would have no problem with member only bars allowing smoking, but if it's open to the general public they should go by the sae rules that apply to all other public places. The ban is public places, not just bars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

The complaint that the bars are not suddenly filling up with non smokers that didn't go out before could be because maybe, just maybe those people don't go to bars anyway or the bars are not set up in a way that attracts them.

---

The whole point is that many of the people who have been pushing for a ban in bars have stated that it is the reason they don't frequent those bars.

The logical follow up is that once they've got their ban they would start to frequent those bars that they previously avoided. However they don't crawl out from under their stones which just proves that their initial objections were false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Once again though this government has shown that it is really just a movement for bullies. I'm hardly surprised at those I find to be its backers.

---

:lol:

Indeed, stopping one group of people killing another because they chose to poison themselves. That's bullying.

Which Government btw. The Westminster one, the Welsh one or the Scottish One. Or maybe the Irish. Don't you just hate it when a small group bullies a large one and forces their desires on them.

People don't seem to grasp that the 15% loss of trade, I have seen quoted, after a smoking ban is the fact that there is hardly any cigarette sales. The drink sales are probably the same or slightly higher.

I have been visiting the Republic Of Ireland a lot over the last six years. The smoking ban has had very little effect on trade. The new drink driving laws that they are introducing will, however, decimate the industry.

Don't let the facts spoil a perfectly good argument boab.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

People don't seem to grasp that the 15% loss of trade, I have seen quoted, after a smoking ban is the fact that there is hardly any cigarette sales. The drink sales are probably the same or slightly higher.

---

To think that 15% of a pubs sales is due to cigarette sales is pretty much delusional.

Cigarette sales in UK pubs are almost always done thro' a machine owned by a different company. The pub receives a very low commission or a flat monthly rate for having the machine on its premises. The pub owners don't mind having a facility which makes hardly any money in itself as it saves the smokers leaving the premises to get ciggies (and then possibly venturing to a different drinking establishment).

Only the commission or rental income goes thro' as sales income and, I can assure you, that is nowhere near 15%. More like 0.15%


===

On the subject of the smoking ban in Wales, it's not such a bad thing. Tennants of public houses and lessees won't feel the pinch on any restructuring as most breweries have taken it upon themselves to fund it. Free Houses will obviously be hit more tho'.

The ban works in more ways than one too. People will definitely smoke less now and, therefore, will have more disposable income - people will now be more inclined to give up altogether. Maybe they'll spend the extra they have in pubs. I'm in the pub a fair bit and I seriously don't know anyone who goes to the pub just so they can have a cigarette so I can't see all that many people cutting off their nose to spite their face.

All in all, I think this is probably only a bad thing for people who get settled in their seat and can't be arsed to go outside for a ciggie (read; old people). Young and middle aged smokers won't be put off going to pubs - in fact, the social implications of speaking to different people in the outside smoking wendy house has its own favourable connotations.

If you see what I mean.

Mother-in-law is thinking about quitting, because she will no longer be allowed to smerk in the bingo hall :01:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Mmk. Explain the bar closings after the smoking ban then.

Whatever business they had, shrunk the fuck all.

What would you think about a private smoking only bar? Do you think you have the right to demand membership and then complain about the smoke?

---

Some bars will lose patronage but as i explained smoking would be just one among many reasons. I would guess that the bars that fell after the bans weren't doing so well before. I know people that prefer to drink at home because they can buy beer cheaper from walmart and don't have to worry about drinking too much.
I remember going into a bar about ten years ago that was the only non smoking bar in the area, it was packed and frankly hard to get to the bar through the crowd. The other bars in the area although not empty were not exactly overflowing.

The complaint that the bars are not suddenly filling up with non smokers that didn't go out before could be because maybe, just maybe those people don't go to bars anyway or the bars are not set up in a way that attracts them.

I would have no problem with member only bars allowing smoking, but if it's open to the general public they should go by the sae rules that apply to all other public places. The ban is public places, not just bars.

---

Right but I said private bar. Not open to the general public.

Regarding your other paragraphs, that still doesn't explain bars that were open for years now closing after the ban.

Saying maybe they weren't doing well in the first place isn't a closed bar.

Pointing out a packed bar you went to 10 years ago was filled with non-smokers says nothing about bars that depend on the patronage of smokers.

Saying that you know people that prefer to drink at home (I'm one of them, btw) says nothing about folks who frequent bars for drink then. You may as well had pointed out that you know people that don't drink.:dabs:

Mind you, I'm not saying bars don't fail on their own (like any other business) but I can see this as a nail in the coffin.

I am in total agreement with the principle of the ban. It's just I can see some nipshit non-smoker demanding entrance to a private bar.

Ah, so this'll be why manker is coming down to Plymouth this weekend. So he can smoke in a pub...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Right but I said private bar. Not open to the general public.

Regarding your other paragraphs, that still doesn't explain bars that were open for years now closing after the ban.

Saying maybe they weren't doing well in the first place isn't a closed bar.

Pointing out a packed bar you went to 10 years ago was filled with non-smokers says nothing about bars that depend on the patronage of smokers.

Saying that you know people that prefer to drink at home (I'm one of them, btw) says nothing about folks who frequent bars for drink then. You may as well had pointed out that you know people that don't drink.:dabs:

Mind you, I'm not saying bars don't fail on their own (like any other business) but I can see this as a nail in the coffin.

I am in total agreement with the principle of the ban. It's just I can see some nipshit non-smoker demanding entrance to a private bar.

---

Bars that were open for years closed before the bans, the point being that the industry has been in a decline for some time. Bars don't just have to serve beer these days to stay competitive. They have to offer other things.

The bars that seem to be doing the most business these days seem to be the "family friendly" ones. The old fashioned pubs where the men went to get away from the wife, get drunk and have a fight have been in decline for a long long time.

My point about the guys drinking at home was that they could do so cheaper and not have to worry about getting home if they have too much. These are all guys that used to go to bars on a regular basis. As prices rose and crack downs on dwi /public intoxication laws etc. they started going less.
What I am basically saying is that some people may stop going to bars because they absolutely are so addicted to smoking they feel they can't go out without it (sad really) but the suggestion that bars are closing solely because of smoking bans is a little bit of a stretch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

I am in total agreement with the principle of the ban. It's just I can see some nipshit non-smoker demanding entrance to a private bar.

---

There's problems with the private club thing as well. Part of the argument for non-smoking is to do with staff, suppliers etc. If it was a private club which allowed smoking you would almost also have to have a smokers only policy for staff members and not allow non-smokers on the premises. That would include tax inspectors, people who deliver / repair things, meter readers basically anyone who wanted onto the premises.

That would constitute a restrictive practice, to say nothing of some legal people's rights of entry. There would be legal problems with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

I am in total agreement with the principle of the ban. It's just I can see some nipshit non-smoker demanding entrance to a private bar.

---

There's problems with the private club thing as well. Part of the argument for non-smoking is to do with staff, suppliers etc. If it was a private club which allowed smoking you would almost also have to have a smokers only policy for staff members and not allow non-smokers on the premises. That would include tax inspectors, people who deliver / repair things, meter readers basically anyone who wanted onto the premises.

That would constitute a restrictive practice, to say nothing of some legal people's rights of entry. There would be legal problems with that.

---

Staff can't work in a private smoking bar if they don't agree to handle the smoke.
You have a point about tax inspectors, fire marshalls, etc. Appointments can be made.
Suppliers and repairmen have a right to refuse entry much like I do when I'm at work.

Again I'm referring to a private club.

If a repairman comes to my house (private residence), I can smoke up a storm, and he can either work in it or refuse. I might make concessions if I want something fixed or a smoker can be sent over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

There's problems with the private club thing as well. Part of the argument for non-smoking is to do with staff, suppliers etc. If it was a private club which allowed smoking you would almost also have to have a smokers only policy for staff members and not allow non-smokers on the premises. That would include tax inspectors, people who deliver / repair things, meter readers basically anyone who wanted onto the premises.

That would constitute a restrictive practice, to say nothing of some legal people's rights of entry. There would be legal problems with that.

---

You have a point about tax inspectors, fire marshalls, etc. Appointments can be made.

---

They don't have to make appointments, that would defeat the purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

You have a point about tax inspectors, fire marshalls, etc. Appointments can be made.

---

They don't have to make appointments, that would defeat the purpose.

---

That's total bollocks, there are other "hazardous" situations and they have to cope with those.

Btw, you were right earlier, I was wrong to say that it is the government that's at fault, I'll lay the fault firmly at the feet of the Labour Party. They are well versed in bully boy tactics as exercised by the bigger unions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

They don't have to make appointments, that would defeat the purpose.

---

That's total bollocks, there are other "hazardous" situations and they have to cope with those.

---

Which analagous situations are we talking about.

Oh and it's good to see that no-one has a problem with private clubs having restrictive policies with regard to employment. That's nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheese

Ah, so this'll be why manker is coming down to Plymouth this weekend. So he can smoke in a pub...

---

Hell yeah man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Right but I said private bar. Not open to the general public.

Regarding your other paragraphs, that still doesn't explain bars that were open for years now closing after the ban.

Saying maybe they weren't doing well in the first place isn't a closed bar.

Pointing out a packed bar you went to 10 years ago was filled with non-smokers says nothing about bars that depend on the patronage of smokers.

Saying that you know people that prefer to drink at home (I'm one of them, btw) says nothing about folks who frequent bars for drink then. You may as well had pointed out that you know people that don't drink.:dabs:

Mind you, I'm not saying bars don't fail on their own (like any other business) but I can see this as a nail in the coffin.

I am in total agreement with the principle of the ban. It's just I can see some nipshit non-smoker demanding entrance to a private bar.

---

Bars that were open for years closed before the bans, the point being that the industry has been in a decline for some time. Bars don't just have to serve beer these days to stay competitive. They have to offer other things.

The bars that seem to be doing the most business these days seem to be the "family friendly" ones. The old fashioned pubs where the men went to get away from the wife, get drunk and have a fight have been in decline for a long long time.

My point about the guys drinking at home was that they could do so cheaper and not have to worry about getting home if they have too much. These are all guys that used to go to bars on a regular basis. As prices rose and crack downs on dwi /public intoxication laws etc. they started going less.
What I am basically saying is that some people may stop going to bars because they absolutely are so addicted to smoking they feel they can't go out without it (sad really) but the suggestion that bars are closing solely because of smoking bans is a little bit of a stretch.

---

Mmk I never said they were.:huh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chip Monk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

That's total bollocks, there are other "hazardous" situations and they have to cope with those.

---

Which analagous situations are we talking about.

Oh and it's good to see that no-one has a problem with private clubs having restrictive policies with regard to employment. That's nice.

---

If one can't deal with a nudie bar, they shouldn't work there.

A woman cannot walk in pubic in the nude but they can even in a bar open to the public.

I doubt the restaurant, Hooters, would hire a huge fat woman to work there. Oh and she's required to wear some scant shorts and shirt.

Passive nakedness, that's a new and intriguing concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chip Monk

Oh and it's good to see that no-one has a problem with private clubs having restrictive policies with regard to employment. That's nice.

---

What's the difference between a restrictive employment policy that prevents smoking and one that specifically allows (or basically requires) it?

I think it all depends on what the restriction is. I don't think companies should be allowed to discriminate but the employee has to decide if his own "rules" will allow him to work at certain places.

If the members only club specifically permits smoking then I don't think a non smoker should be prevented from working there, but they then have to accept the risks before they decide to work there.

The reverse applies to smokers working in non smoking environments, they should not be prevented from working in those places, but they shouldn't expect the company to make allowances for them to smoke.

If vegetarians wish to work at a burger joint they must be prepared to handle meat (and not lecture others on the sins of eating meat).

I agree with the smoking ban in public places, this includes privately owned places that allow general entry. I do also think that a private club that restricts entry to members only (which limits their patronage and potential profit) should be able to get an exemption.

The difference is that it's proven that passive smoking causes all sorts of diseases and kills people.

These arguments people use about strip clubs, burger shops etc are specious. The things are not analogous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I agree with the smoking ban in public places, this includes privately owned places that allow general entry. I do also think that a private club that restricts entry to members only (which limits their patronage and potential profit) should be able to get an exemption.

---

Let's think your plan thro'.

My pub is no longer a pub. It's a private club. Anyone can join, on the night and it costs 1p for life membership.

So basically the ban doesn't count for me. Or anyone else.

Sort of defeats the purpose of the thing you agree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

The difference is that it's proven that passive smoking causes all sorts of diseases and kills people.

These arguments people use about strip clubs, burger shops etc are specious. The things are not analogous.

---

The point being that the employee has a choice if his rules allow him to take the risk. He has to actively decide to work there.
There are many things proven to cause disease and death, smoking is just one of them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Let's think your plan thro'.

My pub is no longer a pub. It's a private club. Anyone can join, on the night and it costs 1p for life membership.

So basically the ban doesn't count for me. Or anyone else.

Sort of defeats the purpose of the thing you agree with.

---

I don't see that it does. It doesn't matter if membership can be gained on the night or even if life membership costs one penny or even free. The member has to actively decide to join the private members only club. By restricting entry to members IMO it no longer counts as a general public area.

If your pub deiced it wants to restrict access by becoming a private club and lose your custom that's their right (or at least should be).

If every pub and restaurant becomes a private club, with minimal membership qualifications i.e. anyone can join. Then the ban is negated and you support the ban.

They don't want to lose people's custom, it's just a really simple way of getting round the ban. If private clubs are allowed an exemption.

"There are many things proven to cause disease and death, smoking is just one of them"

Uhuh and we have health and safety laws to protect people.

So every pub becomes a private club. So what? they then become private areas not open to the general public and are limiting their profit potential. They should have the right to make that choice.

I support the ban in general public access areas, not private areas closed to the general public.

The point raised about inspectors earlier.......... should smoking be banned in private homes? After all certain people have to enter those homes on business matters such as meter reading. The company they work for should provide safety equipment to protect against hazards. So if the people doing those jobs that require going into smoke areas wish they can wear respirators.

People have the right to do things that are bad for their health. The ban was designed to protect those that do not wish to take that risk. If they decide they wish to take the risk then they should have the right to do so in private areas.

There should always be reasonable compromise, without it then the ban is unreasonable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

So every pub becomes a private club. So what? they then become private areas not open to the general public and are limiting their profit potential.

---

HOW. If they are a "private club", open to anyone.

If they all become "private clubs" then the ban becomes meaningless.

Read my first post again. If membership is so lax, but it is still a membership system, then it makes the whole thing meaningless.

You go to a restaurant. Sorry we are a private club, would you like to join. Yes please. OK that's 1p and you are now a life member. Please bring this cloakroom ticket which I have written your name on the next time you visit.

The system fails, you must see that. They aren't really "private" as such. They just claim to be but let anyone in. I've been to "private clubs" like that before. You simply put 10p in the box and sign the book, that makes you a "member" for the day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

So every pub becomes a private club. So what? they then become private areas not open to the general public and are limiting their profit potential. They should have the right to make that choice.

I support the ban in general public access areas, not private areas closed to the general public.

The point raised about inspectors earlier.......... should smoking be banned in private homes? After all certain people have to enter those homes on business matters such as meter reading. The company they work for should provide safety equipment to protect against hazards. So if the people doing those jobs that require going into smoke areas wish they can wear respirators.

People have the right to do things that are bad for their health. The ban was designed to protect those that do not wish to take that risk. If they decide they wish to take the risk then they should have the right to do so in private areas.

There should always be reasonable compromise, without it then the ban is unreasonable

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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