Smoking Ban Comes Into Force In Scotland

[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.

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.

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.

To your first, good point. To your second, it was a perfect analogy so why the like you haven't a clue?

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.

To your first, good point. To your second, it was a perfect analogy so why the like you haven't a clue?

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.

Sadly he doesn't actually see the difference.

[lynx]

My right to go wherever I want

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.

[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 want

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.

[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.