Cough
Landlord fined over smoking ban
Here we go. You probably saw this story. The first pub landlord in England to be prosecuted for defying the smoking ban has been fined 500 pounds. Hugh Howitt (known as Hamish) of Blackpool, vowed to continue letting smokers light up in his bars, which are called The Happy Scots Bar and Del Boy's. (Both sound like they have a real traditional northern English feel.) This carcinogenic libertarian admitted at Blackpool Magistrates Court to allowing customers to smoke on 12 separate occasions in July. He was fined 100 pounds for five of these counts, plus 2,000 in costs. (Not quite the maximum penalty of 30,000 pounds, so he got off lightly, mainly because Blackpool Council didn't want to appear heavy-handed.)
Hamish has apparently set up a political party called Fight Against Government Suppression (spot the acronym). The judge, who said he didn't wish to make a "martyr" of Hamish, said that the landlord's campaign had been "silly, pointless and misguided. It has achieved nothing. All it seems to have done is cause a great deal of problems for yourself." You will not be surprised to learn that Hamish "remained defiant" on the courtroom steps, saying, "I'm not putting two fingers up at the judiciary. I'm putting two fingers up at posturing political prats." That'll show them. He then promised to "fight on and fight on. I'm not putting anybody out of my pub until they shut me down."
Why is it that I feel differently about the defiance of Hamish than I would if, say, he'd refused to pay the Poll Tax (remember that?), or refused to sign up for an ID card (coming soon, unless David Cameron isn't a lying liar)? I'm all for a bit of civil disobedience to make a political point and to keep things interesting, but the smoking ban is not really political, is it? It's about health. It's not, as some initially whinged, about soft southerners trying to ruin the fun of honest, working-class northerners - London's full of smokers. What about the "suppression" of bar staff who didn't want to breathe in poisonous smoke in the workplace? Anyway, you can imagine how painful it must have been for the business-snogging government to resist the charms of the tobacco lobby and finally push the ban through this summer - especially when coughers contribute so generously to the Treasury's coffers (nice). Standing outside pubs, especially as the cold weather sets in, is bound to have an effect on the number of smokers in this country eventually. And don't give me the fashionable argument about pubs now smelling of piss and BO. I'd rather know what I'm smelling, for better or worse, which is why I despise chemical air fresheners.
I was never a militant anti-smoker, but I do believe the liberty to breathe in non-carcinogenic air in places of leisure is one that outweights the liberty of smokers to provide it. The irony is, you're much more likely to breathe smoke in while walking down the street now. Unless you drop into Del Boy's in Blackpool, obviously. You can probably hunt a fox in the beer garden.
Labels: civil liberties, smoking
posted by Andrew Collins @ 3:32 PM
81 Comments
81 Comments:
These people who complain that the pub they frequent now smells of piss and BO should relocate to a pub where the patrons regularly shower and don't openly urinate over the bar.
And if it is badly looked after toilets that cause this brand new piss smell now that the smoke is cleared; surely landlords will be busily improving the facilities so's not to lose customers. Everybody wins.
My Gaff, My Rules. etc.
Matt (above) is right...the 'market' will sort this problem out in the longer run.
By the way, there is of course one potential negative effect of the ban- have you seen the number of places now with outside heaters? Very environmentally unsound.
Good point, Nick. I would imagine outdoor heaters would have made a very sound investment opportunity before the ban came in. They were everywhere in Dublin earlier in the year, where, of course, the ban has been in place much longer. Last night, in South London, I saw three blokes standing outside a pub, in the cold, having a fag, and watching a pool tournament they were obviously involved in through the window. Surely smoking will be the next thing to go in our evolution?
I think smoking in pubs will very quickly become something that used to happen and accepted as our society's norm. In much the same way that we have accepted now that you don't smoke in the cinema or on a bus.
I was surprised the other day when I went around a friend's house and she lit up in her living room. Then I remembered it was her house and of course she can light up there if she wants. But I have already become acusomed to the fact that you do not smoke indoors any longer it took a moment to reset my brain.
I agree that this bloke is just a self publicist. I would put Council Tax Martyrs in the same bracket. Most can afford to pay and are just awkward old buggers with nothing better to do with their time. Good luck to them. I just don't like seeing them portayed as the Tolpuddle Martyrs.
I think that by this time next year smoking outside will be the norm. In the clubs I work in there are 600+ drunk kids who are being made to stand outside to smoke, and I've only had to tell three to stop smoking since the ban. This winter will be a test I think cos no-one wants to be out in the weather huddled over a fag. New Years resolutions will only be helped by it becoming such an uncomfortable passtime.
And clubs do reek at the end of the night, but they always did - it's just a different unpleasant smell. At least my clothes and hair don't stink when i get home though.
PS - well done on the Comedy Award nommo for Not Going Out, Andrew. It only took 2 series to get that Best NEW Comedy nod!
Thanks, Ian. I had no idea. Nobody tells me anything. (Well, you do, but not the makers of Not Going Out, or the BBC.)
Yup, this guy is making a mountain out of a molehill. Since the ban came into place, I haven't seen a single person break it, and there seems to be widespread acceptance of it, even from hardened smokers. Being in pubs is now a much, much more pleasant experience.
If this guy wants to push the issue, he'll get no support whatsoever, and ultimately it's only him who will lose out. Tosser!
He's not a tosser, he's just misguided. Obviously his defiance will make not a jot of difference in the scheme of things, but if he only wants his voice heard, we've heard it, so he's been successful.
I'm a smoker who thinks a blanket ban is ludicrous. Why can't it be left to the landlord?
Non-smokers on their pedestals are the most tedious thing I've ever had the misfortune to have to stomach. If a product is legal yet there is nowhere that it can legally be consumed, the law is an ass.
The product can legally be consumed at home and in the open. It's worth noting that it's actually the only consumer product that is extremely dangerous when used in the way it is intended. :)
The ban is supported by a number of smokers, and opposed by a number of non-smokers. I agree it's been a bit draconian, but smokers are now a minority, and what they do does affect other people adversely. This is a law that is now with us to stay, and within a few years we'll all be wondering what the fuss was about.
As a smoker, I find the ban tedious on the one hand, but on the other, it's certainly stopped me smoking as much as I used to, so I'm all for it.
I always hated sitting in smoking areas on trains and planes and buses, etc. Remember when you could smoke on the Tube? It was revolting. Imagine that now!
eeeh remember it's still gim oop north. and tnorthern folk are bit different
I love seeing old footage of smokers in situations that are now incredible, eg a manager or coach sitting on the bench at top football matches (Terry Neill at Arsenal for one) and also pundits on World Cup shows and guests on Parky in the seventies.
primitive person: 'It's worth noting that it's actually the only consumer product that is extremely dangerous when used in the way it is intended. :)'
eeerrr...alcohol?
i dont smoke at all these days but agree that there is little more bollock grindingly tedious than non smokers whining away into the night about whatever it is this week that is bothering them about that 'filthy habit' as they timidly sip their warm, fizzy shite. rant over, luvoo.
Fireworks are pretty dangerous when used as intended. Alcohol? Matches? Bleach? Not sure what your point is there PP...
Also - just because you get used to something doesn't mean it's acceptable.
Passive smoking is not the killer it's made out to be, anyway. Roy Castle tooting his trumpet in a foggy jazz-pit is one thing, a couple of people lighting up in the smoking area of a wetherspoons quite another. Health is not a sound reason, the issue really is the smell and disruption to atmosphere. As for bar staff - give me the name of one who died as a result of second hand smoke. Most of them walk round to the side of the bar for a tab anyhow. It's bunkum.
I miss the fag / pub correlation. The romance has gone.
Having said that, there're quite a few pubs with TVs for football, benches and ashtrays outside, so at least we can get away from the loud, obnoxious voices of puritans going on about their organic veg deliveries, their lovable, uncontrollable and idiotic offspring and their extortionate yoga lessons, even if it is a bit chilly.
Yours bitterly,
SH
You certainly win the prize for bitterness this week, Swines. Well done for grouping together all non-smokers with organic veg delivery customers and yoga enthusiasts - that really helps your case! I don't smoke, but I do drink, and I do consume petrol, and I do use supermarkets. It's not just puritans who are anti-smoking - in fact, I wish they'd just ban cigarettes altogether to remove the hypocrisy of selling them, taxing them and then stopping people smoking them in pubs. Go the whole hog. There's no romance in smoking. So, Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall looked good doing it in 1940. How come people standing outside pubs doing it in 2007 don't look as romantic? I think it's the pub/drink correlation that counts. And I'm no fan of fireworks. Our cat hates them, and she's kept inside for Fireworks Week, as it has now become.
Agreed, fireworks and bleach are dangerous, but only if guidelines for their use are not followed. If instructions are followed, they can be used safely.
This also applies to alcohol - it is safe when used according to guidelines and only becomes dangerous if consumed excessively.
Cigarettes, on the other hand, cannot be used in the intended manner without potentially causing serious health problems to the users, and to a lesser extent, those around them.
I accept some people don’t want smoke in a bar, so instead of blanket banning smoking in pubs, perhaps non-smokers should’ve been forced to bloody well stand outside where they can bathe in their sanctimony, drinking orange juice and coca cola of course (actually not coca cola, it has caffeine and teeth rotting sugar in it, yeuch)
Lol at the bitter smokers on here! The way I understand it, the prime motivation for a smoking ban in bars etc is so employers aren't liable to be sued for the effects on their staff. So in that sense it is more ‘business’ friendly than ‘people’ friendly, of you see what I mean. Hence why for some time before the ban was brought in you saw ‘no smoking at the bar’ signs.
Barstaff may still smoke, that’s not the point; they now do it in their own time and of their choice.
Either way, with some reservations (i.e. crowds gathered outside pubs, the patio-heater syndrome etc) I’m all for it. I can now spend the night in the pub without needing to steam-cleaned the following day.
I don't think it should have been a blanket ban, I think that landlords should have been allowed to apply for a smoking licence. For example, a Working Man's Club local to me has an entire membership of smokers. No exaggeration - every member smokes. These are old men and women who have smoked all their lives. They don't want to go outside in the cold at their age and they certainly aren't going to give up smoking after 50/60 years of it. So now they are staying at home rather than going to the club. Therefore, the old blokes don't get to enjoy a pint of bitter with their mates and the club is losing membership funds by the day, as a result of which it will probably close down soon. Why couldn't they have made it so that the landlord could have applied, together with a petition signed by all of the members, for a smoking licence? I know it is for health reasons but the people who go to these clubs simply aren't going to give up at their time of life, they are just going to stop going out and the Working Man's Club culture is going to die. Not a big deal to some, but certainly a big deal to the older generations of drinkers. We'll be surrounded by just Wetherspoons and Lloyds and nowhere with any individual character where the locals have been going for 40 years. I do understand the Government's reasons but I just think it's a shame.
Zoe
I wasn't making a case, really. I was venting spleen, which is bound to happen when you blog about the smoking ban. Something special (and admittedly death-inducing) has been taken away from the likes of Piqued and I...
Banning fags outright is the logical progression, but that would cause chaos. Tobacco would get shipped in from the continent and police would have another stupid law to enforce, with targets they couldn't hope to live up to.
Fair play on highlighting your (and many other peoples') own hypocrisy though, AC - drivers are a far worse blight on the immediate environment and the entire planet. I don't drive, though I have a licence, because people with cars are more pig-headed about their rights than any smoker, even Hamish Howitt of Blackpool. And they are literally ruining the world.
It's the old 'he who is without sin...' thing.
I shall start sabotaging cars immediately.
Quite right Zoe - a good point well made. I'll bet the old men catch the bus to the club rather than driving cars their using the devil's own petrol. God bless 'em.
Not like these non-smokers and their fume-pumping death-mobiles.
Aren't chemical air fresheners a necessity Andrew? What do you use instead?
Excellent points Zoe - saved me the bother
How disapointing of you AC, are there any other vices that you do not indulge in that you would like to see completely banned?
This feels like a Peter Hitchens blog all of a sudden
I would guess that the patrons of 'Del Boys' are not smoking for the 'romance' of it although it does sound quite a romantic venue, maybe the barstaff smoke like troopers too...if so, who is the law trying to protect?
No one goes to a pub to be healthy do they?
In terms of the argument raised regarding protecting bar staff from nasty tab smoke, no one is forcing them to work behind a bar; maybe they didn’t want to be scaffolders, roofers, lorry drivers, forestry workers etc.,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2195847.stm
Whereas if you’re a fisherman, the most dangerous job in the world, there is a very good chance you can die of water and shit
Ban water! And fish! It’s outrageous etc.,
As a non-bitter ex-smoker (10 years no cigs), my clear recollection was that lager n fags were like fish n chips, pasta n parmesan, keegan n toshack, absolutely made for each other, and especially when consumed with my mates in a pub. I think how grumpy I used to be when I could drink but couldn't smoke, and I feel really sorry for people now.
*warning: this post contains pedantry*
"chemical air freshners"
is their any other kind? a chemical free air freshner would be pretty useless.
First of all, I don't see why a members club shouldn't be able to petition for a licence, but it would have to include all staff - as it's the staff this law was there to protect, rather than people who do yoga. (I don't see any non-smoker caricaturing smokers, by the way - it's a pity you see sanctimony and joylessness, when most non-smokers drink and eat appalling food, willingly.)
Using chemical air fresheners is, to me, like taking a painkiller. It masks the symptoms, but doesn't address the cause. I understand why they are popular, but you walk into some houses and all you can smell are chemicals. It's amazing how disgusting they smell when you've banished chemical products from your house for a few years. Mind you, walking though the perfume dept. of a department store is akin to a chemical weapons attack, for me. I love natural smells. Or at least, I prefer them to the laboratory-created kind.
And, Piqued, no matter where you work, you should be able to expect a certain level of health and safety. And that includes working in bars.
I know smokers who wished they hadn't been able to smoke in offices, years ago, as that's where their addiction was allowed to take strongest root. You can still do what the hell you like at home.
"It's amazing how disgusting they smell when you've banished chemical products from your house for a few years."
do you live in a vacuum?
Yes, I live in a vacuum. It's great.
Ah, you've got to the love the fury of the smokers. The fact is that smoking in pubs (or public places in general) is a relic of an era when people simply didn't know the harm that cigarette smoke could cause. Sure, you may now associate drinking with smoking after years of doing the two at the same time, but that doesn't mean we should ignore overwhelming medical evidence as a result. It's not a nanny state, it's a state that has a duty to its people not to be negligent.
The fact is that societies develop and behaviours are modified as a result. You used to be able to kill a Welshman within Chester's city walls after midnight (with a bow and arrow)...thankfully accepted norms change over time.
In fifty years, teenagers will be astonished that smoking was ever allowed in pubs in the first place - and that can only be a good thing.
Firework week! If only! I haven't seen hardly a sign of our two felines for ages!
I take no credit for this (It's a David Hepworth comment) It funny that people who you would never see because they spend all day in the pub now are all outside, and people who wouldn't ever go in pub are now inside!
Now all they have to do is ban smoking breaks!
Ian
Ban smoking breaks?
Are you insane?
People will just nip out under false pretences. You can't stop widespread addiction to something by banning it selectively. It's ludicrous.
I stick by the fact that the car / petrol / exhaust fume is a far more pressing issue than a little bit of fag-smoke.
Drive home safely, hypocrites...
I'd love to be able to pop out of the office for another half-hour a day to do something nice, but as I don't smoke, I can't take the time out.
Yours, off home on the bus...
"I'd rather know what I'm smelling, for better or worse,"
Presumably if you are sitting next to a smoker you know what the smell is, no?
Fags are handy Transitional Objects for those who have not negotiated the Oral Stage of psychological development, but who are reluctant to buy a dummy. Hence the level of frenzy induced in some, when access to the Transitional Object is removed or impeded by the Bad Parent Government and its rotten old bans.
They could try rubbing a piece of Comfort Blanket instead, when they go to the pub.
Flippantly yours, Dr 'Ciggie' Freud.
That pun is the best I've seen in a while, ishouldbeworking...
In our area people complain to the police that their kids are now more likely to see people smoking, and are thus more likely to start.
You can't win, can you ?
Swineshead - it may well be that exhaust fumes are more of an health issue than fag smoke, but that doesn't mean that fag smoke isn't detrimental at all. What's meant to happen? We only deal with health risks on at a time starting with the most dangerous and moving down the list one by one?
Smoking is dangerous to people's health. That is unquestionable. It is dangerous to people who don't smoke. Rather than being a nanny state robbing smokers of the god-given right to poison themselves in a public house, this was an opportunity to help preserve the health of people who don't smoke. It might not be the most pressing issue in the world, but it is an issue and I for one am thankful that it has been addressed.
I'm trying not to get drawn into this, Pedant, but what is your point? (You seem to be driving at something, but only in a very roundabout way.) In answer to your original post: are there any other kinds of air fresheners than chemical ones? Well, yes, sticks of cinammon, for example. Or flowers. Or herbs. Many of the things that chemical air fresheners are supposed to smell like.
I haven't been to a gig since the smoking ban came in, as you where at the Brixton Academy last week I was wondering how gig venues are managing to implement the ban, it must be difficult to police,
Steve 6542
Steve, at big standing venues like Brixton you do get the odd desperado lighting up - secure that the sort of people who go to gigs aren't going to don the jackboots and tell them off. I saw somebody with a joint at Carter, which is doubly exciting! At seated venues, with aisles, it's clearly a lot easier for stewards to spot the giveaway glow of a cigarette and embarrass them.
In all, it's a massive improvement. I've stood next to people puffing away at Brixton pre-ban, when it's packed, and I may as well have been smoking myself.
That's good, we only have to get rid of the idiots who dance with a pint of lager in their hands and all will be fine
Steve 6542
A skilful pushing aside of car-pollution, despite it being a salient point about a much more pressing issue. The fact remains that a tiny civil issue like this should not have been the focus of a government's agenda at a time when cars pose a huge threat to people on the streets and the world at large. Sorry, but I do happen to think it should be dealt with first. What's wrong with dealing with things in order of importance?
Anyhow, your argument is let down by the fact that we've now confined smokers to their houses, where they drink offie alcohol more cheaply and smoke fags in an environment where their kids are free to inhale their second hand smoke. So it's not non-smoking adults with strong lungs inhaling a little second-hand fog in a designated place, it's babies, toddlers and children inhaling it in an area they live in. Displacement.
Not the best solution in the world.
I was talking to Francis, an old (almost decrepit) gent I watch football with in my local last night. He pulled out his fags and I reminded him he couldn't light up in the pub any more.
'Oh Christ' he said, 'I forgot I fought in a world war to stop dictators telling me what to do. What a load of silly-bollocks'. I'm with Francis on this, it's idiocy.
What if the government decided you could drink, but not in pubs or socially? It's a social menace, they'd say, it causes drunkenness which fills hospitals with injured idiots, people who've fallen over or fought, or drunk themselves to death. They'd be right to describe it as such, but wrong to ban it. You'd all be up in arms.
But smokers, of course, are a safe and easy target. Run after them and they run out of breath.
It strikes me that the voice of reason is incredibly unreasonable.
"'Oh Christ' he said, 'I forgot I fought in a world war to stop dictators telling me what to do. What a load of silly-bollocks'."
Oh the irony, Hitler banned smoking in all public places too...
Swines ... and smokers are forced to smoke into their babies' mouths at home, are they? Wouldn't it be more responsible not to do that? I hate the government, but I also hate people who shrug off responsibility. Never mind about our health, or the health of our children - there'll be some big fucking machines in an NHS hospital to look after us at the other end.
It strikes me that the voice of smokers is incredible selfish and bloody minded!
"It's a social menace, they'd say, it causes drunkenness which fills hospitals with injured idiots, people who've fallen over or fought, or drunk themselves to death. They'd be right to describe it as such"
I disagree. It's not drinking per se that causes antisocial behaviour or health risks or casualty-filling accidents. It's drinking to excess or irresposible drinking that would need to be tackled.
I wish people would stop this immediate link between smoking a drinking. The health risks from smoking are massively different to alcohol and they aren't particularly comparable in their social effects either. The only reason they get connected as that they used to go together in the pub.
Of course they're not smoking directly smoking into babies mouths at home! Did they smoke into yours at the pub? Sorry, but that was a bit of a silly thing to say.
I wouldn't smoke in the same room as a child, but many (less educated and less middle class than me, to borrow a Morrisism) would. Tell them about issues of responsibility - not me. The government has misread this terribly.
Shrugging off responsibility, eh? You hate that, yet you drive and fret about the environment simultaneously. That's a lot of shrugging, right there.
The Ians / Andrew - you both state explicitly that the issue is that people should be responsible for their own actions yet you applaud a government that directly interferes with that responsibility. It's a strange double standard.
The fact is, you don't smoke and you are glad smokers are put out, which is selfish. Have a fag and stop being so silly.
The point I was making about the babies, Swines, was a direct riposte to your fuzzy logic about banning cigarettes in pubs merely sends that second-hand smoke directly back into the lungs of children and babies. You said it. All I meant was that it doesn't force anyone to smoke at their kids. It's not exactly driving it underground is it?
The ban in public places was put in not to piss you off, but to protect the health of those who choose not to smoke, in particular those who work in pubs etc. This seems sensible to me, not silly at all. We'll all carry on driving and flying for as long as we can afford it. If they taxed air travel and the cost ended up with the frequent flyer, the flyer would have to make the choice. You might say that this punishes the poor before it punishes the rich, which is true, but again, you have to start somewhere.
I actually think that it's deregulation that's got us into this environmental mess, and the only way out of it (if there is one, which is doubtful, but let's be positive) is for restrictions to be put in place. For our own good. Oh, how the Daily Mail will moan when they bring in this rubbish tax for people who don't recycle. "Bans", another name for regulation, have been lifted and lifted constantly over the past 50 years, and it's time to put some of them back in, before we all go to hell. (Looks at the way additives are coming out of food - that's a ban, effectively, and it's led by consumer choice, based on increased awareness of health effects.) We'll all carry on using mobile phones to make calls that don't matter until finally it comes out that they cause cancer, then some of us will stop, and others will carry on, because of the machines waiting at the hospital. (I fret about the environment and use public transport whenever I can, and always refuse a BBC car home unless it's 1am. I do what I can, and use the car when I have to. If it wasn't there tomorrow morning because cars had been banned, I would adapt, because I had no choice. I know that's not going to happen.)
People should be responsible for their own actions, but they're not, so what do we do about that? Time is actually running out.
If it helps, I am a smoker - and I think the ban is a good idea.
a)It's nice to have smoke free pubs, very pleasant. And
b) It's also nice to have an excuse to pop outside 'for a cigarette' if the conversation in the pub gets a bit boring.
Relating the argument of pollution from cars and smoking to the effect on the environment is weak. When you consider the scale of China (double the population size of Europe and America combined) and the pace of their absorption of Western must-haves like cars and fags, we are in straws-wind territory here.
You're absolutely spot on, kb. So the question is: do we do anything about it, or just sit back and wait for the flood waters to rise?
I was just saying that governmental intervention should have a stopping point, and I feel it's been surpassed. Workplace - understandable, public transport - ditto. Pubs - too far. Pubs were for sanctuary, traditionally a place to indulge in pleasurable and not necessarily reputable activities. As Piqued said, nobody ever went to a pub to get healthy. A blanket ban is stupid and draconian. But I'm going round in circles now...
I agree, in essence, on what you say about environmental issues. You are a balanced petrol consumer. Just as I wouldn't have smoked whilst buying a pint at the bar, or have blown smoke in anyone's direction. We try to limit the damage we do whilst doing the damage we're allowed to do.
I'm still having to live with the image of a baby being given a blowback though, thanks for that.
By the way, Newsnight last night, on the oil issue, was terrifying.
kb - when you think of the stats on death caused by passive smoking, you're in that straws-wind territory again aren't you?
Quite honestly I have gloomy views on this. My 100 year prediction is that resources will become so scarce that there will be an unholy alliance between US and EMEA against China. I dare say that it will have entered some minds in the US that you might as well head it off at the pass and flatten China now...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
If you haven't got anything sensible to say etc.
Off out for a few hours, so have switched Comment Moderation on, as I detect the hand of idiots. Will switch it off again later. Bear with me.
Banning smoking is the beginning of the end of civilisation as we know it.
Where can inspired inventors/entrepreneurs jot down their ideas, if they don't have fag packets to scribble on?
No inventions = no progression of society.
No progression = no evolution as a species.
No evolution = we all de-evolve into monkeys.
More monkeys = more poo gets flung.
So what do you want Andrew (and other non-smokers)? A world that smells a big like fags, or a world covered in monkey kack?
*sits back, lights up*
Ahhhhhhhh.
Oh, I always miss the idiot comments...
Going back to the point about gigs, I am smoker and I went to Brixton last month for one of the XFM gigs. I actually prefer smoke-free gigs as I always used to find it really uncomfortable to smoke so close to other people. However, we went to the gig assuming that there would be a pass-out system given that it is still our choice to smoke and it was an all night gig from 7pm - 2am. We got there and was only informed once inside that the only time that a smoking break outside would be permitetd was between 10:30 and 11:30, the exact showtime of the headliners, Maximo Park, whom we had gone specifically to see. So if we wanted to have a fag at all between 7pm and 2am (which most smokers would struggle not to), we would have to miss some of the set of the very band that we had paid and travelled to see. Lunacy. Would it really have caused that much of a problem if you were allowed pass-outs as and when you pleased, or at least for sessions before and after the headliners?
Zoe
Interesting point, Zoe. Mind you, if you went on a Transatlantic flight that lasted for six hours, you wouldn't be able to step outside. It can be done.
They should relax a bit more at gigs re: passouts. If you are given a ticket that gets you back in, or your retain part of your actual ticket, where's the harm? Yes, you could give it to someone else, but then you wouldn't be able to get back in, so the numbers would be the same. I was told to spit my chewing gum out on entry to Arcade Fire at Brixton, which made me feel like a schoolboy.
I hope you wrapped it in paper and put it in a bin, Andrew.
Most smokers don't get cancer. Fact.
Yes, but loads of them get a whole host of other nasty ailments, and on average they die several years younger than non-smokers. And that damage gets inflicted on others.
Further to that last point, my Dad died of a smoking-related illness aged 50 leaving behind four children. It could have been worse: I (the youngest) was eleven at the time. Quite apart from the obvious other effects of this, the financial impact on the family was enormous. Smokers don't have to blow smoke into their kids' mouths to harm them.
Both my parents died at relatively young ages (in their 60's) of smoking related illnesses. I've never smoked and delight in the fact that I can now enjoy nights out without having to suffer someone else's habit.
And if you are a smoker and you are being a tiny bit inconvenienced I frankly don't care.
Yup. I am THAT selfish.
Good post, but the final comment about fox hunting is a bit snide (sorry, Andrew). Are smokers more likely to chase foxes?
In my village both pubs are holding to the ban, and I've started to go to the Friday night drink again. I had stopped because of the cigar smokers wrecking my Saturday (sore throat, disgusting smell).
So the general consensus is 'it's a good thing as it suits me'. That's just dandy - you're happy to submit so long as it suits you. Happy for choices to be made on your behalf that affect your personal liberty, so long as it's not you that's affected.
I'll not be signing up for an identity card either, thanks.
What happened to the element of choice here? A landlord should have the right to choose and I think the landlord in this story shouldn't be roundly mocked for trying to be heard among all the idiocy. The baying of the crowd is very, very ugly.
I like the idea of non-smoking pubs and pubs with smoking areas. I am prepared to compromise. The majority here aren't. Sorry about the parents of those whose folks died young, but I'm afraid that's really not the issue. A friend of mine (with kids) goes free rock climbing most weekends - no ropes. Very dangerous. We all take our lives in our hands in so many different ways so stop being so bloody sanctimonious about a small pleasure a minority indulge in.
As for the fox-hunting jibe - I suppose it was an attempt to caricature the smoker as clinging to an archaic right like the fox hunter. I'm no fan of hunters as they're generally bloody awful countryside alliance types, but if they want to hunt a animal for a laugh, who cares? Who really bloody cares?
My hilarious throwaway line about fox hunting was simply a reference to those who "defy" bans. Nothing to do with linking smokers to fox hunters, you paranoid fools! As I keep saying, there is no more a stereotype for smokers than there is for non-smokers. It's you smokers who keep trying to generalise about non-smokers.
Also, Swineshead, although I'm not getting into a fox hunting argument here, the very fact that you can say, in public, "Who cares?" about the hunting of an animal "for a laugh" removes you from any debate. I don't even go to pubs much - my objection was not a selfish one, it was about those who work in pubs, not me. They shouldn't have to breathe in secondary smoke as part of their job. I'm all for minorities indulging in small pleasures, it's what makes the world go round, but rock climbing without ropes is unlikely to harm others. It might inconvenience mountain rescue, but that's their job, and unless they fall on an innocent bystander, reckless climbers are only risking their own necks. For me, the smoking ban is about giving rights to non-smokers (in particular those in the workplace), not taking away rights from smokers.
For God's sake SH give it a rest.
"So the general consensus is 'it's a good thing as it suits me'."
Yep. In the same way that (say) anning drink-driving suits me too.
Saint Nick
I'm removed from the debate now. Apparently I'm not allowed to make throwaway comments about foxhunting...
Yes, working in a pub when there were smokers around - they should have got danger money. It's worse than the army. So many listed and logged late ex-barstaff.
Every job has its dangers. My office-chair puts my back out (poor me).
Saint Nick - well done for taking one line from my comment, out of context, and misreading it. Genius.
Agree to disagree?
You're allowed to make any comment you like about foxhunting, but I will not engage you if you think hurting animals is a laugh.
Also, if you really don't think constant second hand smoke has any long-term ill-effects on the health of bar staff, we really will have to agree to disagree. (To me, the dangers of smoking are not an opinion, but a fact, although you seem to think these are a conspiracy cooked up by yoga teachers or something.)
The dangers of smoking on the individual doing the smoking are indisputable. Smoking around children or record-breaking trumpet players is also a risky business. As for passive smoking in adults who can choose where to work... it's another issue entirely and the stats aren't convincing as far as I've heard.
Obviously I don't think hurting animals is a laugh - it was a throwaway comment. But casually binning tradition for the sake of a few liberal brownie points is a complicated game and doesn't work in all cases.
I've finally cottoned on! Swines is a passive smoking denier. Or will happily ignore the effects of his habit on others because he wants to light up wherever he wants. And yet he criticises non-smokers (as a group) of selfishly adopting stances that suit them and exclude others. The irony is astounding.
As is the paranoia and persecution complex.
And I find phrases like "casually binning tradition for liberal brownie points" is verging on Littlejohn territory.
...and I think I'm going to have to retire myself from this topic. Smoking debates are bad for blood pressure!
Also, there's a chance we may harming non-debators with our constant debating. Why should they suffer second hand debate?
I've already said I consider myself a considerate smoker. Even if there was NO ban I wouldn't smoke wheresoever I want. So nice of to pour scorn on me without even reading what I've said.
Owch - Littlejohn?
Get out of it IanS. That comment is actually so offensive that I'm ducking out at this point.
anyone got a light?
*runs off*
nah mate, don't smoke
*shrugs*
Andrew, just going back to an earlier point you made in relation to Pedant's post. You say you don't use chemical airfresheners but use cinnamon sticks instead.
The point that Pedant was trying to make was that cinnamon is just as "chemical" as an Airwick plug-in thingy. Amongst other things it will contain Ethyl Cinnamate (C11H1202) and (E)-3-phenyl-2-propenoic acid.
Chemical and Natural are not the opposite of each other. Everything is chemical, hence Pedant wondering if you lived in a vacuum when claiming to live in a chemical free house.
It's that kind of thinking that was able to get a high school kid to get over 80% of respondants to a survey to agree that the government should ban "Dihydrogen Monoxide" because it's a major component of acid rain, kills lots of people every year and prolonged contact with it causes wrinkling of the skin. Sounds horrible doesn't it, but it's just water!
Andrew, you say that you are not a militant anti-smoker, how does one qualify to be a militant anti-smoker? Dress up in white NBC kit and gas mask, go goose-stepping through groups of huddled smokers frantically spraying non-chemical air fresheners in the faces of all? But I have to say that your normally iron clad, inbuilt bullshit detector has failed you on this one. Smoke free legislation is far less about protecting the health of bar staff or otherwise – it's much more about carving up the multi-trillion dollar nicotine cake. And the government, far from resisting, is being actively compliant in implementing this global plan of action that the World Health Organisation and it's 'partners' are so keen on. And your right it would be more honest to just ban cigarettes altogether – but that's not part of the plan.
The plan is to:
1, Present the very reasonable life expectancies of the worlds 1.2 billion smokers as a global human catastrophe.
2, Scare the living daylights out of the remaining worlds population by telling fibs that would make the tobacco companies blush.
3, Introduce health and safety legislation that does make occupational health and safety professionals blush.
4, Introduce legislation to reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes – but not completely.
5 Carve up cake - forever.
In other words stitch up smokers by coercing them to use non-taxed products and stitch up non-smokers by making them pay for the difference.
But I agree about the foxes thing and I read it as a throw away comment anyway.
Best Wishes
Fredrik
Post a Comment
<< Home