smoking ban

Subject: total smoking ban in England
From: GUEST,wordy
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 02:45 PM

What great news for both singers and audiences alike. No doubt the addicts will come on whining about freedom, but we've all got freedom now!

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: greg stephens
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 02:53 PM

Great, what a blow for freedom, and as the spekesman has just said, it's a victory for the freedom of the workers in the licensed trade: their workplace will no longer be dangerous. So tomorrow, are we to look forward to banning the use of paint in housepainters(well known carcinogen),motorcar racing, council workers making bonfires, prefessional climbing, professional sport, the use of electricity, commercial fishing: all things where workers are exposed to danger. This is a victory for gross hypocrisy of the most self-satisfied sort.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 02:59 PM

Aha, as predicited, a whiner!
No more coughing, no more stinking clothes, no more asthma attacks, freedom to go out socially to where the music is. Sessions here I come. Brilliant!

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 02:59 PM

Good news...

But belongs in the BS section

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: greg stephens
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 03:02 PM

I thought you would all like to share Patricia Hewitt's magnificent defense of the government, when it was pointed out just now by an interviewer that the Labour Party manifesto said they weren't going to ban smoking in clubs, and now they have:
"We have delivered on the manifesto, in fact we have gone beyond it". Oh yes, I see now.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 03:05 PM

Who cares? It's happened. Hooray! it should have a big effect on the folk music scene as people gradually come back to the pubs who haven't been in one for years. I tried a session a few months ago and had to leave within a few minutes nebuliser in hand. Soon I, and others like me, will be making music in fresh air.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Rasener
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 03:27 PM

I banned smoking at my club 2 years ago.
In all that time, I only ever had one person complain, and a lot of people said how happy they were, that there was a smoking ban.
Its so nice not to go home wreeking of smoke.
Excellent for the performers, who for years have had to put up with passive smoking.

I reckon more people will go to pubs, now they don't have to put up with smokers.

Hurrah for sensibility :-)

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: jonm
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 03:29 PM

With his pipe and his friends, puffing hours away....

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: jonm
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 03:30 PM

...and smoke without fear....

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 03:30 PM

I've been getting used to non-smoking pubs recently, or at least ones where there's some effort to keep the air breathable.

The other day I walked into a pub at a London terminal which was full of smoke, and I just had to walk straight out.

Smoking in such a way that you get in the way of other people breathing is the same kind of freedom as driving at speed in a residential neighbourhood. A restriction on other people's enjoyment - and a threat to their life.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 03:32 PM

Nice analogy MgoH.....   I'm stealing that one!

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: greg stephens
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 03:34 PM

You are quite right McGath about speeding in a car being an imposition on other people. But who exactly would I be imposing on if I went into a Smoking Club and smoked? (I woudn't do so, as I am not a smoker. But just suppose....) I thought it was a general principle that crimes ought to have a victim.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 03:40 PM

The staff for one...   If the poisions coming off the lit end of a cigarette were present in a mine shaft or a foundry, no bugger would be allowed to work there

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: mandomad
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 03:48 PM

This is fan-bloody-tastic news...when does it start?




                  mandomad

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: greg stephens
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 03:50 PM

Well I'm afraid on that point you are just totally wrong, Clinton. Many working environments are infinitely more dangerous than a bit of passive smoke. For example(as I quoted early), that experienced by professional painters. Not to mention soldiers in Iraq. Or people who drive for a living.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 03:56 PM

Professional painters are made to wear breathers.... You gonna try to make wait-staff wear gas masks? Ya... right....

And this isn't about solderis, or the dangers of driving...

It's about smoking...

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 03:57 PM

Remember... I AM a smoker... and the sooner this ban comes down, the better!

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 04:04 PM

It's Greg's reaction that really worries me. It shows a very dangerous side to human nature. And yes! Let's do something about car emissons which - I imagine - are a lot more dangerous than second-hand smoke. But, let's face it, smoking is just plain stupid!

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 04:05 PM

Most addictions are Tunesmith.... (Most?? ALL!!)

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: greg stephens
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 04:20 PM

I think that while second hand smoke is indeed dangerous, it is even more dangerous for people to think that because they have the power to ban people from being naughty in private, they should use that power. And use it so selectively, just because the personally disapprove of smoking. Laws should be logical, and they should be fair. And you should deal with big evils before small evils.
Mind you, at a personal level, I will find my local pub a vastly more enjoyable place if it doesnt stink of smoke.
    But, and I will say it till I am blue in face(as I would be if I smoked): I cannot understand why a group of smokers cant buy a building and run a Smoking Club. What gives all you suppoerters of the Bill the moral right to stop them? A simple answer will suffice...like "We are powerful, and they aren't. And we are hypocritical, and they aren't".

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 04:27 PM

Well, from the looks of how things might go down around here, they might be able to... But only if it's unstaffed.... and closed to the 'public'

You seem to like that word 'Should', Greg.... Seems to me that one can should oneself blue int eh face and it won't make it so... The air SHOULD be clean... The water SHOULD be drinkable... Gas SHOULD be cheeper.... but that don't make it so.... Deal with it.....

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: greg stephens
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 04:33 PM

Well yes water should be cleaner. Byt gas should be cheaper....well, now that is a serious argument
LOL
NCTWWASBE

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 04:46 PM

Second hand farts are capable of killing people in an enclosed unventillated space. SO I want you all to stop it right now...
I'm listening.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 04:50 PM

I don't deal in second hand farts, mine are all original!
G.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: greg stephens
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 04:51 PM

Clinton,what happened about that fiddle you were looking for? I was going to get you one, do you still need it?

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 04:58 PM

Hooray, Bravo, and Pip, Pip! Any smoking ban anywhere is one hell of a good idea. Our local casino, a place which could be rightly called "Addiction Central" is now belly-aching because they will be required to do like the rest of the municipality and ban smoking. Too flippin' bad! All that extra walking the smokers will have to do now from the slot machines to the sidewalk by the parking lot will be good for their health, I figure. They might live a year or two longer because of it.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Cluin
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 05:05 PM

Got mixed feelings about it.

As a non-smoker, who works in pubs and bars often, I am glad not to suffer second hand smoke.

However, I'm not all that happy that, more and more, every aspect of our lives seems to come under another new by-law. More legislation makes me uneasy. An owner should be able to decide their own policy in his/her place of business. And I'd hope they'd adopt a non-smoking policy.

And it'd be nice if everybody in the world could quit smoking today. And the cars would stop polluting. And people would stop killing and hurting each other. And...

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 05:11 PM

I have no idea what the comment is doing in this thread but....

-I'm- not looking for a fiddle.... My fiddle player is... She's going to be UKing it this summer for a few months... If she can lay hands on a beater, she will, but it's not something she's stressing over... If you can/are willing to help her, post such in the relevant thread....

If you're just trying to be petty and childish (bringing it up here as an "If you're not going to agree with me, I'm not going to help you" sucky-baby kinda thing) then I'll wager your help isn't something she'd be interested in anyway...

So what's your point Greg?


"Any smoking ban anywhere is one hell of a good idea."
Well, there ya have it... ONE thing that you and I agree on at the very least....

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 05:14 PM

Yup.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 05:16 PM

"An owner should be able to decide their own policy in his/her place of business."

When it comes to worker safety, 'owners' have proven time and time again, they will err on the side of where they make/save more money over worker safety every time....

Hence the need for legislation that FORCES their hands into doing what is right...

Otherwise we may as well turn back the clock to the 19th Century, and abolish ALL labour law....

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: greg stephens
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 05:22 PM

Course I'm not being petty,Clinton. I just remembered you were looking for a fiddle and maybe I missed a post or something. Why should our views on smoking bans affect me loaning your friend a fiddle?

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 05:40 PM

That's what confused me too Greg!

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 07:24 PM

If a bunch of people want to get together and smoke in a genuinely private place, they will still be able to do it. A club with employees is not genuinely private, it is essentially a special kind of public place.

Like all legislation this one will have all kinds of results which were not anticipated, and it will be interested to see how these pan out. As has been happening in Ireland, where the presence of groups of smokers outside pubs is tending to make streets more friendly and safer in a lot of places.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 07:45 PM

Perhaps places that wish to have smoking can apply for licenses?

After the vote I was amazed the hear the minister explain how unfair it would have been commercially to exempt private members clubs (like our Parliaments' bars). A move that looked to be the bookie's favourite result at one time.

This commercial unfairness did not seem to be a factor when the Labour Party's MPs so eagerly passed the Licensing Act 2003.

Where this Act meant that a church can stage any commercial concert without needing a Premises Licence.

The same church's hall would need a Premises Licence for the same event but not have to pay for this or the annual inspection charge.

The pub next door to the church - in order to stage the same event would have to have and pay for a Premises Licence, a personal licence and the annual inspection charge.

And in order to stage the same event the non-alcohol cafe on the other side of the church would have to apply and pay for a Premises Licence and the annual inspection charge just for the entertainment permission.


If the ban is to benefit the health those who have to work in these places - the total ban was the only option that made any sense.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: The Badger
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 07:46 PM

But what will the gooderatti want to ban next!

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 08:05 PM

Badger baiting...

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: number 6
Date: 14 Feb 06 - 08:13 PM

Anyone around here have a light?

sIx

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Rasener
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 02:15 AM

Hull F C (uk) already have a ban on smoking in the ground. Didn't seem to worry anybody, when I went there the other week.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 02:19 AM

In other words...you're not allowed to smoke after burial?

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST,Clean air
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 03:07 AM

At last I won't go home smelling of smoke after a night out and my lungs will breath a sigh of relief.

Smokers you will have to get over it, us non smokers have had to put up with your smoking for many many years. You will now have to put up with a constant supply of fresh air and more years to live and play music.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 03:30 AM

There is nothing stopping smokers from smoking whilst 'riding to hounds'.

For there appears to be nothing stopping 'riding to hounds'....

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Stu
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 04:03 AM

Excellent news. Looking forward to not having your evening ruined when half way through a session a smaggo sits down next to you and lights up, making you breath that filth.

Hooray!

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Rasener
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 04:09 AM

Will they now allow workers who do not smoke to have the same breaks that workers who do smoke have? Probably about an hour a day lost time per smoker who nips out for a drag.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 05:10 AM

Sad day for freedom or rights. No one forced any of you into the clubs, only found your voices recently. It's like Roy Castles rabbiting on about smoking in clubs was the cause of his cancer, didn't notice him handcuffed to the stage, It the smoke annoyed him why did he go in ? Answer like many greed.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST,DtG sans cookie
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 06:03 AM

It the smoke annoyed him why did he go in ?

Because it was his job? He was an entertainer and entertaining is what he did best. To do that he had to go into public rooms and did so often. To the cost of his life. He gave his life to entertain us - How is that greed?

No, we didn't see him handcuffed to the stage. Are you saying that to be an entertainer, or even to see live music, it is necessary to risk your life? I suggest that you think that argument through a bit more before progressing!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 06:09 AM

I remember reading an article by a doctor in a health magazine where he said he'd rather a patient smoked and exercised, than didn't smoke and didn't exercise. Of course, not smoking AND exercising is the best course.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 06:21 AM

I'm not concerned, I'm smoking seldom because I'm taking snuff. Fine stuff! Opens your nose and brain.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 06:21 AM

Roy Castle wasn't being greedy - he was earning a living. I wonder what the opinion of the Ministry of Work and Pensions (or whatever they're called now) would be of a barman who constantly turned down jobs because of their smoky environments.

Is there actually a right to smoke? Is it enshrined somewhere?

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 07:07 AM

Yes Manitas, there is an implicit right to smoke in the fact that smoking is legal.

There is, however, NO implicit right to force others to smoke by doing it in enclosed spaces, nor should there be.

As a lifelong smoker, I have tried, as best I could, to lessen the effects of my habits on others, and I welcome this ban. I am not dismayed by the idea of having to go outside for a cigarette.

I DO think that an exception could have been made for private smoking clubs, where only smokers, or non smokers who had been warned about the risks and made a written acceptance of those risks, could be employed.

BTW, I am at last seriously attempting to give up the filthy habit following my recent heart trouble, and I truly wish that I had never exercised my right to start smoking.

Don T.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST,wordy
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 07:32 AM

I nominate Guests above Roy Castle posting as the front runner for the daftest, most lunatic posting on Mudcat ever.