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.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: sian, west wales
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 07:36 AM

Don T. Best of Luck! Stick in there. I know an Irishman who quit. He said the hardest bit was being in a pub. The motion of left hand with pint and right had with ciggie was terribly ingrained. He solved it by buying two pints at a time, so he still had a left hand - right hand rhythm going. I imagine he still keeps to the programme even without smoking in Irish pubs now. (And that seems to be working out fine from what I hear.)

Shambles, as Westminster is classed as a Palace, apparently this ban won't be applicable to the bars there. Still, if I were an MP, or MP staff, I'd be very cautious of exercising that right; the tabloid press would have a heyday.

siân

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: jacqui.c
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 07:43 AM

This is really good news. Now when Kendall and I get to the UK there won't be a problem going to sessions.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 07:57 AM

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.

Workers are not permitted to opt out of other safety legislation so I do not see why this legislation introduced for their safety should be viewed any differently.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Grab
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 08:15 AM

I have to say, I agree with Greg.

If a private club, run purely by the members with no employees, wants to allow smoking - well, that's entirely their call.

But as soon as they hire *anyone*, that's it. Staff mustn't be forced to suffer exposure to hazardous chemicals. Although, of course, they do have the option of providing staff with gas masks providing a personal supply of clean air, and suitable training for using it. They're perfectly at liberty to do that - although check the price of SCUBA gear and training sometime... :-)

FWIW, commercial fishing, mining and other dangerous occupations are all required to meet safety standards. If something's inherently dangerous, an employer has to meet best practise to minimise that danger, and if anything does go wrong then they're looking at prison time. There was a fishing boat went down a few years back, and the owner ended up in jail bcos the boat wasn't up to scratch and the crew weren't properly trained. Similarly, various adventure sport people have been done for injuries and deaths due to poor instruction, lack of suitable equipment or incompetence putting the participants at risk.

Even soldiers get this. If a soldier gets shot bcos he was leading an assault or he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, then that's part of his job. But if he was *put* in the wrong place at the wrong time by his commanding officer through incompetence, then that officer is likely looking at a court martial. (Or should be anyway, which is why Deepcut is such a scandal. But that's off-topic.)

Graham.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 09:03 AM

Hull smoking club will remain entirely unaffected by this latest piece of touchy feely 'legislation'

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST,Essex Girl
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 10:08 AM

I have spent the past few days in Scotland in pubs and clubs. Although the music and company were great the level of smoke was appalling. I'll come back after 26th March when the ban comes ito force. PS the folk club in East Kilbride was very nice and a non-smoking venue. My smoking friends say they are happy fot the ban as it might help them give up.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 10:13 AM

The funniest smoking ban is in Washington State where the law says a smoker must be 20 feet away from any municipal or private building downtown. That puts a legal smoker directly on the the yellow center line of city streets.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 10:43 AM

Such laws are obviously designed to encourage people to give up smoking i.e making it very inconvenient to smoke at break times. One of the "untidy" side effects of banning smoking in the workplace in England is the sight of workers standing outside of shops and offices having a quick cigarette.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: kendall
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 11:01 AM

Most of you know that 47 years of smoking cost me my singing voice, so you can also guess what I think of smoking in public. Stupid, expensive, anti social and often fatal. Defending this nasty habit is just plain silly. There is nothing good about it.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 11:05 AM

When will the crack down get tough and criminalize the growing of the stuff the same as pot?

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 11:18 AM

Never, I hope Donuel.

That would merely put massive profits in the hands of drug dealers, and gangsters.

Remember the Voldtead act?

Don T.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 11:19 AM

Volstead Act, of course......Prohibition!

Don T.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Flash Company
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 11:26 AM

Knew a guy who once wrote to the M.D, of the company we worked for suggesting that non-smokers should have an extra week of holiday in the year to compensate for the smoke breaks that they were not taking.
Come the next round of redundancies he was top of the list! (The M,D, was a smoker)

FC

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 11:57 AM

THERE IS A GOD!!
And 'GUEST' is a dickhead.
S:0)

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: greg stephens
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 12:23 PM

I am totally in favour of the public deciding what goes on in public places. But I am not convinced that every Tom Dick and Harriet has any moral right to tell a group people they cant buy a building, go and sit in it, and smke and drink.
   I appreciate that the constititional arrangements in a democracy permit the majority to impose their will on a minority like this, but I question their wisdom in doing so. I am just as dubious about the laws many countries impose on the sexual practises people get up to beind closed doors. I have never felt that that was any of my business, nether do I think their private relationship with tobacco is anything to do with me either.
It's a slippery slope when "I can exercise power to enforce my prejudices" becomes "I will exercise power to enforce my prejudices".

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: jeffp
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 12:50 PM

Oh, but you can. It's called a "home." Invite your smoking friends over, have them bring their own drinks, and have a party. It's that simple, really.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 12:52 PM

What JeffP said....

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: greg stephens
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 12:57 PM

JeffP: no you cant do what I said, I wasn't talking about people's homes. You know perfectly well parliament has banned groups from buying a building for a private smoking club.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Emma B
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 12:58 PM

Time to buy shares in the Off Licence trade I think if the Irish experience is anything to go by

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 01:04 PM

By God, the next thing, they'll be banning private wanking clubs!

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 01:08 PM

Then there'll be no Mudcat at all!

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 01:12 PM

Exactly what I was thinking... (Har! Har!)

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: jeffp
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 01:24 PM

You can still gather privately in your homes. So it's not a "private smoking club." Big deal. Get over it.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 01:28 PM

All you do is have one of you live in the building and invite the rest of you round.   Just one of the social innovations I anticipate that this law will bring.

So called "Private Clubs" aren't the same as a bunch of friends sharing a building for their own use. They are no more more private than other public buildings where you can only get in by paying, like Cinemas and Theatres. They just involve a different way of paying. Having an exemption for anything calling itself a club would have nullified the whole ban, and have probably led to a load of pubs formally turning themselves into "clubs".

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 01:28 PM

Actually, given that Ontario recently overturned a law that made "Sex Clubs" illegal, it may come down the pike that a "Smoking Club" would be just as legal... as long as everyone involved was consenting, and there were no employees involved....

I donno....

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST,Cluin
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 06:18 PM

And everybody signed a waiver form to prevent litigation later (or evidence that you were involved in naughty activity).

Too many laws. Too many lawyers.

While I'm not against the smoking ban per se, I still don't like to see freedoms legislated away... even the freedom to be self-destructive.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 06:54 PM

But the self destructive were destroying my freedom too so surely it's fair that something has to give. They can still self destruct but not near me when I'm out of my own home. Surely that's fair to all?

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 06:59 PM

I can't see how waiver of that kind could make any diffeeence to the legality. They might theoretically affect some hypothetical civil claim,but that's nothing to do with the criminal law, which is what the ban is about.

I can't envisage problems for genuinely private sessions, as opposed to a pub or pub room and so forth flying under false colours.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 07:37 PM

as long as selling smokable tobacco remains legal, there must be SOME place smokers can do it...but if smoking is **inherently** dangerous and unhealthy, there is a flaw in the logic.

Imagine if tobacco had not been discovered before, and just this year someone came in with this plant they found, and said..."Hey! If you dry this, roll it up in some paper, set fire to it and inhale the smoke, it gives an 'interesting' physical sensation!"

You can imagine what the various health authorities would say after a few years of tests and analysis. "Sorry, folks...this stuff is bad news...'taint good for you!"

Every day they find drugs that do something useful...but also are found to have unfortunate side effects...and those are usually pulled from the market post-haste. (Thalidomide and a couple of pain killers come to mind). So, we have this drug cocktail that has NO benefits except for 'relaxing' folks from the tension that comes from not using it..and it remains on the market in the face of staggering statistics of its dangers? Why?...We know why....too much money and addiction to it (probably among those who make the laws).

It is obvious that they are committed to 'gradual' elimination of the habit....and perhaps there is no other 'practical' way....but as long as it IS legal, kids are going to keep trying it and people are going to continue dying from it, whether at 20 or at 50 or 80.

It is obvious that IF it remains legal, people can get together in a **private** home or club and smoke...and if some of them happen to sing, *shrug*....but the day every civilized country officially bans commercial sales of it can't come too soon for me!

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST,Cluin
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 10:50 PM

And it goes underground and organized crime makes a pile of money and people get killed and arrested and the governments wage their "War on Tobacco".

Banning substances people want doesn't work. A lot of the same people who want smoking banned also call for the legalization of marijuana.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: number 6
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 11:11 PM

There was a marijuana cafe in town here Saint John ... it lasted for about little over a year year until the cops busted mainly becuase they where selling to high school kids (large quantities at that) ... anyway, you could go there and smoke hooch, but you where not allowed to smoke cigarettes. You could also go down the street for your choice of a Big Mac, sloppy pizza slice, or a nice healthy Donair.

sIx

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Essex Girl
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 09:19 AM

We will always indulge in things that are unhealthy/fattening or illegal. Most of us enjoy a drink or two (or three), the occasional burger or takeaway. We do not do these things 24 hours a day, every day. I have been singing in pubs/clubs for over 40 years, but always had to avoid those where the ventilation was inadequate. As for inviting your smoking friends around for that reason I hope you haven't got children!

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 03:33 PM

" A lot of the same people who want smoking banned also call for the legalization of marijuana."

Sure... but I wouldn't smoke it in public....

"I hope you haven't got children!"
I recall reading legslation that would propose calling smoking in the car with your kids in the back seat, child abuse... I agree... and I'd vote to support it

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 04:35 PM

I sort of knew that someone would immediately trot out the argument that "it's no use banning stuff, 'cause then you get underground/criminal distribution...etc..."

You note exactly what I said:
"...the day every civilized country officially bans commmercial sales of it can't come too soon for me!"

let me add.." smoking ANYWHERE in public building or on public streets"

If it were made VERY difficult and expensive to obtain, and you couldn't do it openly and legally, and it couldn't be distributed in commercial packs, it would be seriously restrained! Yeah, some might go to any lengths, but you can't easily grow tobacco in closets with grow-lights, and there would be FAR less of it out there and FAR fewer kids discovering it early and FAR fewer deaths and disease. And I'll take that, along with being able to breath at a folk club!

**ANY** reduction in tobacco intake is good...especially cigarettes.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 05:07 PM

Sure BillD... I'm on yer side... but there isn't ONE single person anywhere in the world that wants a controlled substance, and can't get it...

"FAR fewer deaths and disease"
Really? Tell that to heroin... or cocain... I think those are two examples of exactly the opposite... if there were regulated, controlled commercial sales, they would be a LOT safer...

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 05:59 PM

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Grab - PM
Date: 15 Feb 06 - 08:15 AM

I have to say, I agree with Greg.

If a private club, run purely by the members with no employees, wants to allow smoking - well, that's entirely their call.

But as soon as they hire *anyone*, that's it. Staff mustn't be forced to suffer exposure to hazardous chemicals. Although, of course, they do have the option of providing staff with gas masks providing a personal supply of clean air, and suitable training for using it. They're perfectly at liberty to do that - although check the price of SCUBA gear and training sometime... :-)



Where in my post did your fertile imagination see any suggestion that staff be forced to suffer passive smoking harm, Grab?

If a prospective employee wishes to work in such a place, knowing the risks, I see no problem in that. A prospective employee who smokes might well be enrolled as a member, and if he chooses to expose himself, who has the right to forbid it?

The other side of the question is purely hypothetical, as it is highly unlikely that a non smoker would even apply for the job.

Don T.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 06:26 PM

As a smoker myself I have always respected other peoples views and agree to the ban in public places. Funny how those who smoke marijuana seem to be accepted more in the clubs here. I an totally against the use of all drugs, saw to much of the results over the years, soft drugs do lead to other experiences I found. The ban has been in place for over a year in Ireland and has worked. Smokers who disagree with it show no respect for others.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 08:10 PM

well, Clinton, Heroin & cocaine don't work like tobacco. There is a different type of addiction, and it is hard to directly OD on tobacco.

I repeat re:tobacco...less availibility and legal sale WILL result in less use and thereby lessharm, even if 'some' do acquire it anyway. If inconvenience means a general decline in use & disease, then that is progress.

Can't tell who's right without a test, hmmmm? Like, maybe 50 years?

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 10:12 PM

great news.. cant wait to start going out to more pub gigs asap.

BUT.. how will this new some ban apply
to
dense clouds of choking chemical fragranced smoke
pumped out by disco and band stage smoke machines ???

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 10:14 PM

"some" i meant to have typed "smoke" there.. ???

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Cluin
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 11:05 PM

Canada tried jacking up the "sin" tax on smokes a few years ago to help encourage people to quit or even cut down.

It didn't work. Smuggling of illegal cigarettes across the border increased, especially at border reservations. Lots of illegal street bartering going on.

They ended up dropping the tax back down because the cops couldn't handle the extra pressure.

I repeat, I'm glad public smoking is banned. I just oppose more legislation on principle. Haven't you folks ever heard of paradox?

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Cluin
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 11:10 PM

Sorry, that was Ontario that raised the cigarette tax. A lot of cigs were smuggled in from Quebec too.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Peace
Date: 16 Feb 06 - 11:15 PM

"No doubt the addicts will come on whining about freedom, but we've all got freedom now!"

Dear Mouthy: I haven't smoked in public or in people's houses for years. I have paid attention to smoke only in designated smoking areas or when I am alone or only with other smokers. Shove your generalization. Thank you.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST,wordy
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 06:35 AM

Well, as with all generalisations there's always the exception. Keep up the good work. I'm grateful.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 04:43 PM

This is fantastic news - I miight even go back to England on the strength of it!

'Conservative', 'old-fashioned' England has stolen a march on 'young' 'cool' Australia (where I live) and I love it! In Tasmania a ban has come in but other states still allow smoking where food is not served.

Smoker's pleasure = waste = smoke

Drinker's pleasure = waste = piss

Smokers who whine about this should ask themselves how much they would like to be pissed on.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 06:56 PM

There's no particular problem in growing tobacco - even in England. In fact at one point back in Charles II's time it was made illegal to grow it here, as a way of helping tobacco growers in America (which would have made it easier to levy a tax when it was imported). And back in the 1940s Emglish tobacco cultivation had a revival, when imported tobacco supplies were short.

Outright prohibition would be an enormous boost to the people who currently supply illegal drugs, as it always is. It would vastly extend the numbers of people buying illegal substances. I don't think there are enough politicians stupid enough to go down that road - though you never can tell. After all, the case for such a ban is a lot stronger than that for keeping cannabis possession illegal.

Freeing us from tobacco smoke and similar in pubs and clubs and so forth seems enough to me. Going any further is self defeating.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 17 Feb 06 - 08:29 PM

Living in Scotland, which has an astronomical tally of smoking-related diseases, many of us are counting the days until 26th March. In the meantime. as others have said above, more and more folk clubs are going smokeless, but you still have to hold your breath as you go in the door, or even to our local hospitals, to get past the ostracised smokers puffing away right outside said buildings.
On the positive side, several smokers I have met in my professional capacity say that the ban will in fact make it easier for them to give up.
My husband's college provided a smoking room for the smokers when the rest of the college went smokeless, but even the smokers found it "too smoky"!
TB

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 04:23 AM

I'm a non-smoker. Smoking (with a bit of help from Medway Murdertime Hospital, where the staff wear badges that say "in case of injury, do not admit to Medway Maritime Hospital") killed my wife.

But this banning of smoking is a betrayal of the good English value of toleration of the minor foibles of others.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: the one
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 04:55 AM

ban this ban that, and what did we hippy smoking pot lot do, WE TRIED TO BAN THE BOMB WE FAILED. THS GOV GOES HOME WREEKING OF BLOOD . you wait there is worse to come all hail the gov.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Rasener
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 08:30 AM

100

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 02:31 PM

"what did we hippy smoking pot lot do"

In the immortal words of Eric Cartman, "Fuck hippies!"

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Cluin
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 03:48 PM

In the immortal words of (a cartoon character meant to be a satire), "Fuck hippies!"

Hell, that's what most of them became hippies for anyway.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 03:50 PM

That, plus getting high and avoiding work...

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 03:59 PM

And stinking up the place with their unwashed hairy-ass bodies....

Gross....

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Cluin
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 04:11 PM

Yeah, but there are some bad parts to that lifestyle too.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Feb 06 - 05:58 PM

LOL, Cluin

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: s6k
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 05:05 AM

its a load of absolute bollocks

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST,Cretinous Yahoo
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 08:57 AM

There is a common misconception about prohibition. The fact is, it did work, and drinking was reduced by 90%. The other 10% is where the well known problems arose, gangsters, smugglers and organized crime.
It was illegal to make or transport booze, but it was not illegal to drink it. Why they left that loop hole is up for speculation. I always figured it was so the lawyers would be able to make money .

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: the one
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 11:03 AM

clinton hammond as been looking at hippies ass and unwashed ones at that,how else would he know.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST,From Irealnd with Love!
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 04:10 PM

As you may know, we have had in the smoking ban here a while now. Here is my opinion on the issue.

When it came in i was oppsed, as a smoker, I later appreciated the change in the pub air quality, and having to go outside, played a part in me now being an ex smoker.

It is good for musicians, but bad for sessions or jams where attendees are smokers. they'll keep leaving every 20 mins.

people who have never gone into pubs, will not miraculously go now there is no smoking, Number's may actually drop, especially on weeknights

With smokers encouraged out to beergardens etc, the smell of canabis will soon become a regular occourence. This I GUARANTEE

Pub's with no Beer Garden or Yard, will aquire a smoking pack around the front door of the premises, which you will have to get through to enter.


Conclusion:
The smoking ban is good, once you get over the initial "novelty" you will eventually accept it as norm, but beware. It will change Pub's radically within 6-8 months, and not all for the better, just more good than bad. Plus any self respecting landlord put's out the ashtrays after closing when the door is locked anyway! Tee hee!!!

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 04:28 PM

Now get rid of the parking lots so I won't be poisoned on the way there or have to risk being run down by drunks on the way home. Ach, why done we just ban bloody Pubs...can't offend the sanctimonius now can we.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST,Mary J
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 04:44 PM

In Spain they brought in their anti-tobacco laws on 1st Jan 2006. No smoking in work places, like offices etc. That seems to be working fine.

In bars, shops and restaurants the way it works is that each establishment can choose if they want to be smoking or non-smoking. If they choose to allow smoking then no kids under 16 can go in unaccompanied.

What a disaster. Just about every place I know has decided to be " a smoking area". So in theory, kids shouldn't go in. That could create a situation like when I was a kid in the Uk, where you couldn't go into bars, and it created a whole mystery around drinking and smoking dens, and made you dying to go to one when you were old enough. In Spain it has always been much more relaxed for kids to mix with adults, and it's a healthier atmosphere.Amyway, that's not really an issue , cos Spain being Spain, they just put up there signs that say "no kids" and let them in anyway.

So in the end all the bars and restaurants I go to still are smoking areas, and people actually seem less inhibited about smoking becuase there is a sign up that says it is allowed !

For me their anti-tobacco law is a shambles, in true Spanish style. They should have gone for a ban like the UK, or started to educate folk. More Spaniards smoke than BRits, and it still has that " cool " image going on, which to me is like something from my parents' generation.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 07:04 PM

Agreed. After a holiday in Barcelona I said I'd never visit Spain again. The evenings became impossible with all bars being smoky hells.
Can't wait to visit ireland though.
And I will leave the bars at closing time evidently!

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 19 Feb 06 - 07:22 PM

Hippies are all ass... and you don't have to look at them to know they're unwashed... they pong from a block away

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 10:14 AM

There is a common misconception about prohibition. The fact is, it did work, and drinking was reduced by 90%.

The point about Prohibition not working - then or now - isn't that it doesn't stop some people indulging, maybe a lot of people. It's that the overall effects of the attempts to ban the use of the substances unvolved are a lot worse than the effects of tolerating their continued use. Crime, corruption, users switching to more dangerous substitutes...

Restricting use in certain settings, as with the smoking ban, is a rather different matter.

Subject: RE: smoking ban
From: Grab
Date: 20 Feb 06 - 07:59 PM

Where in my post did your fertile imagination see any suggestion that staff be forced to suffer passive smoking harm, Grab?

If a prospective employee wishes to work in such a place, knowing the risks, I see no problem in that. A prospective employee who smokes might well be enrolled as a member, and if he chooses to expose himself, who has the right to forbid it?

The other side of the question is purely hypothetical, as it is highly unlikely that a non smoker would even apply for the job.

I wish my imagination were that fertile - songwriting would be easier! ;-)

I don't know how you're set in the US, but I seem to remember from my employment law course at uni that in Britain a contract saying "I absolve these people from any damage they do to me" isn't binding. This might seem excessive to you. From the point of view of a state-run Health Service that has to pick up the pieces afterwards though, this is not necessarily a bad idea.

The reasoning behind this is the whole point of Health and Safety regs. If you want to be completely libertarian, then by all means let people work on building sites with just the occasional plank between scaffold rails, or let them remove asbestos without protective gear. They know the risks, after all. (And yes, I do consider smoking as hazardous as either of those.) The problem though is that because employers have no incentive to make workers' lives safe, there won't *be* a choice - or rather, the choice will be work somewhere dangerous or don't work at all. There simply ain't a middle ground.

Graham.