The only problem is that most pubs will not be able to segregate the two areas sufficiently to comply. I am in favour of non smoking areas. Though I do think that passengers should take nicotine patches for long train and plane journeys. Otherwise they get irritable on such journeys.

That would be an almost please all situation, but there could still be the possibility of non-smokers working in the smoking pub/restaurant. The whole point of the smoking ban is to protect those who don't smoke, not to deliberately piss-off those who do.

Back in 2004 non-food pubs and private clubs escaped the ban, but I'm not sure how they fare now since the blanket was laid down. Perhaps non-public and non-commercial social clubs may be the way forward, they could even be a good way of avoiding excise and taxes if food and drinks were prepared by members.

Of course it's personal choice, however personally if I decided not to go out for a meal with a mate or the Mrs because I couldn't have a fag, that's a little pathetic.

Picture this if you will. One day you took a drag on a fag. You may or may not have liked it but soon thereafter you found you wanted to smoke another. A few years on and you're a habitual smoker. Smoking has become your friend. Your social lifeline. Your crutch. Your routine. You are an addict. You're not stupid, you know its bad for you. But you don't care. You like to smoke. A few years later you, a relative or a close friend finds themselves needing to go to hospital for something less than routine. Something worrying if you will. Stress takes a hold. And unlike those lucky others who don't smoke, your crutch is smoking. So you want to smoke. If there's a time when you should be allowed to smoke. It is then.

Sorry, but that's a no brainer. Why exacerbate an already stressful situation with compounded aggravation? It's nonsense.

I agree, its not nice to see nicotene-addicted pariahs clustered outside hospitals, shopping centres and workplaces. But that's the fault of the ban, the ban that never looked beyond it's knee-jerk pretentiousness. Had those who approved the ban thought "Give them a space/place" then we could quit our collective, different-sided whining and move on.


Being a smoker, a drinker, an ex-bar, pub & club worker and (once) regular frequenter of (many) many establishments, I am obviously bias. But as has been mentioned already, the closure or conversion of so many venues in the country means that we are no longer allowed free choice. I've said it before, I won't order a steak in a vegan restaurant as it makes no sense to. So why, if a venue clearly states on the door, and in employment contracts, that it permits smoking; and in doing so holds you to an agreement where you waive your "rights" to "clean" air; does it not make sense to have gone the route of choice? In my mind the blanket ban on smoking in public was a retrograde move toward a liberalised society. We should have been focusing our attentions on the legalisation of recreational drugs to better manage, and potentially proffer from, their use.

But seeing as retrograde is the direction we're heading and it now appears to be my "right" to ban any external factor that might affect my health; I guess I'll start putting my case together to have the automobile, the underground, confined over-warm spaces and ill people bringing their germs to work all banned since I don't like what they do to my health. Oh yes I did I mention I smoke. I guess that means I'm as much a hypocrite as everyone else then.

Having smoking and non-smoking pubs will do more damage than the supposedly closures of pubs because you can't smoke in any of them. Non smokers will feel obliged to go to the smoking ones because of smoking friends, therefore the non smoking pubs would get less business.

!?!

I think you're projecting just a little there. Try to think a bit more rationally just for a moment...

Picture if you will you and your missus' really enjoy smoking. I mean, you both really, really enjoy smoking. There's nothing the two of you enjoy more than sitting back after a lovely meal, with a cup a coffee and cigarette. Sometimes, you might stay for a few drinks more because of it. Alas you can't. Your decision has been made for you. You have to leave the restaurant to smoke. Be it temporarily or until the next visit. The chance of sharing those moments you once shared have been stolen from you. So you stay at home. Pathetic maybe, but not because you want to share the same moment with your missus. Pathetic because as a grown adult you aren't allowed to make the choice between a smoking and a non-smoking venue. Because there is no choice.

And vice versa.

You really are quite blinkered on this aren't you? I don't smoke around my mate's children, nor smoke in the non-smoking homes of my mates. I still go round though. Why? It's called mutual respect.

+1
I'm a non smoker who used to work in a pub (pre smoking ban). Every night I came in with a runny nose and sore throat because of the smoke. Not to mention the stench on my hair and clothes.

Yes, pathetic, if I was letting my social life be effected or affected (which ever applies) by the fact I couldn't get my fix, I would call myself pathetic.

I appreciate the mutual respect comment's however in a social environment where you get the choice of smoking and non smoking it's most likely the smoking venues will get more business. I'm putting the argument that there's not a middle ground. You either ban it in public space or permit it. Coming from running a hotel you pick to have smoking rooms as it will get you more business. How would you enforce venues to be non-smoking? I believe there's no middle ground so you pick non-smoking due to smokers being a minority.

And you were paid for this "work" ? Yes? And I'm guessing it wasn't one of those court-appointed-employment-as-part-of-a-sentence kind of arrangements? Yes?

If that was the case, you were there by your own choice. That "choice" also gave you the option to leave the job. It's not like there aren't plenty of other late-night work jobs around - many of which pay better than pub work (shelf stacking in supermarkets for one).

I honestly can't see how the personal grievances of some are allowed to put out others in a fair and tolerant world.

As far as governments are concerned if you are jobless you practically have no option to refuse a job if it is suitable. As a non smoker I do support a smoking ban. Though I do see the other side that smokers are addicts, so should we also have shooting galleries for junkies in pubs?

That's cool. You're welcome to call yourself pathetic - I have no issue with that. I had issue with you calling other people, who do smoke and may choose not to go out if they can't, pathetic. As if you were some authority on what/who/where is pathetic and what/who/where is not.

And a venue making more business over another (for whatever reason) is an issue because?

Well clearly. But there could / should have been.

My friend works for a holiday cottage operator in the south west, and each year that we've gone down we've had her keep an eye out for suitable properties. Guess what? All the smoking places are booked up season upon season in advance. I'm no businessman and I'm awful at managing my finances, but despite that I can see there's money to be made there. And I think the owners of said cottages did also.

As for your predicament, it's quite simple - and I've seen it in practice. All you need say to your guests when they collect their keys They be the rules of our hotel." You could even do this with a sign or two. Imagine! Then, just as before the ban, smokers will see the sign and (wait for it) the vast majority will abide by it. Job done. And the best thing is? You sleep easy at night whilst the extra money from premium-rate smoking rooms pours into your coffers. Okay, so you might have to spend some of it on upgrading your door seals, ventilation and maybe some extra air freshner for said rooms... but greed is a deadly sin so there's always price to pay. Odd you chose to forfeit the fortune, commendable even. But personally I see that as another show of the ban's short sightedness in global hypertechnicolour.

I don't smoke and I'm not a fan of smokers. But what bothers me more than being in a room of chainsmokers is the fact that the Govt sees fit to encroach on others' lives in such ways.

Exactly! Bar/restaurant work (pre and post ban) is an exceptionally attractive job - there are a great, great many other jobs far "worse" than one where you might (God forbid) come home smelling a bit of stale smoke... To paint bar/restaurant work as the last resort of the desperate is quite frankly, insulting.

No, because Heroin (I presume) is presently an illegal substance. Were it not, then there would probably be dedicated centres for such, but if a pub/restaurant wanted to encourage and welcome such patrons, and had been given the fair right to choose to do so (with the same kind of waiver I proposed for smoking) then why not?

Okay, we'll leave the pathetic stuff out of it, as that seems to be going no where constructive.

I'm not going to go down the argument should smoking be permitted or not, I think you've missed my point entirely.

You say there should/could be a middle ground, yes that's correct, but what is it? Until a middle ground, a smoking ban in public spaces just makes sense.

One question is how do you enforce venues to be non-smoking? As we've agreed venues will choose to be smoking to pull in more business, which is great, however everyone will choose to do the same. Then there is no choice for non-smokers who are in the majority, so the government has to take business choice away from businesses and enforce a certain percentage be non-smoking.

Exactly! Bar/restaurant work (pre and post ban) is an exceptionally attractive job - there are a great, great many other jobs far "worse" than one where you might (God forbid) come home smelling a bit of stale smoke... To paint bar/restaurant work as the last resort of the desperate is quite frankly, insulting.

I don't think it's a bit of stale smoke that's the issue, passive smoking reduces life expectancy and leads to diseases. It's a fact.