5 Pubs Closing Every Day

[Nelly]

That would never work because it undermines the ban. It also is a crazy situation for works nights out of large groups of friends, some of which want to go the the smoking pub and others to the non-smoking pub. Probably the smokers will win because they usually drink the most so they will all have to go to the smoking pub or risk upsetting the boat. Then you will be back at pre-ban state. The pubs that are non-smoking will then moan at government that its not fair and the whole thing would be for nothing.

Personally I think its great that when I go out I don't get my lungs polluted any more and I don't go to bed stinking of smoke in my hair and all over my clothes.

Like I said adult choice.

And big groups of people dont go out they split into little groups anyway, they might be in the same pub but thay arnt ALL talking to each other.

It works in Spain and only the most nazi anti smoker dissagrees with it, because they are selfish kkunts.

[BXLONDONMAN]

Like I said adult choice.

And big groups of people dont go out they split into little groups anyway, they might be in the same pub but thay arnt ALL talking to each other.

It works in Spain and only the most nazi anti smoker dissagrees with it, because they are selfish kkunts.

why dont all the smokers get into ther small groups... buy up all the pubs turn them into private clubs....

why small have you seen the price of cigs...you got to be rich to smoke or er ?

thats it ask pm brown .....god to the bankers .. on what he thinks....hes got bns...

maybe you guys can get your hands on some of browns funny money....

get the banking lot to ask for the dosh to buy the pubs...

it will give much needed boost to the jobs market at the same time....

if you can turn it into a scam on us the tax payers brown will give you the cash.....

he just loves scams like liar loans etc........

[Dubai]

That may well be your choice however law has to be applied equitably which is why the legislators went for a blanket ban.

KB, that doesn't wash either. There are plenty of laws in the UK that allow exceptions..... so where do we get this "has to be applied equitably" from, like some sort of excuse for lame thinking?

For example, I have to wear a seat belt in my car.... but not on a bus. What is equitable about that? Nothing; an exception has been made to allow for "real life".

[Guest barebear]

KB, that doesn't wash either. There are plenty of laws in the UK that allow exceptions..... so where do we get this "has to be applied equitably" from, like some sort of excuse for lame thinking?

For example, I have to wear a seat belt in my car.... but not on a bus. What is equitable about that? Nothing; an exception has been made to allow for "real life".

Nice one.

Why cant someone start a smokers pub ? That way you know exactly what your getting before you go inside. I think what they're worried about is that it would be so successful that everyone would start a smokers pub and therefore the blanket ban.

Crazy interfering nanny state logic.

[kengan]

In a similar vein as it were. What impact is the economic situation having on the drug trade ....and I don't mean the likes of Pfizer reps getting new orders. Prices going down? Consumption falling? Less money being 'cleaned' by the legit economy? Will there be a 'bail out' for dealers?

[Maddog21]

Nice one.

Why cant someone start a smokers pub ? That way you know exactly what your getting before you go inside. I think what they're worried about is that it would be so successful that everyone would start a smokers pub and therefore the blanket ban.

Crazy interfering nanny state logic.

A mate of mine has just come back from Amsterdam "stag do"

They were watching the football in a pub not a "coffee shop"

and noticed a few people smoking. My friend went to the barman,

who was about 18 and smoking himself and asked if it was alright to smoke

as there were 18 of them. The barman said no problem every smoker

has to pay a Euro so if they do get busted they have a fine fund.

PERFECT

[Guest barebear]

In a similar vein as it were. What impact is the economic situation having on the drug trade ....and I don't mean the likes of Pfizer reps getting new orders. Prices going down? Consumption falling? Less money being 'cleaned' by the legit economy? Will there be a 'bail out' for dealers?

I would say the drugs trade is on the up with people staying in enjoying their eigth or line of Charley in the comfort of their own home.

My son gets home delivery weed now and they're happy to pick up fags and skins on the way too.

Im not sure what I prefer, him staying in getting comfortably stoned or going down the pub and getting pi$$ed. I think the first.

Edited October 30, 2008 by barebear

[kengan]

I would say the drugs trade is on the up with people staying in enjoying their eigth or line of Charley in the comfort of their own home.

My son gets home delivery weed now and they're happy to pick up fags and skins on the way too.

Im not sure what I prefer, him staying in getting comfortably stoned or going down the pub and getting pi$$ed. I think the first.

What do you think will happen if say your lad loses his job (hope not)? It is likely that a lot of people may need to prioritise .... dope or food for example.

[Mish Mash]

Never understood the link between smoking bans and food.

Smoke is fine particles of ash that float about in the air, even when the actual puff of smoke has dissipated. Some people object to eating food sprinkled with ash that has passed through someone's mouth.

Oh, so you don't drive a car then, or get stuck in a huge traffic jam occasionally and have to shut the windows to avoid the pollution? Or walk in a street with a hundred diesal buses and lorries driving by, or ever attend a barbecue, or occasionally visit London, Manchester or Birmingham, then get home equally stinking and filthy as you would in a smokey pub?

You must attend some very badly run barbecues.

London, Manchester or Birmingham have certainly deteriorated since I last visited them. Is London now back to being covered in fog and populated by cheeky cockney urchins?

A hundred buses and lorries driving by. What street is this, the M1?

Hyperthyroidic histrionics do not an argument make.

[Guest barebear]

What do you think will happen if say your lad loses his job (hope not)? It is likely that a lot of people may need to prioritise .... dope or food for example.

He's at college and working part time,he doesnt earn enough to pay me rent and I cant stop all of his pleasures,he rarely gets pi$$ed now because of lack of money. That to my mind is a good thing. The weed thing is recreational and I cant see its doing much harm.

[Guest barebear]

Smoke is fine particles of ash that float about in the air, even when the actual puff of smoke has dissipated. Some people object to eating food sprinkled with ash that has passed through someone's mouth.

You must attend some very badly run barbecues.

London, Manchester or Birmingham have certainly deteriorated since I last visited them. Is London now back to being covered in fog and populated by cheeky cockney urchins?

A hundred buses and lorries driving by. What street is this, the M1?

Hyperthyroidic histrionics do not an argument make.

Erm mate forget the smoke particles,what about the pi$$ particles on the chef's hands that cooked it and on the hands that packaged it and what was on the ground when it was dropped and so on.

In a recent survey a random bowl of nuts from a pub was analysed, it was found to contain 5 different urine samples and 3 poo samples.

I wish women would wash their hands after using the toilet.

[kengan]

He's at college and working part time,he doesnt earn enough to pay me rent and I cant stop all of his pleasures,he rarely gets pi$$ed now because of lack of money. That to my mind is a good thing. The weed thing is recreational and I cant see its doing much harm.

Yes, I'm not sure it is actually possible to be young these days without at least a bit of draw etc, except if you are lucky enough to be getting paid squillions for kicking a ball. I was thinking more about the hard core smack heads and the nasty people who feed on them. Although I personally have nothing to do with drugs I do know people who take 'the business' very seriously...it must have an impact on the economy and of course vice versa.

[Kurt Barlow]

KB, that doesn't wash either. There are plenty of laws in the UK that allow exceptions..... so where do we get this "has to be applied equitably" from, like some sort of excuse for lame thinking?

For example, I have to wear a seat belt in my car.... but not on a bus. What is equitable about that? Nothing; an exception has been made to allow for "real life".

Im not arguing for or against the ban - its a legal perspective.

The point is that the smoking ban was primarily introduced to protect employee health . The issues around whether or not its nice for the public to sit in a smokey pub or not is actually a secondary issue.

The approach you are suggesting would potentially overturn the basis of every piece of occupational safety legislation since 1974. You are removing any duty by employers to protect employee health and assuming the employee has a choice of whether or not to expose themselves to health and safety risks through work. Thats all very well assuming its an employees market who can pick and choose work.

As for vehicles it is equitable - in virutally all circumstances you are required to wear a seat belt in a car. A bus is a different type of vehicle. I believe the reason for not making seat belts mandatory on buses is the relatively low speed they travel at. In contrast coaches (higher speed) seat belts are now mandatory although I dont think they have to be worn. But again this is a decision the legislators have to make and ultimately we can influence through the ballot box.

Edited October 30, 2008 by Kurt Barlow

[sammysnake]

Pubs are closing because people don't just want to drink in them!

Make good quality food, good service, and a pint with no aggro your onto a winner, Oh that's Wetherspoons..Actually though, I think even they are struggling at the mo....

[Kurt Barlow]

Im not arguing for or against the ban - its a legal perspective.

The point is that the smoking ban was primarily introduced to protect employee health . The issues around whether or not its nice for the public to sit in a smokey pub or not is actually a secondary issue.

The approach you are suggesting would potentially overturn the basis of every piece of occupational safety legislation since 1974. You are removing any duty by employers to protect employee health and assuming the employee has a choice of whether or not to expose themselves to health and safety risks through work. Thats all very well assuming its an employees market who can pick and choose work.

As for vehicles it is equitable - in virutally all circumstances you are required to wear a seat belt in a car. A bus is a different type of vehicle. I believe the reason for not making seat belts mandatory on buses is the relatively low speed they travel at. In contrast coaches (higher speed) seat belts are now mandatory although I dont think they have to be worn. But again this is a decision the legislators have to make and ultimately we can influence through the ballot box.

This is one approach. If you disagree with the smoking in workplaces ban - lobby your MP to have the Health Act 2006 repealed or amended.

Simple

[kingsgate]

Im not arguing for or against the ban - its a legal perspective.

The point is that the smoking ban was primarily introduced to protect employee health . The issues around whether or not its nice for the public to sit in a smokey pub or not is actually a secondary issue.

The approach you are suggesting would potentially overturn the basis of every piece of occupational safety legislation since 1974. You are removing any duty by employers to protect employee health and assuming the employee has a choice of whether or not to expose themselves to health and safety risks through work. Thats all very well assuming its an employees market who can pick and choose work.

As for vehicles it is equitable - in virutally all circumstances you are required to wear a seat belt in a car. A bus is a different type of vehicle. I believe the reason for not making seat belts mandatory on buses is the relatively low speed they travel at. In contrast coaches (higher speed) seat belts are now mandatory although I dont think they have to be worn. But again this is a decision the legislators have to make and ultimately we can influence through the ballot box.

"Employee health" was the "winning argument" used to force through legislation that the health nannies wanted to enact anyway. The rules about protecting employees had been in place for decades before the smoking ban - how come the employees health did not cause a ban in the 1970s or whenever the dangers of smoking were established?

How about if the bar staff where suitable protective equipment to ensure they don't breathe in smoke - like filter masks? People work in all sorts of hazardous environments and are allowed to do so provided they have appropriate personal protective equipment. So, if the staff in "smoking" pubs could be so protected, why not then allow smoking in pubs?

[barrabus]

So if you dont smoke do you live for ever !!

No it just seems like it (ex smoker)

[Maddog21]

I would say the drugs trade is on the up with people staying in enjoying their eigth or line of Charley in the comfort of their own home.

My son gets home delivery weed now and they're happy to pick up fags and skins on the way too.

Im not sure what I prefer, him staying in getting comfortably stoned or going down the pub and getting pi$$ed. I think the first.

I think the Government know this and want this.

They want people staying at home and not socialising together.

Instead of talking to each other down a pub, enjoying a pint

fag or whatever you want

We are talking to each other over a computer screen

They are neutralising the masses

Edited October 30, 2008 by Maddog21

[Guest barebear]

Im not arguing for or against the ban - its a legal perspective.

The point is that the smoking ban was primarily introduced to protect employee health . The issues around whether or not its nice for the public to sit in a smokey pub or not is actually a secondary issue.

The approach you are suggesting would potentially overturn the basis of every piece of occupational safety legislation since 1974. You are removing any duty by employers to protect employee health and assuming the employee has a choice of whether or not to expose themselves to health and safety risks through work. Thats all very well assuming its an employees market who can pick and choose work.

As for vehicles it is equitable - in virutally all circumstances you are required to wear a seat belt in a car. A bus is a different type of vehicle. I believe the reason for not making seat belts mandatory on buses is the relatively low speed they travel at. In contrast coaches (higher speed) seat belts are now mandatory although I dont think they have to be worn. But again this is a decision the legislators have to make and ultimately we can influence through the ballot box.

First I've heard that the smoking ban was put in force to protect the workers.

So if I had a smoking pub I would simply say to those wanting a job there that they had to accept the smoking or look elsewhere.

Whats wrong with that ?

We dont protect the squeamish from working in morgues,or the fireman from risking his life or the police officer from getting involved in violence. People have a choice whether to do these occupations or not.

But we do say the fireman gets breathing apparatus,the policeman a night stick, so as someone else has already said we could provide the bar person with a facemask.

Edited October 30, 2008 by barebear

[kengan]

I think the Government know this and want this.

They want people staying at home and not socialising together.

Instead of talking to each other down a pub, enjoying a pint

fag or whatever you want

We are talking to each other over a computer screen

They are neutralizing the masses

Yes...we are all sending complaints to the BBC about gobshites on TV/radio and actually getting them the sack.....we have the power..

[deflation]

First I've heard that the smoking ban was put in force to protect the workers.

Are you serious? It was trotted out all the time when it was being debated.

Thats why you can't smoke at ANY workplace and why the front of many office and works buildings all have gaggles (collective noun for smokers anyone?) of 'tabbers' outside them at break times.

[Maddog21]

Yes...we are all sending complaints to the BBC about gobshites on TV/radio and actually getting them the sack.....we have the power..

I totally agree with that, i've thought for a long time both

of them needed taking down a peg or two

But what the f*ck has it got to do with Gordon Brown,

he's responsible for voting for and funding a war thats

cost millions of lives, I find that offensive!

and I don't believe i've had a vote on that or HIM

[Guest barebear]

Are you serious? It was trotted out all the time when it was being debated.

Thats why you can't smoke at ANY workplace and why the front of many office and works buildings all have gaggles (collective noun for smokers anyone?) of 'tabbers' outside them at break times.

Yep I dont recall that being the original reason.

I'll say again just provide bar staff with brething apparatus. Problem solved.

[Maddog21]

Or the f*cking smoking ban!!

DEMOCRACY IS DEAD! REVOLUTION IS THE FUTURE!

[Guest barebear]

I totally agree with that, i've thought for a long time both

of them needed taking down a peg or two

But what the f*ck has it got to do with Gordon Brown,

he's responsible for voting for and funding a war thats

cost millions of lives, I find that offensive!

and I don't believe i've had a vote on that or HIM

Here bloody here here

Makes you laugh how these idiots cant wait to condem something so it looks to the public as if their normal. The most famous one was Blair when Diana died,I've never seen such a plastic performance,you could tell he didnt give a stuff other than it was his opportunity to look human.