Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    There maybe legitimate reason. Id rather leave it up to local councils to decide what policy is best for them, but I believe in small government and personal freedom so, unfortunately, it looks like Ill be in the minority.
    looks like it.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by technik)
    i prefer to stay to my own kind
    lol - you're obsessed technik.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    lol - you're obsessed technik.
    not at all...

    i happen to live in one of the most unionist/loyalist areas of the country so i dont have to think about it

    remember...im closer to scotland than the republic of ireland. i can even see it on a clear day from the coast.

    however...we are straying off topic
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    There is a danger with half-measures of the legislation leading to ambiguity with subsequent 'dilution' of effectiveness.

    This is why it is essential to have a total ban - no room for error or exploiting loopholes.
    Yeah, right---the "danger" is that, if people have any sort of choice at all, smoker-friendy bars will get all the business.

    (I'm not saying most people smoke. I'm saying most bar customers smoke.)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    remember folks...try to keep it to how you voted and why.

    use the other thread to continue the debate on the merits of each side of the argument!
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    Yeah, right---the "danger" is that, if people have any sort of choice at all, smoker-friendy bars will get all the business.

    (I'm not saying most people smoke. I'm saying most bar customers smoke.)
    The only reason why it seems that most bar customers smoke is that their disgusting, harmful habit has driven the decent, law-abiding, clean-living, healthy non-smokers from the pubs!

    Bring on the total ban!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, full ban.

    I believe in the government's duty of care, and this will prevent smoking-related illness in two ways: A- It will discourage smokers from smoking, by making it harder. B- It will prevent passive smoking by non-smokers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    The only reason why it seems that most bar customers smoke is that their disgusting, harmful habit has driven the decent, law-abiding, clean-living, healthy non-smokers from the pubs!

    Bring on the total ban!
    That's such bullsh*t. I know what the post-ban New York is like. All the bars 2/3rds empty, & smelling like mildew, urine and vomit now that the smoke is gone.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    That's such bullsh*t. I know what the post-ban New York is like. All the bars 2/3rds empty, & smelling like mildew, urine and vomit now that the smoke is gone.
    If they stink of urine and vomit, maybe that's why theyre empty. Surely its better that they now have an incentive to clean up, rather than just covering up the smells with smoke.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    That's such bullsh*t. I know what the post-ban New York is like. All the bars 2/3rds empty, & smelling like mildew, urine and vomit now that the smoke is gone.
    That shows that a partial ban is doomed to fail. We need a total ban like they have in the Republic of Ireland - as a breath of fresh air wafts around all the pubs in the world!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    That's such bullsh*t. I know what the post-ban New York is like. All the bars 2/3rds empty, & smelling like mildew, urine and vomit now that the smoke is gone.
    means theres no cloons knocking your drink over in the crush...and rather than smelling like all you mentioned with a toxic overtone, its just the original scents.

    try again
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    That shows that a partial ban is doomed to fail. We need a total ban like they have in the Republic of Ireland - as a breath of fresh air wafts around all the pubs in the world!
    You misunderstand me. New York has a total ban. Has had one for 2 years now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    The only reason why it seems that most bar customers smoke is that their disgusting, harmful habit has driven the decent, law-abiding, clean-living, healthy non-smokers from the pubs!

    Bring on the total ban!
    Just so no one misses it, I would like to state here the point I made on the other thread:

    How do you explain the experience of The Olive Branch, a Devon pub, whose experiment with voluntarily banning smoking in its pubs was a dismal failure? From an article in The Publican:

    "The Olive Branch in Barnstaple, Devon, made the decision to ban smoking eight weeks ago, but had to change the policy when customers turned their back on the business.

    "The pub came under new ownership two weeks ago and the new tenants immediately re-opened areas for smokers. Once they did they noticed takings were immediately up on previous weeks and are continuing to grow as the message spreads.

    "Ian Adams, who was appointed as the new manager in the pub when the ban ended, said: 'It simply didn’t work. If you’re going to bring in these measures you have to ask the public what they want. Most want a choice and that is what we now offer so we are seeing the customers return.'"
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    All the arguments in favour of banning public smoking come down to a "nanny knows best, and we'll decide what's good for you" attitude.

    The free-choicers are happy to accomodate the nicotine-fearers and allow them their own restaurants etc.

    We can choose for ourselves, and the market will provide. No laws required.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    at the end of the day smoking is bad for you and not pleasant for non-smokers but i think it shouldnt have a complete ban....maybe they could make little smoking huts an place them all around the citys! lol
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    You misunderstand me. New York has a total ban. Has had one for 2 years now.
    That is only in New York - people can go elsewhere. That is not a total ban.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    Just so no one misses it, I would like to state here the point I made on the other thread:

    How do you explain the experience of The Olive Branch, a Devon pub, whose experiment with voluntarily banning smoking in its pubs was a dismal failure? From an article in The Publican:

    "The Olive Branch in Barnstaple, Devon, made the decision to ban smoking eight weeks ago, but had to change the policy when customers turned their back on the business.

    "The pub came under new ownership two weeks ago and the new tenants immediately re-opened areas for smokers. Once they did they noticed takings were immediately up on previous weeks and are continuing to grow as the message spreads.

    "Ian Adams, who was appointed as the new manager in the pub when the ban ended, said: 'It simply didn’t work. If you’re going to bring in these measures you have to ask the public what they want. Most want a choice and that is what we now offer so we are seeing the customers return.'"
    Just so as you don't miss it - see my response to this on the 'partner' thread!
    Offline

    13
    [QUOTE=ArthurOliver]All the arguments in favour of banning public smoking come down to a "nanny knows best, and we'll decide what's good for you" attitude.

    The free-choicers are happy to accomodate the nicotine-fearers and allow them their own restaurants etc.

    We can choose for ourselves and the market will provide. No laws required. [QUOTE]

    Incorrect.

    People know what is best for them - smokers know that smoking is bad for them, they pathetically try to justify it however because they are addicted - just as an alcoholic will justify having a drink.

    Government has sought the views of the electorate and the electorate say they want smoking in public places banned!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I dont think that u can do this by half measures. There must be a total ban otherwise people will find loopholes, people are not stupid. If tobacco had been discovered now instead of all those years ago it wud b put as a class A drug.

    True, there shud b a freedom of choice, like other people have sed. Smokers can still smoke in their homes, and making it hard for the smokers to light up, will gradually persuade all but the hardcore smokers to stop.

    You can never stop everyone from smoking, but a total ban will persuade a large number to, as for an number of people, it isnt worth the hassle.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    i think theres more important things than putting a total ban on smoking.
    yes its harmful but cars create more pollution.
    most of my friends are smokers and its getting really difficult to go to places and its frustrating, there should be at least a smoking area in a restaurant etc.
 
 
 

1,938

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.