1,409 Pubs Closed

[maccaboy]

The problem I have is why don't the government outlaw smoking, if they want to drive it underground with banning it everywhere but your own house then why do they continue to let us smoke, set up rehab centres for smokers and stop selling them and making over 4 quid a pack towards there revenue

 

They can't ban it because it wouldn't work. There's a big enough trade in people bringing in cheap ciggies from abroad as it is, and it would be impossible to stop that trade from exploding if Scotland banned smoking altogether and other countries didn't. Therefore, they allow it to continue but put both geographical restrictions and monetary penalties on it - so that at least they're getting the smokers to pay indirectly for their higher healthcare bills via the tax they pay.

 

 

[dirty dingus]

The problem is the damage you do to your staff who have to work in the aforementioned conditions.

 

They obviously know the conditions they will be working in, so again their choice.

 

And the drain on the health service for all of the care required for smoking related illnesses.

 

Is that not what paying into the N.I system is for. Is being fat/ eating unhealthy diets not as bad, shouldn't the government ban burgers, chips and turkey twislers, as it's clearly a drain on the NHS.

 

Just for a couple

 

TonInDublin

 

[maccaboy]

Double Standards.

 

No it isn't.

 

Anyone can go into a pub and have a few drinks, and unless you get to the drunken stage then you're not annoying anyone else and not harming them.

 

Have some cigarettes with your drinks, though, and you weren't just annoying anyone nearby with your smoke, you were positively harming them.

 

Alcohol is harmful to the body, if taken in more than moderation. Cigarettes are harmful in ANY amount, to the smoker and those around them. End of argument.

 

My brother and his wife both smoke, and when his three daughters were small it was awful to bend down to give them a hug when you met them and find that their clothes and their hair were absolutely reeking of stale tobacco smoke. And Gawd knows what potential damage being exposed to all those toxins has left in their bodies for the future.

 

It's a disgusting habit, and none of us should have to put up with it in public spaces.

 

 

 

[DongaTon]

No it isn't.

 

Anyone can go into a pub and have a few drinks, and unless you get to the drunken stage then you're not annoying anyone else and not harming them.

 

Have some cigarettes with your drinks, though, and you weren't just annoying anyone nearby with your smoke, you were positively harming them.

 

Alcohol is harmful to the body, if taken in more than moderation. Cigarettes are harmful in ANY amount, to the smoker and those around them. End of argument.

 

My brother and his wife both smoke, and when his three daughters were small it was awful to bend down to give them a hug when you met them and find that their clothes and their hair were absolutely reeking of stale tobacco smoke. And Gawd knows what potential damage being exposed to all those toxins has left in their bodies for the future.

 

It's a disgusting habit, and none of us should have to put up with it in public spaces.

 

 

The Government saying smoking is wrong, stopping it in pubs, but allowing the sale of it is DOUBLE STANDARDS mate.

 

Your brother and his wife are now smoking full time in front of the kids now, instead of at the pub. Does that not annoy you?

[maccaboy]

The Government saying smoking is wrong, stopping it in pubs, but allowing the sale of it is DOUBLE STANDARDS mate.

no it ain't, because a unilateral ban by Scotland alone, or even by the UK, just wouldn't work, for the reasons I gave above. They couldn't halt the inflow of tobacco supplies from elsewhere, so why try to - better by far to try other means to make people quit the habit, including taxing them to the hilt. At least then the tax they pay will help meet their hospital bills.

 

It's not double standards - it's just acknowledgement of the realities of the situation. A ban on cigarettes by the Scottish Government would have as much chance of success as a Scottish lunar mission. Or a Scottish bid for the European Championships - but that's another story.

 

 

 

 

[maccaboy]

Your brother and his wife are now smoking full time in front of the kids now, instead of at the pub. Does that not annoy you?

 

Two of the three are out of the house now. The third is still there, and pregnant. And exposed to their habit. Does that annoy me? You bet it does.

 

But you're wrong about them smoking "full time" in the house. They still go to the pub with the same frequency that they did before, and grudgingly stand outside on a regular basis to get their nicotine fix. Nothing has changed in that respect.

 

[DongaTon]

Well I hope everyone else does the same as them!

 

If we tax smokers to the hilt, what's to stop them going to cheaper imported (and sometimes dangerous) ciggies then?

 

Surely if we wipe out the legal smokers, the majority will quit rather than scrabble around dingy closes looking for a fix of tobacco?

 

We need to have some balls about this. We are half c***ed. And I've run out of K**B references.

 

It's either ban em or let people smoke em!

 

I'd rather drive it underground, than tax and price up until you have both legal and non legal smokers - that's worse!

[cowshed_warrior]

ive heard some s***e in my time, but some of the arguments for banning smoking take the biscuit ! we are being governed by an overly authoritarian fascist dictatorship goverment.... we are the most nannied country on this planet, am sure if we all looked back we would agree that "our parents knew best" but now our parents and the next generation of parents are not allowed to make decisions for themselves, i like a smoke, I dont belive the health implications are as clear as is suggested... there is far too much conflicting eveidence.. also the health service has more than enough money to help us all.. after all we pay the vast amounts in tax / ni etc.. but to ease the burden us smokers cause.. why dont they pay off the thousands of quangos that recieve ridiculous sums of money to 'sort out' the health service, and use OUR money for the benefit of the SICK... i like to smoke , but i hate drunken arseholes.. so why shouldnt alchohl be banned also, after all why should i have to put up with the smell of a drunken breath, and a drunk pissing on the streets, and loud abrasive shouts of drunken joy, and lastly the risk to my health through drunken bravery when they want a square go with anyone !!

[Guest midTONs]

Precisely mate - wish you were around when I was getting ridiculed for this just before the ban!

 

Double Standards.

 

 

Donga if I remember correctly a lot of debate was between ourselves when the smoking ban was being introduced, I certainly was not ridiculing you, far from it, you made some very good points and still do with some of the stuff above, it was just that it was so good it made excellent debate.

I loved this message board when stuff like that gets going, it's sadly been missing for a long time now though.

 

[maccaboy]

If we tax smokers to the hilt, what's to stop them going to cheaper imported (and sometimes dangerous) ciggies then?

 

Surely if we wipe out the legal smokers, the majority will quit rather than scrabble around dingy closes looking for a fix of tobacco?

 

Your first point above answers the second - banning it won't work because of the ease of bringing in cheap (and sometimes more dangerous) imports from abroad. And I'd rather see the Customs guys chasing those who smuggle cocaine and heroin instead of tobacco smugglers.

 

And re "wiping out" the smokers - if we give 'em enuff tarry rope, they'll do it themselves! But seriously, human nature being as it is, and addiction to nicotine being the way it is, many smokers would just look for illegal alternative supplies if they couldn't get their fix at Tesco's or the local shop, the arguments being "it was legal last week, how can it be illegal now?" and "bugger the law, I'LL decide what's good for me and what isn't!" .

[DongaTon]

Donga if I remember correctly a lot of debate was between ourselves when the smoking ban was being introduced, I certainly was not ridiculing you, far from it, you made some very good points and still do with some of the stuff above, it was just that it was so good it made excellent debate.

I loved this message board when stuff like that gets going, it's sadly been missing for a long time now though.

 

 

No, it wasn't yourself. There were a few folk, who simply weren't getting what I was meaning.

 

 

[centralTON]

ive heard some s***e in my time, but some of the arguments for banning smoking take the biscuit ! we are being governed by an overly authoritarian fascist dictatorship goverment.... we are the most nannied country on this planet, am sure if we all looked back we would agree that "our parents knew best" but now our parents and the next generation of parents are not allowed to make decisions for themselves, i like a smoke, I dont belive the health implications are as clear as is suggested... there is far too much conflicting eveidence.. also the health service has more than enough money to help us all.. after all we pay the vast amounts in tax / ni etc.. but to ease the burden us smokers cause.. why dont they pay off the thousands of quangos that recieve ridiculous sums of money to 'sort out' the health service, and use OUR money for the benefit of the SICK... i like to smoke , but i hate drunken arseholes.. so why shouldnt alchohl be banned also, after all why should i have to put up with the smell of a drunken breath, and a drunk pissing on the streets, and loud abrasive shouts of drunken joy, and lastly the risk to my health through drunken bravery when they want a square go with anyone !!

 

Not sure our parents do always know best. For the past month I've had to run my Old Man through to Stirling Hospital nearly every day, and sometimes twice a day ( he dosen't drive ) as my Mum is suffering from Emphysema brought on by her 55 year smoking habit, according to her Consultant. She is so bad, she can't even lie down and has been sitting in the same (plastic) chair all the time she's been there and can no longer even walk to the end of her bed without struggling to breathe. This is the 3rd time she has been hospitalised within the space of a year because she can't breathe, and even though her left lung is nearly at the point of collapse, she cannot get oxygen at home or a stairlift on the NHS due to budget restraints.

But, hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion.

[maccaboy]

i like to smoke , but i hate drunken arseholes.. so why shouldnt alchohl be banned also, after all why should i have to put up with the smell of a drunken breath, and a drunk pissing on the streets, and loud abrasive shouts of drunken joy, and lastly the risk to my health through drunken bravery when they want a square go with anyone !!

 

nobody likes a drunk - but to get the smell of a drunken breath you have to be very close to the person, whereas one smoker can pollute a very large room. Drunken behaviour, such as shouting and peeing in the streets, is totally obnoxious too - but if that were clamped down on more rigorously no doubt you'd be on complaining about the "nanny state" again.......

 

Point is, being quietly and passively drunk hurts no-one but the drinker. Sitting quietly smoking hurts and offends those up to 20 feet away from you.

 

And you're wrong about the lack of evidence about smoking harming the health. You must know that, and it's just a smoker's disregard for the facts that leads you to ignore them.

 

 

[dirty dingus]

nobody likes a drunk - but to get the smell of a drunken breath you have to be very close to the person, whereas one smoker can pollute a very large room. Drunken behaviour, such as shouting and peeing in the streets, is totally obnoxious too - but if that were clamped down on more rigorously no doubt you'd be on complaining about the "nanny state" again.......

 

Point is, being quietly and passively drunk hurts no-one but the drinker. Sitting quietly smoking hurts and offends those up to 20 feet away from you.

 

And you're wrong about the lack of evidence about smoking harming the health. You must know that, and it's just a smoker's disregard for the facts that leads you to ignore them.

 

 

Drink is the biggest scourge on our society, obviously the guy who is passively drunk has exceded his reccomended alchohol intake so will be a burden on us with his blatent disreguard for following the advice of doctors.

 

By the way I indulge in both smoking and drinking, my concern is the governments interferance on our freedom to participate in our own lifestyle choices, while reaping the benifits from taxing them.

[maccaboy]

Drink is the biggest scourge on our society, obviously the guy who is passively drunk has exceded his reccomended alchohol intake so will be a burden on us with his blatent disreguard for following the advice of doctors.

 

By the way I indulge in both smoking and drinking, my concern is the governments interferance on our freedom to participate in our own lifestyle choices, while reaping the benifits from taxing them.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, we each have freedom of choice as to what we do and to what degree. AS LONG AS WE AIN'T BOTHERING ANYONE ELSE.

 

Smokers DO bother people around them and can be detrimental to their health, and the passive drunk doesn't do either of those. If we're gonna talk about whether or not the government is "interfering with our lifestyle choices", I'd rather they stopped smokers from smoking in public places than allowed them to pollute the air that I have to breathe and maybe affect my health, thank you very much. MY lifestyle choice is not to be exposed to smoking and I welcome any help in doing so.

 

 

 

 

[dirty dingus]

I'm not disagreeing with you, we each have freedom of choice as to what we do and to what degree. AS LONG AS WE AIN'T BOTHERING ANYONE ELSE.

 

Smokers DO bother people around them and can be detrimental to their health, and the passive drunk doesn't do either of those. If we're gonna talk about whether or not the government is "interfering with our lifestyle choices", I'd rather they stopped smokers from smoking in public places than allowed them to pollute the air that I have to breathe and maybe affect my health, thank you very much. MY lifestyle choice is not to be exposed to smoking and I welcome any help in doing so.

[/quote

 

 

thats fair enough that you don't want to be exposed to passive smoking in a public place but a blanket ban on smoking in pubs is crap it should have been upto the landlords whether they wanted a smoking/non-smoking pub. I also want to breathe fresh air when I am out and about( inbetween fags) but due to the number of air polutting lorries and cars that rumble through the streets as I walk I can't shouldn't these be banned too.

 

If you think strippers are sexist and shallow you don't go into the bars that they perform. same argument but with a nicer sense of imagery

 

 

[maccaboy]

thats fair enough that you don't want to be exposed to passive smoking in a public place but a blanket ban on smoking in pubs is crap it should have been upto the landlords whether they wanted a smoking/non-smoking pub. I also want to breathe fresh air when I am out and about( inbetween fags) but due to the number of air polutting lorries and cars that rumble through the streets as I walk I can't shouldn't these be banned too.

 

If you think strippers are sexist and shallow you don't go into the bars that they perform. same argument but with a nicer sense of imagery

 

Leaving it up to landlords wouldn't have worked. They would've had all the customers arguing with them about whether it should be smoking or non-smoking, then they'd all be argueing with each other, and whatever decision the landlord DID come to the "losing" side would constantly be at him to change it. There'd be constant ill-feeling and arguments, and when you add too much drink to the equation it would be chaos on a regular basis. Just look at the strength of feeling on HERE about it, and that's WITHOUT drink being involved (well, in most cases! ) Better to have a statutory decision binding on everybody, it was the path of least resistance for all concerned.

 

But I like your analogy about the strippers - I'd be more than happy to endure a bit of "passive stripping"!

 

 

[DongaTon]

Lot of conjecture there, mate. Some of my fave pubs were very smokey. But I put up with it cos I liked the place.

 

I didn't see arguments with landlords then.

[beermonkey]

If pubs are feeling the pinch just now then i have no sympathy, as whenever times are good the average guy going into a boozer is just there to be milked by greedy publicans/pub management companies.

 

eg. No team colours allowed - its never the colours of a team that cause a problem, always the moron who either takes offence at it or makes some smartarse comment - but you never see a sign up saying No Morons or Smartarses allowed.

 

Cigarette vending machines - i no longer smoke but why did they always sell packs of 16 instead of proper 20 decks, and why were they always more expensive than a newsagent? - Sheer profiteering, but hey its smokers and they're publicans, right? <_>

 

TVs in pubs, you could be in the middle of watching a game on the TV and then some nugget behind the bar switches it over.

 

Quiz nights and Karaoke, s***e gimmicks that died a death in 1993.

 

£2.02 a pint or other random odd prices - Why the extra 2p - Make it a nice round figure and sell more booze without the need for odd pennies.

 

Bars that refuse to serve you after a one too many - they never say thank you for your custom or wish you good night. They just get arsey in an almost antagonising way.

If pubs are suffering just now then great, theyve took too much money off me over the years to feel any sympathy for them.

cant argue with any of that.

 

Hard to feel sympathy for publicans - but pubs going out of business means more unemployed , so 'not so good'

 

The demise of the pub will also have 'social' implications too for some communities. The old guys (Donga spoke about) might not have any other place to have contact with other people.

 

It's hard to see how pubs can make a come back given the supermarket prices and the other drawbacks - the high price of of Sky telly for pubs eg. Personally I enjoy the pub and like it better since the smoking ban.

 

Hopefully the 'good' pubs will survive this.

Yeah i love the way landlords complain about sky "ripping them off", then charge people £2.50 - £3 for a bottle of beer that you can buy for a quid or less in any supermarket.

 

no sympathy with pubs, i've spent a lot (far too much)of time in them over the years £2.80 a pint...rip off, about £6.00 for 16 fags (i dunno i dont smoke).. rip off, £1.20 for a game of pool last time i played which was about 5 years ago..rip off.

I was in a pub recently with the kids and got charged £2.30 for 2 glasses of squash !! ..which was a drop of robinsons and tap water, how the f*** can they justify that sort of price ?, a full bottle of robinsons doesn't even cost that much !

 

And they wonder why customers are deserting. <_>

 

[cowshed_warrior]

Not sure our parents do always know best. For the past month I've had to run my Old Man through to Stirling Hospital nearly every day, and sometimes twice a day ( he dosen't drive ) as my Mum is suffering from Emphysema brought on by her 55 year smoking habit, according to her Consultant. She is so bad, she can't even lie down and has been sitting in the same (plastic) chair all the time she's been there and can no longer even walk to the end of her bed without struggling to breathe. This is the 3rd time she has been hospitalised within the space of a year because she can't breathe, and even though her left lung is nearly at the point of collapse, she cannot get oxygen at home or a stairlift on the NHS due to budget restraints.

But, hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion.

 

 

sorry to hear that mate, I too have been affected by disseases that are attributed to smoking, my mum battled cancer twice and I lost both her and my dad to heart attacks, I dont take my views on this subject lightly, I know that smoking causes us harm, but I am sceptical to what extent that the govt are blaming smoking for these conditions in order to take away the focus from the other and in my opinion more serious 'additives' that we ALL are putting in our bodies every day.. we no longer get fresh milk or bread daily, fruit now lasts for days, there is chemical after chemical being added to all our food in order to prolong it's life or replace natural things removed in the processing.. these things I blame for rise in cancer and heart dissease, also did you know you cant walk in the open now without being zapped constantly by radiation from mobile phone masts etc... then theres the nuclear arms depot just 15/20 miles from us (as crow flies) probably less... how much has that affected our health over the last 30 to 40 years since they built it....