Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Smoking statistics cast Dark shadow

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 08 October 2008
THE smoking ban in bars, restaurants and other public places wasn't just designed to protect the health of non-smokers.
It was supposed to discourage those who already smoke to kick the habit.

After its introduction in March 2006 a smokers' life when out and about became much more difficult.

Not only did they have to go outside, regardless of weather, if they wa
nted a puff, but they were also increasingly alienated by a growing consensus that smoking wasn't just unhealthy, but pretty selfish as well.

For some, the ban appeared to be a catalyst for further restrictions, perhaps banning smoking from public altogether, while the age for buying cigarettes was raised to 18.

But figures show that, in spite of these efforts, one issue remains more problematic than ever – the link between smoking and poverty. Research suggests that people living in deprived surroundings are 50 per cent more likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer – smoking's deadliest legacy – than in wealthier parts.

It gets worse.

Once they've got it, they are also 30 per cent more likely to die from it.

Despite being more than a year ahead of the rest of the UK in implementing the ban, it would seem Scotland still has some catching up to do in persuading people to kick the habit.

Holyrood has announced a number of other measures, such as cracking down on smuggled cigarettes and hiding packets from display in shops.

There were concerns from retailers that this move would have a negative impact on business.

But Ash Scotland, the Edinburgh-based anti-smoking lobby group, says this is not the case, and in fact it radically reduces the number of youths tempted to buy cigarettes.

The organisation's Sheila Duffy said: "Since the smoking prevention action plan was announced in May, many column inches have been taken up in the press sounding the death knell for the traditional corner shop.

"The retail sector is concerned that the removal of cigarettes from sight will impose additional costs and impact on their trade.

"There have also been claims that the removal of tobacco displays will have little effect on youth smoking rates, the main aim of the legislation.

"But the evidence from countries that have already introduced similar legislation tells us that banning tobacco displays helps to lower youth smoking rates without imposing a significant negative impact on retailers."

In the last year 3748 of the estimated 140,220 smokers in the Lothians either made an attempt to quit, or at least set a date on which to do so.

Roughly 61 per cent of would-be quitters were female, and predictably more attempts were made in January than any other month.

These figures are higher since the smoking ban came in, but don't come near the 200,000 the Scottish Government wants to eventually quit smoking. There are between 30 and 40 new diagnoses of lung cancer in the Lothians every year, a figure that hasn't changed much since records were initially collated in 1980. And it could be decades before we discover whether the ban on smoking indoors will have a positive effect on this record.

But a closer look at the breakdown shows that there are far more cases in deprived zones than there are in wealthier areas.

The figures were revealed at a conference staged by the National Cancer Network (NCIN). One of the speakers, Professor David Forman of the University of Leeds, said: "Smoking rates are around five per cent higher in Scotland than the rest of the UK, and this significantly contributes to the higher rates of lung cancer – smoking is responsible for nearly nine in ten cases of lung cancer.

"We know that smoking rates are linked to deprivation – rates are about ten per cent higher in working class communities."

His colleague Professor Sir Alex Markham, who chairs the NCIN, added: "Scotland has led the UK in protecting workers and the public from the dangers of secondhand smoke and has every right to be proud.

"But higher smoking rates in Scotland still account for much of the difference in cancer rates between England and Scotland."

Professor Jim Cassidy, based at Cancer Research UK's Beatson Institute, praised the plan to remove cigarettes from sight.

He said: "These measures would particularly help reduce smoking uptake in young people.

"We strongly support the Government's commitment and look forward to real progress in these areas."





The full article contains 739 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 08 October 2008 9:37 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 08/10/2008 12:49:25
Scrap this ridiculous smoking ban and give us back our freedom of choice.
2

Decent,

08/10/2008 13:23:31
Well said! There will be no drinking pubs next.
3

Spock,

08/10/2008 13:38:19
Oh well, we can't have drinking alcohol in pubs. Look at the problems it brings. People binge drinking, not turning up for work, fighting in the streets etc. We must put a ban on cars also. This nanny state is a pain in the butt. I know loads of people now looking to emigrate, they have just had enough. Why not put a ban on breathing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4

DeniseX,

08/10/2008 15:44:53
Banks and other companies are in BIG trouble. The Government is helping banks and have said that they help small business. They can help pubs and clubs, without any cost to the taxpayer, by allowing smokers back inside.
Very little is spent on lung cancer compared to more 'fashionable' cancers like breast cancer.
5

Decent,

08/10/2008 15:56:16
There was never any need for the smoking ban. There could have been smoking pubs with smoking staff. Freedom of choice.
6

Xena - Warrior Princess,

08/10/2008 16:22:01
One of my friends is just back from a weekend in Blackpool and he says the amount of pubs that have shut because of this ban is shocking. #2 You are spot on - that is the next step (it's bad for you).
7

TheTerminator,

UK 08/10/2008 16:57:30
While the smokers of this country pay £9.7 Billion into the Treasury coffers the Parasites of the Public Purse aka ASH ( a registered charity ) throw it around like confetti. Ban ASH and lets get back to the real world.
8

Goody2Shoes,

EDINBURGH 08/10/2008 17:38:27
If you had to endure the pain of lung cancer and treatment by radiotherapy and chemotherapy you would ban all cigarettes/cigars/pipes. It should be banned in all public places as it costs the NHS loads of money
9

mandyv,

cambs 08/10/2008 18:41:55
8# Goody2shoes - My husbands friend has endured chemo for over a year, he is 56 and gave up smoking over 20 years ago, he drinks moderately on a Friday night. He was diagnosed with lung and liver cancer, the stigma you antis give these people is nothing short of disgusting.
He still fights for his life and raises a lot of money for charities, he will not ask me if it is a CRUK charity he is raising it for, he is well aware of my feeling about that subject.
He was a HGV driver for over 30 years and loves his motorbike, he has swallowed more diesel fumes than most.
His doctor asked if he had been around asbestos or diesel, now I wonder why?
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/Air_pollution_harms_unborn_babies.html?siteSect=106&sid=9817596&cKey=1223448642000&ty=st
October 8, 2008 - 8:15 AM
Too many dust particles in the air can damage the development of a foetus' lungs, according to Swiss scientists.
Until now it was thought that pollution did not affect children's breathing until they were of school
Snip~ The study was presented at the congress of the European Respiratory Society in Berlin.
Philipp Latzin and colleagues from the department of paediatrics at Bern University measured the quality of the air breathed by 241 pregnant women, analysing the levels of ozone, nitrogen dioxide and dust particles smaller than ten micrometres, referred to as PM10.
In adults the harmful effects of inhaling dust particles – caused by diesel emissions from cars among other things – include asthma, lung cancer, cardiovascular issues and premature death.

All the "smoking ban experiment" was tried in Canada, here is just one of the reports -
http://calsun.canoe.ca:80/News.....6-sun.html
Tue, August 26, 2008
We've spent a lot of money trying to eradicate smoking with limited success, so it's about time we put our dollars elsewhere
UPDATED: 2008-08-26 01:53:34 MST
By MICHAEL PLATT Smoking was supposed to go the way of eight-track tapes and rotary phones.
snip~
10

Decent,

08/10/2008 19:04:40
Goodynaeshoes - It IS banned in all public places dear and smokers pay a lot in taxes to cover the money they cost the NHS. I think Mandy said it all.
11

David from New Mills,

Pleantly fug free Pleasantville. 08/10/2008 19:20:13
#1, Petrol Bonce.
Long may these wonderful smoking restrictions continue and give non-smokers and others freedom from fug.
12

Bill Crombie,

08/10/2008 19:47:56
#12 Davina of N M.

I always find the term "fug" curious. Was this term used in your prep school days Davina, when you were experimenting with the delights of tobacco? I think the real term is fog (a misspelling by such an educated twert) and basically signifies the state of his mind.

Smoking pubs and clubs will be allowed back and the likes of you, Davina, will have the choice to keep well clear of the "fug".
13

David from New Mills,

Pleantly fug free Pleasantville 08/10/2008 20:09:12
#13, Bill Crombie of nowhere.
BC is welcome to feign curiousity about the term "fug", but most people are only too familiar with what pervaded pubs, restaurants, public transport, cinemas and other public places in the not too distant fug-filled past.
David never attended preparatory school, and certainly never learned how to spell "twert". Did twert BC mean twerp, perhaps, or is the state of his mind just a tad confused after his youthful experimentation with tobacco?
Until BC's Nirvana fuggy world returns, David will be more than happy with the fug free status quo, and content to let BC dream on.
14

David from New Mills,

Pleantly fug free Pleasantville 08/10/2008 20:56:10
#11, Decent(?).
Decent should realise that smoking is prohibited only in ENCLOSED public places, with a limited number of exceptions.
Just how has "cut and paste" Mandy said "it all"?
15

Thomas Laprade,

Canada 09/10/2008 02:08:19
Smoking could be one of many causes of Lung cancer.
No one on this planet ever died or got cancer, solely
from second-hand smoke.
Smoking laws are not about health and it never was about health.
1. Quarantine/isolate the smoker
2. Denormalize smoking

Unfortunately the hospitality is caught in the cross-fire.
That's it in a nut-shell

http://smokersclubinc.com
http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com
www.forces.org
16

fife runner,

09/10/2008 06:11:14
#3 you still expect the nanny state to look after you or perhaps you don't. Do not forget, even if smokers out of the goodness of their little hearts try and fund the NHS all the money in the world cannot buy staff. Means that queues remain even with the billions of £s people burn between their lips. Also what about the £billions being spent on obesity (heart disease, cancers, eye probs etc etc) alchol problems. If the people who wnat treatemnt after making themslves ill from the nanny state then they have to be told what to do because it seems they are incapable of looking after themselves. After all the nanny state tells parents that they have to send kids to school, and how they should look after them in other ways otherwise we would have more cases of neglect.

Time for you bingers and puffers to give up you have lost the war and the majority now have freedom from inhaling your toxic fumes in restaurants etc. yipee!!
17

fife runner,

09/10/2008 06:12:02
oops just seen typos - too early in the morning
18

fife runner,

09/10/2008 06:13:11
# 16 what about Roy Castle?
19

drink beer, smoke tabs,

Still out on the pavement 09/10/2008 08:56:03
I love this thing about "Freedom of Choice" that Petrol head and the other tobacco cheerleaders go on about! It always makes me laugh!

When you become a smoker, your freedom of choice is the first thing that you flush down the cr@pper. Just ask the 70% of smokers who would choose - had they that freedom - to stop smoking.

But you lot don't care about them, do you? The only freedoms that you care about are your own. You don't give a fig about non-smokers, nor about the smokers who desperately want to quit. No, as long as *you* can do what *you* like, everyone else can go hang.

Incidentally, what do think about the freedom to smoke cannabis, or the freedom to inject heroin? Are those freedoms that you would fight for? And if not, why not? The government outlaws these products, but allows you to smoke as much tobacco as you like. Given that smoking kills no less than one in two of its regular long term users, I reckon that we've actually got a hell of a lot more freedom than we deserve.
20

Decent,

09/10/2008 09:31:12
Yeah these non-smoking bars are great now coz all you can smell is p@sh.
And yes to 20 - let the junkies inject heroin all they want - I've no objection to them killing themselves.
21

DeniseX,

09/10/2008 10:23:47
#15 Davina
The laws states 'substantially enclosed public places'. Remember the 50% rule
22

DeniseX,

09/10/2008 10:28:34
#19 fife runner
Roy Castle was a cigar smoker. Many jazz musicians, who have spent most of their days in smokey clubs, are still performing to this day, aged 80 and over. Cancer was probably in his genes.
23

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 09/10/2008 10:37:17
#19:

Yeah. What about Roy Castle? I'll tell you something about Roy Castle. His family are sick to death of being contacted by stupid antis regarding passive smoking and they are also sick to death of Roy being held up as a shining example of the "evils" of passive smoking by said stupid antis.

Roy Castle was a pleasant, talented, intelligent man who had tollerance and understanding. He would be absolutely horrified that his name was being used as an instrument of oppression and marginalisation by small-minded bigots. That's what about Roy Castle.

As an aside, I note that David from New Mills has been on the pop again.
24

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 09/10/2008 10:44:30
#20:

"You don't give a fig about non-smokers..."

As far as I am concerned, non-smokers are quite at liberty not to smoke is they so wish.

"...nor about the smokers who desperately want to quit."

To be honest, no I don't. If someone REALLY wanted to quit, they would just do so. What they are doing is they are deluding themselves that they "want to quit" because that is the modern trendy thing to want to do. Deep down inside, they want to continue, probably because they enjoy it.

If you honestly expect me to believe that people do things voluntarily that they do not really want to do then you must think I have come up with the daffodills. People do things like smoking because they want to and for no other reason.
25

David from New Mills,

Pleantly fug free Pleasantville. 09/10/2008 12:05:57
#22, Den.
David is only too well aware of the "50% standard" in determining what is an enclosed public place, but I am pleased to amend my #15 to read "smoking is prohibited only in SUBSTANTIALLY ENCLOSED public places, with a limited number of exceptions." Good of Den to point this out, and hopefully the reminder will prompt selfish smokers to refrain from lighting up in bus shelters, pub doorways and other such subtantially enclosed public places.
26

David from New Mills,

Pleantly fug free Pleasantville 09/10/2008 12:18:46
#24, Petrol Bonce.
Is that PB's best erudite response to my #12, or has he just been on the narcotic nicotine again? Glad to see that at least he's still showing some restraint in his language of recent postings. Perhaps he's found inner peace at last?
27

DeniseX,

09/10/2008 12:58:58
#26 Davina
Please, Please, Please, get your facts right. Not all bus shelters are over 50% enclosed.
28

David from New Mills,

Pleantly fug free Pleasantville 09/10/2008 13:21:39
#28, Den.
Den is quite right in this legal differentiation, but whereas smoke in the "lean-to" type of shelter is fairly readily dissipated, many smokers carelessly and thoughtlessly smoke in the other kind. Has trigger happy Den no comment to make about smoking in pub doorways? Intersesting to recall that the legislation is due for review in, I believe, 2010, when it may well be extended to all public places where people are in close proximity, substantially enclosed or otherwise. Now there's a prospect to relish! Meantime, must pop out for some "pop". TTFN.
29

thunderdog,

09/10/2008 15:50:56
As far as I can see the smokers simply want a compromise, in other words some pubs and restaurants which are warm and comfortable in which to pursue a perfectly legal and expensive pastime. It's called socialising. I am sure they won't care if non smokers also attend providing they dont sit there tutting and waving their silly hands about. A big sign on the door saying smokers money welcome here. As for all you bigoted and soft arsed non smokers, you can go to a non smoking venue with a big sign on the door saying miserable softies only in this establishment. Smokers not allowed. That way every one would have a choice and the government would continue creating a rift in our society. Pubs and clubs would start making money again, the NHS would not lose funding, the tax and vat system would not lose revenue and ASH and WHO can sit on it and swivel. there we go then problem solved. Oh and if HMG and the health fascists want to reduce smoking prevalence they should try reward instead of punishment. It really is that simple.
30

DeniseX,

09/10/2008 16:32:25
#29.Davina. Not only do you get your facts wrong, you criticise people for their spelling mistakes. Did you mean 'interesting'? Not all pubs doorways are more than 50% enclosed.
When you come on here, get your facts right and practise what you preach.
31

Bill Crombie,

09/10/2008 19:13:17
Davina - How come you are the only anti-smoker on this thread? Does that not speak volumes? Like all the non-smokers that were meant to have returned to the smoke-free world of the once cherished public house, they have never materialised. Now we have empty, souless pubs slowly heading towards bankruptcy. Yes, Davina, the smoking ban has no effect on the hospitality trade apart from closing the venues down. To deny this, dear boy, only shows what a shallow fool you really are.
32

David from New Mills,

Ever and always pleasantly fug free Pleasantville. 09/10/2008 19:22:06
#31, Tetchy Den.
I'm sure Den recognised that "interesting" was intended, but perhaps my dentures were out, or I was over anxious to get to fug free hostelries.
Interesting theory about pub doorways on Den's part, but all the ones I can think of have a floor, a ceiling, at least two walls, and a door that is firmly closed outwith licensing hours, and hence is part of the pub. Perhaps Den can point to others with a different dimension?
If Den feels capable of indulging in grammatical contests or spelling bees, I am more than capable and willing to participate.
Did Den intend to type either "pub doorways" or "pubs' doorways"? Even the Japanese manage to get it right.
No comments from Den about the future review of the Health Act, 2006? Hotshot's call I believe?
33

David from New Mills,

Ever and always pleasantly fug free Pleasantville 09/10/2008 19:51:34
#32,Bill Crombie.
BC should perhaps realise that I've never professed to be an anti-smoker, just some one in favour of long overdue restrictions on smoking.
If he's really keen to seek out "anti-smokers", perhaps he might care to read posts #8,17,19 or 20 as possible examples. Additionally, he may care to be enlightened by the postings of James Donald and Rollo, amongst others, on other threads.
Perhaps BC should broaden his horizons and, if he feels so overwhelmed by a feeling of having lost the debate, he might then frequent other pubs to help them out. I'm certainly doing my bit in fug free hostelries. "Use 'em or lose 'em" I think is the apposite phrase?
34

DeniseX,

09/10/2008 20:49:52
#32 Bill
How dare you call Davina an anti-smoker, just because she doesn't like smokers and their dirty habits? She comes on here with false facts and loves to critise others when she does the same herself.
She ought to get out a bit more and see the REAL world instead of her fantasy world.
35

David from New Mills,

Ever and always pleasantly fug free Pleasantville 09/10/2008 21:15:09
#35, Den, back for more punishment.
What "false facts"? "Critise"? What might that mean?
My world is very real, unlike that of the somnambulist hardened smokers in denial.
And no comments on the reality of pub doorways or the forthcoming review of the Health Act, 2006?
36

DeniseX,

09/10/2008 21:20:14
#33 Davina. If you were to get out more you will see many pubs witn canopies over their entrances. Nobody is talking about a contest. I know that I have have made spelling mistakes and so have others, including yourself, but I do not try to correct them, except those who try to correct others. As I say practise what you preach.
37

David from New Mills,

Ever and always pleasantly fug free Pleasantville 09/10/2008 21:55:27
#37, Den, back for ever more punishment.
At #26 I specifically said "in bus shelters, pub doorways and other such substantially enclosed public places". In, or within, implies enclosed spaces, not "lean-to" bus shelters or areas outside pub entrances, "witn" or with canopies above.
As I get out and about more than frequently, I tend to notice these differences.
As Den is aware that "I 'have have' made spelling mistakes", perhaps we can move on and discuss the forthcoming review of the provisions of the Health Act, 2006, regarding smoking in substantially enclosed public places?
38

DeniseX,

09/10/2008 22:06:13
#38 Davina says 'I specifically said "in bus shelters, pub doorways and other such substantially enclosed public places".
I specifially said that not all bus shelters and pub doorways are substantially enclosed.
I repeat, get your facts right.
39

David from New Mills,

Ever and always pleasantly fug free Pleasantville 09/10/2008 22:39:55
#39, Den, still back for ever more punishment.
Den may have "specifially" said that "not all bus shelters and pub doorways are substantially enclosed", but has failed to grasp my use of the simple preposition "in" in relation to bus shelters, and still cannot grasp the difference between doorways and areas adjacent thereto, with or without awnings. Perhaps the analogy of being under, rather than in, an umbrella might be helpful?
Re my #36, which false facts?
Might I suggest that Den should should try harder in getting both facts and spelling a tad more correct.
40

The real dracula,

09/10/2008 23:40:06
Have read your comments and still the simple fact that to have smoking and non smokng pubs is the obvious answer , is it not?

I cannot see how ths could anger anyone. Simple solution to a much debated problem.
41

David from New Mills,

Ever and always pleasantly fug free Pleasantville 10/10/2008 11:07:49
#41,The real dracula.
Well, no, that would be a retrograde step.
42

DeniseX,

10/10/2008 11:17:26
#40 Davina . Please read:
No smoking in bus shelters. Or is there?
Smokers know that the time spent waiting for a bus is a prime fag break opportunity. However, they will have to be more selective in where they stand after the ban as the typical bus shelter – two 'walls' supporting a roof – will be considered a 'substantially enclosed' premise.

That's not to say all bus shelters will be out of bounds for smokers. The actual definition laid down in the smoking ban legislation defines a building as 'substantially enclosed' if it has 'a ceiling or roof, but has an opening in the walls, which is less than half the total area of the walls. The area of the opening does not include doors, windows or any other fittings that can be opened or shut'.

It means it is perfectly legal to smoke IN a bus shelter with a roof supported by just one vertical 'wall', rather than two. Smokers may find this useful knowledge if confronted by hostile non-smokers like Davina.

Note the word 'IN'.
43

David from New Mills,

Ever and always pleasantly fug free Pleasantville 10/10/2008 12:07:04
#43, Den.
Glad Den has finally grasped the nettle about substantially enclosed bus shelters, and appreciates it is not an offence to smoke AT or UNDER a basic bus shelter, consisting of a roof supported by one wall, previously described by me as the "lean-to" type.
Of course, smoking WITHIN those having two or more walls, making up 50% or more of wall area will constitute an offence.
Nicotinics are free to enjoy their "prime fag break opportunity" outside both types, and thus keep their fumes to themselves.
Den will notice my use of upper case, which I trust will be helpful, as I hope the "umbrella" example was.
44

DeniseX,

10/10/2008 17:23:55
#26 'will prompt selfish smokers to refrain from lighting up in bus shelters, pub doorways and other such subtantially enclosed public places'.
When a bus stop is over 50% enclosed then it is illegal to smoke in it, but when the bus stop is less than 50% enclosed then it is perfectly LEGAL to smoke in it.
I wonder when it will sink in to your silly brain.
45

DeniseX,

10/10/2008 18:26:40
'Bus stop' should read 'bus shelter'
46

David from New Mills,

Ever and always pleasantly fug free Pleasantville. 10/10/2008 19:18:18
#45, and correction at#46, Den.
I should have thought that my #26 and #44 had made it perfectly clear that I, at least, grasp the difference between "subtantially enclosed public places" and those not falling within that definition. So, just what is Den's comprehension problem?
Is there anything further I can do to assist Den's thought processes, so that it may sink in, at least marginally, to that organ known as Den's brain, be it silly or otherwise?
Perhaps Den would care to consider the prospect of bus stops and other locations where members of the public congregate falling within the ambit of the Health Act, at its forthcoming review or would that prospect just be too much for Den to cope with?
Perhaps a reminder of the difference between "in", "at" and "under" would be helpful to our Den?
47

James Donald,

Newbridge 10/10/2008 20:47:21
#41 The real dracula - "the simple fact that to have smoking and non smokng pubs is the obvious answer , is it not?" - It is not. What if, like me, you live in a village with only one pub? The Landlord is a smoker (who has gone to a lot of time, trouble and expense to make a comfortable environment for smokers smoking outside) and decides that his is going to be a smoking pub. Do I sit outside all night (where the smokers used to spend 5 minutes or so at a time smoking) whilst the smokers revel in their reek inside or do I just sit at home with my carry out from Tescos?
Hypothetical questions of course as the smoking ban is here to stay and if anything seems likely to be extended (not that I am advocating any extension).
Say a smoker spends 4 hours in his/her local pub and smokes one cigarette every 30 minutes. Allowing 5 minutes to smoke that cigarette,that equates to no more than 40 minutes in total outside in an evening. So what is all the whinging about?
48

Mr A Roy,

10/10/2008 23:30:19
Not been near a pub since this silly ban.
Funny how the swiss have reversed their ban.
49

DeniseX,

11/10/2008 11:34:57
#48 James Donald.
I agree that it is difficult when there is only pub in the village, unless he is allowed to have separate rooms. A good landlord, with any business sense, would ask all his regular customers their feelings and try to accommodate all of them.
One of my local has 'old stables' out the back. Would you object if the stables were allowed to used by smokers only?
50

DeniseX,

11/10/2008 11:43:43
#49 Mr A Roy. What about the following?
Germany. Spain. Holland. Ohio. New York. Geneva. Illinois. Minnesota. Hawaii and Israel.
Maybe not fully, but partly.
51

David from New Mills,

Ever and always pleasantly fug free Pleasantville 11/10/2008 15:07:26
#49, Mr A Roy.
I've been near, and also inside, lots of pubs since the introduction of this very welcome and long overdue restriction.
My understanding of recent reports was that one of the Swiss cantons attempted to introduce smoking restrictions, but was overruled by the Federal Government, who had to pass the relevant legislation before this could happen. Hence, the proposals are deferred until federal legislation takes place.
So Swiss smokers, and tourists like Mr. Roy, have a brief respite, assuming he can afford to drink in Switzerland.
52

David from New Mills,

Ever and always pleasantly fug free Pleasantville 11/10/2008 15:12:48
#53, Den.
What about the following?
Eire, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, England, and, I believe, Malta and Norway.
Maybe not partly, but fully, restricted.
Do I assume Den has lost the stomach for considering the possibility of extensions to U.K. restrictions?
53

James Donald,

Newbridge 11/10/2008 21:22:12
#50 DeniseX - There is no separate room in my local as the other room is used as a restaurant. Besides, what the smokers have outside is not that different from the stables at your local. It has an awning leading from the back door of the pub to a covered area (used as a beer garden in the summer) with heating in cold weather. Like I asked "what is all the whinging about?".
54

David from New Mills,

Ever and always pleasantly fug free Pleasantville. 11/10/2008 21:53:21
#50, Den.
One advantage of the Health Act is its clarity about what constitutes a substantially enclosed public place. If Den's "stable" were to meet these criteria, there would appear to be no problem. However, I could envisage so called stables popping up ever closer to the main body of the pub to try to exploit a loophole, and we might then have a scenario similar to arguing about what constitutes "prepared food" and the banality of the earlier proposal of a "cordon sanitaire" around the bar area.
Well defined clarity is so much simpler, and avoids dissent and argument.
55

DeniseX,

12/10/2008 06:08:07
#54 James.
So you would have no objections to 'old stables' being for smokers only?
56

David from New Mills,

Ever and always pleasantly fug free Pleasantville 12/10/2008 08:59:00
#56, Early Bird Den.
James will probably reply himself, but if the so-called old stables met the 50% rule, there would appear to be no legal problem. There could still be a potential problem, of course, with whinnying smokers disturbing the peace of the neighbourhood.
57

James Donald,

Newbridge 12/10/2008 16:50:58
#56 DeniseX - I have no objections to smokers smoking so long as they do not do it near me but if they are going to smoke in a stable outside the pub, is there any real point in going to the pub? Besides, how many pubs could provide such an area exclusively for smokers when some can barely provide space for them outside? Personally, I am happy with the status quo and have met very few smokers who object to the smoking ban as is.
58

DeniseX,

12/10/2008 17:31:20
#58 James. I know that those types of building are rare, but as I say one of my locals has one with seating and TV. People buy their drinks inside and take them to the 'stable'. Most of my smoking friends go to the pub less often since the ban. If pubs were allowed to have proper buildings or separate rooms for smokers, it would save thousands of pubs and tens of thousands of jobs.
59

James Donald,

Newbridge 12/10/2008 21:21:33
#59 DeniseX - If there is going to be a smoking ban (and I am glad that there is one in force) then it has to be applied accross the board. It is not a fair solution to allow smokers to smoke indoors in a public place just because they are lucky enough to have a local pub with a suitable outbuilding.
If your smoking friends go to the pub less often since the ban, then they have contributed to jeopordising these "thousands of pubs" and "tens of thousands of jobs" as much as the government. That is your experience, but mine is that the smokers I know go to the pub (and the other licensed club I go to) as much as they ever did.
When there is an economic downturn as there is now, loss of businesses and jobs is to be expected but, to be honest, I have noticed very few pubs that have closed since the smoking ban in the Edinburgh area. Indeed I observed that one which was closed (the Cross Keys at Longstone) is now open again.
All the main political parties support the smoking ban (not sure which support extending it) and the bulk of the populace either support the ban or are indifferent. As I stated earlier, I support the ban as it stands now and see no good reason to make changes to it to accomodate smokers who feel smoking outside is anything more than a minor inconvenience or to extend it any further. So, in short, I believe that the stables at your local should remain smoke free the same as any other part of the pub.
60

DeniseX,

13/10/2008 08:59:09
#60 James. It is not only the smokers staying away that has caused a downturn in pub trade, but also the non-smokers that we were told would replace all the smokers. Where are all those new non-smoking customers? They are still buying their drinks from the supermarket and drinking at home.
61

David from New Mills,

Ever and always pleasantly fug free Pleasantville 13/10/2008 09:17:14
#61, Den.
This non-smoker certainly isn't sitting at home watching the footie or Corrie on tellie, with a tinnie and ciggies from the offie to hand, but is supporting his local hostelries, remembering the adage "Use 'em or lose 'em." Every little helps!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.