Saturday, October 24, 2009
Should it be up to the owners of the pups if smoking should be banned in there property?
Answer:
No. I think if it is a blanket rule, then everyone will get used to it much more quickly. Many non-smokers manage to have a good time without smoking - truly. You can survive without a cigarette, unlikely as it seems. But for some of us, we can't survive if people smoke.
So take a group of people who decide to go out for a night. Half will go to a smoking pub, the other to a non-smoking pub. It will break up families, groups, etc etc. So if it is one rule for all, we'll all go to the local pub on the corner because the decision is taken from us.
Not really, but I think the upcoming ban has gone a bit too far. If a pub is capable of having separate areas, then it should be allowed to do so.
yes it should b up to the pub owners after all its up to us whither we let ppl smoke in our houses
I'm all for the smoking ban and think that it should be that pubs and clubs are forced to stop smoking. There shouldn't have to be a divide between smokers and non smokers in what pubs and clubs they go to non-smokers shouldn't have to move pubs just because some selfish so and so wants to kill them selves with tabacco.
no but they should be able to get some sort of grant to have a decent smoking area built instead of standing at the front door
I am a smoker but have always tried not to smoke around other people . I tend to smoke in my garden .
However when I am out in a pub etc I do smoke . I think it should be down to the pubs to decided to allow it or not . I am all in favour for separate rooms for smokers which a lot of the pubs have in place already .
How will the pavements look when all us smokers are puffing away outside . They is not enough cig bins as it is so many more will be tossed on the pavement.
I do understand the health risks by smoking and about the effects it can have on other people.
I think a lot of people are forgetting though that drink related problems have serious health risks and do effect other people . What next ? Ban alcohol !!
We have that ban here in Australia, as well as the "5 metres away from awnings". In some areas you have to either walk 200 metres or step into the middle of the road to comply with the new smoking laws.
It's wrong that we can't go to the pub, drink a beer, smoke a winnie blue, and yell at the cricket all at the same time. Especially in this time of great drought, when drinking beer is an important way of saving water.
But what's even worse is that to have a cigarette, drinkers are forced out of the pub and into the street. This is why the laws had to be relaxed in strip clubs and brothels - because strippers and hookers were having to go outside and smoke on the street.
Obviously it presents problems for bars, pubs, and clubs that can't afford extensive renovations to put in an "indoor garden" with an open roof for smokers. It also presents safety issues for traffic, with crowds of drunk/tipsy smokers so close to highways or major roads. Sure smoking and drinking can kill you eventually, but why the government chose to speed that up by increasing the risk of death by road fatality and skin cancer is totally beyond me.
The laws also also present health problems when pack-a-day smokers have to go out in the drought-baking sun to have a cigarette. Given that the average cigarette takes 10mins to smoke, and that smoke breaks during the average working day number 6 to 7. This puts people out in the sun for an extra hour than necessary. At a UV rating of 12 (extreme) which is normal in my area, this increases your risk of sunburn and subsequenly skin cancer. Left undetected, skin cancer has a greater chance of killing you before lung cancer - that is if you're not hit by a car first.
They should just bring back the good old-fashioned smoking rooms.
i def think it should be up to the owners, i agree in places that serve food that smoking should be banned but there are plenty of other pubs that dont and they are being forced to go along with the ban, non smokers say they are intitled to a smoke free place and thats true but smokers should have freedom of choice as well...
It should be up to the owners. If they want to cater smokers so be it. It is their establishment they should be allowed to run it as they see fit. The public will decide they want to frequent the establishment or not. The government is slowly stealing our rights along with our ability to think for ourselves. If you don't want to be around smoke go to restaurants in which the owners choose not to allow smoking, and there are plenty. Non-smoking restaurants get cheaper insurance and are easier to maintain.
No, because it is a health hazard to their staff.
I'm likely to be going to a pub more often once smoking is banned. The smoke always filters through to the non-smoking areas, gets in your eyes, throat, clothes, hair, ruins the taste of food. One smoker can ruin the air for dozens of people. There's no pleasure in going out, if you have to endure that.
I don't like the idea of taking peoples freedom away. Smoke
till your longs rot. Keep your poison away from me. I should
have the freedom to breathe clean air without gaging on
some a**h***,* poison. If you want to smoke driving down the
hi-way, Keep your windows rolled up.
Pet owners can smoke in their own property------- if you meant Pubs--- then consider some words attributed to a famous,far sighted Englishman.
"In England it takes 50 years for the perception that something should be done and 100 to actually do it"
And thats just a long definition of 'stability'
------ the system is pushing too fast and the working classes just won't support this outright ban on pub smoking -- even though
the media indoctrination is about to begin.
Does anyone really believe there will be a total ban everywhere in the House of Commons?
yes but under the new law you can not open a pub for smokers only including the staff . But if you have a pub that is listed as a palace you could be except from this law . So become a MP and then after the law comes into force in all of the UK you will still be able to smoke at the bar in the house of Parliament as it is listed as a palace .
landlords should b able to choose as it is their lively hood at stake.will the government make up lost revenue?NO
and maybe these pub owners could be held responsible for their bar staff's cancer
yeah, i like that idea...i don't like being around people smoking, it makes me feel like I'm dying every time i take a breath...i like the idea of having some pubs that are smoke free and some that aren't.
es i do think it should be up to the pub, but every pub will lose customers because of this, they will also have to build a smoking area outside, its really not fair, all the best,hope that helps
You could do that, but then you might also need to have some kind of sign outside the pub like a big ciggy to tell people what they are getting in to. This will only lead to segragation, but if people feel strongly enough about it - it will happen. Maybe we are headed towards a less narcotic dependent society. Could the oppression of the tobacco culture have a knock-on effect with harder drugs?
Yes it should be up to them after all it's there pub and there lively hood
the whole thing about the smoking ban in public places as gone far to far
lets face it no one is telling a non smoker that they cant come into a pub unless they are smoking
In a Democratic society it would be.
The problem is that we no longer live in a democracy because the control freaks in the media dictate what rights we have and what rights we don't have.
Health and safety my ar**.
If they were so worried about health and safety they would ban cigarettes altogether.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment