NationStates Jolt Archive

And again -The Health and Safety At Work Act 1974 is not about providing freedom of choice to the market.

It is about (amoung other things):
1. Securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work.
2. Protecting persons other than persons at work against risks to health or safety arising out of or in connection with the activities of persons at work;
3. Controlling the emission into the atmosphere of noxious or offensive substances from premises of any class prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph.

And requires the Employer to (amoung other things):
1. To ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.
2. Ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, safety and absence of risks to health in connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of articles and substances.

Recent Health and safety legislation has stopped firefighters from using step ladders in case they are unsafe. Health and safety legislation is a knee jerk reaction to the compensation culture proliferated by the U.S. Quoting H & S law is no reason to validate flawed laws when the court of appeal has already stated that such laws can be damaging to society.

1974 is hardly recent. And I'm not familiar with the British legal system, but I'm gonna guess that the court of appeal is not the highest court you have.

Recent Health and safety legislation has stopped firefighters from using step ladders in case they are unsafe. Health and safety legislation is a knee jerk reaction to the compensation culture proliferated by the U.S. Quoting H & S law is no reason to validate flawed laws when the court of appeal has already stated that such laws can be damaging to society.
Over active health and safety legislation is still far more desirable than none.

No, after the court of appeal you have the House of Lords - which almost nevewr hearscases - and after that the European court. The English legal system is overburdened with personal injury cases. The courts are now addressing this fact. After a wash of personal injury claims we my just be accepting that life has risk. Criminal negligence is not acceptable but people dying is not a matter for the courts or parliament if it ocurs as part of everyday life.

Well in that case it's not really important what the court of appeals thinks about H&S legislation.

1974 is hardly recent. And I'm not familiar with the British legal system, but I'm gonna guess that the court of appeal is not the highest court you have.


No, after the court of appeal you have the House of Lords - which almost nevewr hearscases - and after that the European court. The English legal system is overburdened with personal injury cases. The courts are now addressing this fact. After a wash of personal injury claims we my just be accepting that life has risk. Criminal negligence is not acceptable but people dying is not a matter for the courts or parliament if it ocurs as part of everyday life.

Are you mad? Would you like the firefighters outside your burning home with you inside having to provide a risk assesment as to should they rescue you?

As opposed to no firefighters at all? At least this way, if I jump out a window, I might land on some soft civil servant.

Are you mad? Would you like the firefighters outside your burning home with you inside having to provide a risk assesment as to should they rescue you? Over active any legislation is wrong and damaging to any society. You might as well saw only nuclear weapons are preferable to those that fire bullets.

Sounds better than the opposite: your house being burned to a cinder and you dying in it long before the firefighters get there because it was built in such away that allows the rapid spread of fire and traps smoke within the house.

Over active health and safety legislation is still far more desirable than none.

Are you mad? Would you like the firefighters outside your burning home with you inside having to provide a risk assesment as to should they rescue you? Over active any legislation is wrong and damaging to any society. You might as well saw only nuclear weapons are preferable to those that fire bullets.

1974 is hardly recent. And I'm not familiar with the British legal system, but I'm gonna guess that the court of appeal is not the highest court you have.As far as I'm aware our highest court is also your highest court. Only it is limited in that it only has competency over certain issues. Overwise the highest court in England and Wales is the House of Lords, specifically the Law Lords. But that's soon to be replaced by a Supreme Court.

I'm not signing it. I don't want to sit next to someone whose got no qualms for his/her health, or other people's around him/her. Do it at home, not anywhere near me,thanks.

What is incorrect?
The reason you gave for why smoking is going to be banned is incorrect in that it's gross incompleteness makes it totally misleading.

Then please sumarize the reasons for the ban in relation to private consenting adults smoking in a private smoking pub. I have seen no arguements against this,
The reason is (as already mentioned numerous times) that an employer must, as far as reasonably practable, ensure that any hazards to their staff and persons other than those at work (i.e. the customers) are removed and where the hazard cannot be removed the hazard or the risk must be minimised as far as reasonably practable.

The law does not allow for an employee to say "they accepted the easily preventable risk" as it recognises that the balance of power between an employer and an easily replaceable employee is extremely skewed - so far that in the past without labour laws employers were regulary able to find people to take enormous risks who regulary lost their limbs or lives out of desperation to keep their jobs.

In your example of violent drunks - the pub has a duty to not serve someone enough alcohol to get them that drunk, however it is recognised that this is not always easy to judge. They have a duty to their other customers and staff to provide security if these tye of customers are common and they have a duty to the public and their staff to refuse to serve people who are known to be violent in the future. A publician who knowingly and repeadly allowed a person known to get violently drunk into their bar would very likely be (at the very least) negligant of several health and safety rules.

Sounds better than the opposite: your house being burned to a cinder and you dying in it long before the firefighters get there because it was built in such away that allows the rapid spread of fire and traps smoke within the house.


Ah - you are unfamiliar with a word the modern world uses - compromise.

Are you mad? Would you like the firefighters outside your burning home with you inside having to provide a risk assesment as to should they rescue you?
So what? They're going to die anyway. (That's your line, remember)

House fires are fairly infrequent. If the millions of people that work were tot do so in unsafe conditions, with employers allowed legally to do so, death and injury would be much more common.

Over active any legislation is wrong and damaging to any society. You might as well saw only nuclear weapons are preferable to those that fire bullets.
Perhaps, but without the major exaggeration.

Are you mad? Would you like the firefighters outside your burning home with you inside having to provide a risk assesment as to should they rescue you? Over active any legislation is wrong and damaging to any society. You might as well saw only nuclear weapons are preferable to those that fire bullets.

You are strawmanning and misrepresenting health and safety law.

You are either doing this purposefully or out of ignorance - which is it?

The fire department has a duty to have a general scenario based risk assessment for tackling fires of different types in different building types. They do these far in advance and train their staff accordingly, they do not do it on the scene of a fire - where the firefighters instead put their training and knowlege into practice and are more effective as they are less likely to become casualties themselves.

Ah - you are unfamiliar with a word the modern world uses - compromise.
You really think Ifreann would rather 'overactive' legislation over normal health and safety?

The reason you gave for why smoking is going to be banned is incorrect in that it's gross incompleteness makes it totally misleading.


The reason is (as already mentioned numerous times) that an employer must, as far as reasonably practable, ensure that any hazards to their staff and persons other than those at work (i.e. the customers) are removed and where the hazard cannot be removed the hazard or the risk must be minimised as far as reasonably practable.

The law does not allow for an employee to say "they accepted the easily preventable risk" as it recognises that the balance of power between an employer and an easily replaceable employee is extremely skewed - so far that in the past without labour laws employers were regulary able to find people to take enormous risks who regulary lost their limbs or lives out of desperation to keep their jobs.

In your example of violent drunks - the pub has a duty to not serve someone enough alcohol to get them that drunk, however it is recognised that this is not always easy to judge. They have a duty to their other customers and staff to provide security if these tye of customers are common and they have a duty to the public and their staff to refuse to serve people who are known to be violent in the future. A publician who knowingly and repeadly allowed a person known to get violently drunk into their bar would very likely be (at the very least) negligant of several health and safety rules.

Seriously your wasting you time with this fool Shx. Anyone who has read this thread in any way knows that you have written this about 5 times already. This guy is a joke, with far too much time on his hands to post 30 odd messages about the same old guff.

I don't mind having a debate with someone but when it decends into this sort of childishness where HunterST just avoids issues and throws the debate around and around, it really turns into a waste of time. I'm currently looking for an ignore feature...

Ah - you are unfamiliar with a word the modern world uses - compromise.

What makes you think that? I was just pointing out that H&S legislation is a good thing to have, even if it is overactive. Of course overactive legislation of any kind is far from the best situation, but it's generally better than no legislation.

Seriously your wasting you time with this fool Shx. Anyone who has read this thread in any way knows that you have written this about 5 times already. This guy is a joke, with far too much time on his hands to post 30 odd messages about the same old guff.

I don't mind having a debate with someone but when it decends into this sort of childishness where HunterST just avoids issues and throws the debate around and around, it really turns into a waste of time. I'm currently looking for an ignore feature...
There is one, but I just exercise restraint when tempted to flame TBC.

Seriously your wasting you time with this fool Shx. Anyone who has read this thread in any way knows that you have written this about 5 times already. This guy is a joke, with far too much time on his hands to post 30 odd messages about the same old guff.

I don't mind having a debate with someone but when it decends into this sort of childishness where HunterST just avoids issues and throws the debate around and around, it really turns into a waste of time. I'm currently looking for an ignore feature...

I have a feeling it is not going to get through to him as he cannot seem to face the real reason for the ban, however I needed to brush up on The Health and Safety At Work Act as it's been a while since I really looked at it and I need to know it for my profession - I'm considering this as a revision session, and explaining things to people is a very good way to remember them.

:)

You are strawmanning and misrepresenting health and safety law.

You are either doing this purposefully or out of ignorance - which is it?

The fire department has a duty to have a general scenario based risk assessment for tackling fires of different types in different building types. They do these far in advance and train their staff accordingly, they do not do it on the scene of a fire - where the firefighters instead put their training and knowlege into practice and are more effective as they are less likely to become casualties themselves.

I am doing neither. Public health laws have helped make society into the flaby unprepared mess it is. Do people have to assess risk? - yes they do. Is alowing adults to enter an establishmet where smoking is done an acceptable risk for those making that choice. AGAIN I see no reason not to allow smoking pubs for smokers run by smokers, Please make a point against personal choice in this mater without resorting to the health risks that all these consenting aduts are aware of.

I am doing neither. Public health laws have helped make society into the flaby unprepared mess it is. Do people have to assess risk? - yes they do.
Your example of firefighters sitting outside a burning house while doing a risk assessment was a misrepresentation of the way health and safety law is applied. Was that misrepresentation deliberate or was it out of ignorance?


Is alowing adults to enter an establishmet where smoking is done an acceptable risk for those making that choice. AGAIN I see no reason not to allow smoking pubs for smokers run by smokers, Please make a point against personal choice in this mater without resorting to the health risks that all these consenting aduts are aware of.

So you cannot face actually adressing the reason for the ban and are now saying that any objections to smoking in public places should not include the actual reason the law is based on.

You have also ignored the bit about how requiring employees to accept the risk - even if they are smokers themselvs - is not permitted for reasons I have already stated.

I am doing neither. Public health laws have helped make society into the flaby unprepared mess it is. Do people have to assess risk? - yes they do. Is alowing adults to enter an establishmet where smoking is done an acceptable risk for those making that choice. AGAIN I see no reason not to allow smoking pubs for smokers run by smokers, Please make a point against personal choice in this mater without resorting to the health risks that all these consenting aduts are aware of.

Why should smokers be given special permission to run establishments with lower standards than non-smokers?

What makes you think that? I was just pointing out that H&S legislation is a good thing to have, even if it is overactive. Of course overactive legislation of any kind is far from the best situation, but it's generally better than no legislation.

Hmmn - the point between overactive legislation and no legislation at all is called a compromise, The people that cannot provide an arguement against a SMOKING PUB FOR SMOKERS RUN BY SMOKERS are lacking in the credabilty stakes. Please give me a reason why a group of smokers should be denied the right to open a smokers only pub.

Hmmn - the point between overactive legislation and no legislation at all is called a compromise, The people that cannot provide an arguement against a SMOKING PUB FOR SMOKERS RUN BY SMOKERS are lacking in the credabilty stakes. Please give me a reason why a group of smokers should be denied the right to open a smokers only pub.

The government giving special rights to a group of people or refusing to give a group of people the same rights as everyone else is called.....?


That's right, discrimination. And discrimination is.......?

That's right discrimination is bad

Hmmn - the point between overactive legislation and no legislation at all is called a compromise, The people that cannot provide an arguement against a SMOKING PUB FOR SMOKERS RUN BY SMOKERS are lacking in the credabilty stakes. Please give me a reason why a group of smokers should be denied the right to open a smokers only pub.

Apart from apparent stress relief, give me one benefit to smoking.

For fucks sake - what is wrong with smokers running a smoking pub for smokers? If it does not afect you then why do you feel the need to interfere? That is fredom - I cannot compete with this level of stupidity - that is not flaming just an inability to comunicate with single cell cunts who lack any reasoning skills. Grown adults can choose the course of their own lives without affecting others. You cunts can't tell your arseholes from our elbows.

That doesn't answer my question, why do smoker get special rights?

And stop flaming or you'll get reported to the mods.

Why should smokers be given special permission to run establishments with lower standards than non-smokers?

For fucks sake - what is wrong with smokers running a smoking pub for smokers? If it does not afect you then why do you feel the need to interfere? That is fredom - I cannot compete with this level of stupidity - that is not flaming just an inability to comunicate with single cell cunts who lack any reasoning skills. Grown adults can choose the course of their own lives without affecting others. You cunts can't tell your arseholes from our elbows.

A smoker getting special rights to act as any free citizen? Please explain to me why a free, tax paying voter cannot set up a pub in a free country where smoking is allowed. How does that smoking pub affect no -smokers?? The flaming is only in exasperation at the inability to realise the freedoms of the western world. You have failed to answer my questions again and again. - please tell me how a smoking pub set up by smokers affects a non smoker.Please I beg you.

You said that smokers should be allowed set up smoking pubs for smokers. That would be giving a right to smokers and denying non-smokers it. That is discrimination.

And in case you haven't realised, this is not smokers versus non-smokers. This is about making pubs a healthier enviroment for people to work in....

You have failed to answer my questions again and again. - please tell me how a smoking pub set up by smokers affects a non smoker.Please I beg you.

This has been pointed out to you already.

An employer cannot require an employee to take a reasonably avoidable risk. They can't require an employee to take that risk even if the employee regulary takes that risk at home anyway. This is because the employer is responsible for the health and safety of their empoyees while at work.

That doesn't answer my question, why do smoker get sepcial rights?

And stop flaming or you'll get reported to the mods.

A smoker getting special rights to act as any free citizen? Please explain to me why a free, tax paying voter cannot set up a pub in a free country where smoking is allowed. How does that smoking pub affect no -smokers?? The flaming is only in exasperation at the inability to realise the freedoms of the western world. You have failed to answer my questions again and again. - please tell me how a smoking pub set up by smokers affects a non smoker.Please I beg you.

Apart from apparent stress relief, give me one benefit to smoking.

Freedom of choice. apart from the apparent belief that no-smokers live forever - give me a benefit of not allowing smokers the choice to smoke in their own environent. Give me a reason not to allow smoking pubs for smokers. Go on, give me one!

This has been pointed out to you already.

An employer cannot require an employee to take a reasonably avoidable risk. They can't require an employee to take that risk even if the employee regulary takes that risk at home anyway. This is because the employer is responsible for the health and safety of their empoyees while at work.

So me and my smoking mate set up a pub. We are the only two that work there selling beer to smokers who drink in my pub. I am a consenting adult and so is my freind. Give me a reason why this establishment should not be allowed to operate. Me and my mate smoke in the pub and live above it. Give me a reason to stop us. We only harm ourselves and those that choose to enter. This is legislated against. this personal freedom is denied. This has been pointed out to you already. List the reasons why the above situation would be detrimental to a non smoker.

So me and my smoking mate set up a pub. We are the only two that work there selling beer to smokers who drink in my pub. I am a consenting adult and so is my freind. Give me a reason why this establishment should not be allowed to operate. Me and my mate smoke in the pub and live above it. Give me a reason to stop us. We only harm ourselves and those that choose to enter. This is legislated against. this personal freedom is denied. This has been pointed out to you already. List the reasons why the above situation would be detrimental to a non smoker.

Consent isn't an issue for health and safety regulations. You can't use chewing gum and wet tissue to make scaffolding on a building site if the construction workers are stupid enough to consent to working on something like that.

So me and my smoking mate set up a pub. We are the only two that work there selling beer to smokers who drink in my pub. I am a consenting adult and so is my freind. Give me a reason why this establishment should not be allowed to operate. Me and my mate smoke in the pub and live above it. Give me a reason to stop us. We only harm ourselves and those that choose to enter. This is legislated against. this personal freedom is denied. This has been pointed out to you already. List the reasons why the above situation would be detrimental to a non smoker.

Self employed people also come under the HASAWA 1974.

If you really don't believe me then feel free to try open a smokers pub, run by smokers for smokers and see what the health and safety executive have to say.

Or - try to run a construction business run by people who refuse to use safety goggles or hard hats while on the job as they don't use them when doing DIY at home, that only employees people who don't use hard hats when at home and then says that the should not have to use them when at work.

Don't let me stop you from trying to do either of those...

I think the basic issue here is that the legislation is attempting to stop you damaging your health, in the best way possible.

The trouble is that some people seem pretty thick-skulled and aren't able to see when people are attempting to help them

I think the basic issue here is that the legislation is attempting to stop you damaging your health, in the best way possible.

The trouble is that some people seem pretty thick-skulled and aren't able to see when people are attempting to help them

I think the basic issue here is that the legislation is attempting to stop you damaging your health, in the best way possible.

The trouble is that some people seem pretty thick-skulled and aren't able to see when people are attempting to help them

Using heavy construction material to deny people the right to have a smokers pub is as disproportionate as equating smoking to child porn. You have still not given me a reason why smokers pubs can not operate. I want to have a smokers pub for the exclusive use of smokers - tell me why I can't.

He just did.

Just because someone does something at home does not mean their employer is allowed to let them do it at work.

And your example is really badly flawed.

Consent isn't an issue for health and safety regulations. You can't use chewing gum and wet tissue to make scaffolding on a building site if the construction workers are stupid enough to consent to working on something like that.

Using heavy construction material to deny people the right to have a smokers pub is as disproportionate as equating smoking to child porn. You have still not given me a reason why smokers pubs can not operate. I want to have a smokers pub for the exclusive use of smokers - tell me why I can't.

Using heavy construction material to deny people the right to have a smokers pub is as disproportionate as equating smoking to child porn. You have still not given me a reason why smokers pubs can not operate. I want to have a smokers pub for the exclusive use of smokers - tell me why I can't.

The legal reason this is not allowed is simply that an employer cannot require you to take an avoidable risk while at work even if you would take that risk when doing the same task at home. Also, allowing smokers to operate smoking pubs for the sole use of smokers equates to giving smokers special rights, which is discriminatory. Would you like it again in bigger letters?

Allowing smokers to operate smoking pubs for the sole use of smokers equates to giving smokers special rights, which is discriminatory
This is true, however the legal reason this is not allowed is simply that an employer cannot require you to take an avoidable risk while at work even if you would take that risk when doing the same task at home.

Give me a reason why this should be banned. Apart from it is bad for you.
Okey doke:
The legal reason this is not allowed is simply that an employer cannot require you to take an avoidable risk while at work even if you would take that risk when doing the same task at home. Also, allowing smokers to operate smoking pubs for the sole use of smokers equates to giving smokers special rights, which is discriminatory. Would you like it again in bigger letters?

This is true, however the legal reason this is not allowed is simply that an employer cannot require you to take an avoidable risk while at work even if you would take that risk when doing the same task at home.

That too. I think I'll add that to my Big Red Post.

The example was me and my smoking freind. We are both the employees and the employers - please tell me why this situation should be legislated against. We are private citizens allowing smoking to be partaken in within our own private establishment licensed to serve alcohol. No non-smokers are exposed apart from their own transgretions into our environment. Give me a reason why this should be banned. Apart from it is bad for you.

Self employed people are covered by the the aspects of the HASAWA 1974 relevent to this discussion in a similar way to employees. The main difference is that they have to provide their own PPE.

If you honestly don't believe me then try open up such an establishment and argue it with the Health and Safety Executive.

Apart from it is bad for you.

And that isnt good enough for you? Jeez, we won't try and extend your life and stop you getting debiliating diseases again...

I'll let everyone else come up with better answers :)

He just did.

Just because someone does something at home does not mean their employer is allowed to let them do it at work.

And your example is really badly flawed.

The example was me and my smoking freind. We are both the employees and the employers - please tell me why this situation should be legislated against. We are private citizens allowing smoking to be partaken in within our own private establishment licensed to serve alcohol. No non-smokers are exposed apart from their own transgretions into our environment. Give me a reason why this should be banned. Apart from it is bad for you.

Freedom of choice. apart from the apparent belief that no-smokers live forever - give me a benefit of not allowing smokers the choice to smoke in their own environent. Give me a reason not to allow smoking pubs for smokers. Go on, give me one!

Freedom of choice is not a benefit of smoking. It's the thing that allows you to smoke. Stop acting as if we're all narrow-minded idiots if you cannot back up your arguments with anything coherent.

And, for fecks sake,

THAT WOULD BE DISCRIMINATORY.

Look. If you want to go smoke in your own home, be my guest. But don't you dare do it anywhere near me, banging on about rights, because you're not only giving yourself countless health risks, but you're giving them to me as well. I don't want bronchitis and lung cancer, thanks, and pubs for smokers only isn't going to solve anything.

The legal reason this is not allowed is simply that an employer cannot require you to take an avoidable risk while at work even if you would take that risk when doing the same task at home. Also, allowing smokers to operate smoking pubs for the sole use of smokers equates to giving smokers special rights, which is discriminatory. Would you like it again in bigger letters?

A smokers pub for smokers is not discriminatory. Saying so is like saying that a mosque is discriminatory against those who wish to eat bacon with their shoes on inside any building. Each to their own in any private business. BTW smking is still legal.

A smokers pub for smokers is not discriminatory.

Yes, it is. It's like setting up a pub for white people, and another for black. Just it isn't racist. But it's still discriminatory.

Saying so is like saying that a mosque is discriminatory against those who wish to eat bacon with their shoes on inside any building.

No, that's irrelevant, because that's not private business. That's religion.

Each to their own in any private business.

You know, that sort of principle created the crash in America in the 1920s.

BTW smking is still legal.

Some, like me, wish it weren't. There are absolutely no benefits. It's a disgusting, dirty, stupid habit and it's a blatant health risk, to smokers and others around them. It pollutes air, and contributes to one of the biggest killers in the country. (Cancer, of course). If you would like to give me ONE GOOD BENEFIT to smoking, then please do.

And that isnt good enough for you? Jeez, we won't try and extend your life and stop you getting debiliating diseases again...
I'll let everyone else come up with better answers :)

The issue is smoking in pubs - pubs - the alcohol seller. Drinking can cause cancer of the mouth, bowel, kidney, liver, stomach. Can cause oesophagal bleeding, premature senilty, liver cirrhosis. Violence in the streets, domestic violence. Why not ban drinking in pubs too? It causes more problems that smoking. I see no reason if you allow drinking in pubs to not allow smoking in smoking pubs. If public health is truly a reason ban all vices. Don't ban private smoking pubs.

The issue is smoking in pubs - pubs - the alcohol seller. Drinking can cause cancer of the mouth, bowel, kidney, liver, stomach. Can cause oesophagal bleeding, premature senilty, liver cirrhosis. Violence in the streets, domestic violence. Why not ban drinking in pubs too? It causes more problems that smoking. I see no reason if you allow drinking in pubs to not allow smoking in smoking pubs. If public health is truly a reason ban all vices. Don't ban private smoking pubs.

That is a issue for another time. Admittedly, in an ideal world maybe drinking should be banned. However, drinking within moderation does not cause all of those aforementioned issues. As far as I'm aware, smoking does.

The issue is smoking in pubs - pubs - the alcohol seller. Drinking can cause cancer of the mouth, bowel, kidney, liver, stomach. Can cause oesophagal bleeding, premature senilty, liver cirrhosis. Violence in the streets, domestic violence. Why not ban drinking in pubs too? It causes more problems that smoking. I see no reason if you allow drinking in pubs to not allow smoking in smoking pubs. If public health is truly a reason ban all vices. Don't ban private smoking pubs.

Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, bronchitis, pneumonia, amongst other big killers. However, smoking ALSO contributes to pollution. Drinking doesn't. Smoking gives off the most horrific smell. Drinking doesn't. I'll admit drinking is a horrible vice, but smoking, IMO, is far worse.

Yes, it is. It's like setting up a pub for white people, and another for black. Just it isn't racist. But it's still discriminatory.



No, that's irrelevant, because that's not private business. That's religion.



You know, that sort of principle created the crash in America in the 1920s.



Some, like me, wish it weren't. There are absolutely no benefits. It's a disgusting, dirty, stupid habit and it's a blatant health risk, to smokers and others around them. It pollutes air, and contributes to one of the biggest killers in the country. (Cancer, of course). If you would like to give me ONE GOOD BENEFIT to smoking, then please do.

Well for one thing - people can chose to smoke - very few people can chose their skin colour. Michael Jackson is the only one I can think of. One benefit of smoking is 100,000 people a year dead. It may not be nice but try homing, pensioning, NHSing, commuting 2000 people a week extra. I can still not see an arguement against me setting up a licensed pub or the use of smokers. Why deny consenting adults that choice. All I see is people saying smoking is bad. I know that you silly sods. So will all the people that use it.

One benefit of smoking is 100,000 people a year dead. It may not be nice but try homing, pensioning, NHSing, commuting 2000 people a week extra.

I don't understand these sentences. Commuting kills 2000 people a week?

One benefit of smoking is 100,000 people a year dead.

Oh....oh my God. You sick, twisted horrible troll. When one of your relatives dies of a smoking related illness, tell me. Until then, I wouldn't bother contributing to threads like these with comments like that.

Freedom of choice is not a benefit of smoking. It's the thing that allows you to smoke. Stop acting as if we're all narrow-minded idiots if you cannot back up your arguments with anything coherent.

And, for fecks sake,

THAT WOULD BE DISCRIMINATORY.

Look. If you want to go smoke in your own home, be my guest. But don't you dare do it anywhere near me, banging on about rights, because you're not only giving yourself countless health risks, but you're giving them to me as well. I don't want bronchitis and lung cancer, thanks, and pubs for smokers only isn't going to solve anything.


You idiot. Pubs for smokers would sepetrate smokers and no smokers. How difficult is that for you to understand? Have a ciggy - it may help free your mind.

The issue is smoking in pubs - pubs - the alcohol seller. Drinking can cause cancer of the mouth, bowel, kidney, liver, stomach. Can cause oesophagal bleeding, premature senilty, liver cirrhosis. Violence in the streets, domestic violence. Why not ban drinking in pubs too? It causes more problems that smoking. I see no reason if you allow drinking in pubs to not allow smoking in smoking pubs. If public health is truly a reason ban all vices. Don't ban private smoking pubs.

if i drink a beer in a pub that has no effect on other people. if i smoke a cigarette in a pub that has a bad effect on the people around me.

You idiot. Pubs for smokers would sepetrate smokers and no smokers. How difficult is that for you to understand? Have a ciggy - it may help free your mind.

I know very well what it would do, idiot. However, I don't think creating discriminatory establishments is going to curb anything. In a perfect world, maybe. But it isn't a perfect world.
And no,thanks. I like my lungs tar-free.

Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, bronchitis, pneumonia, amongst other big killers. However, smoking ALSO contributes to pollution. Drinking doesn't. Smoking gives off the most horrific smell. Drinking doesn't. I'll admit drinking is a horrible vice, but smoking, IMO, is far worse.

Drinking also causes cancer, heart disease etc. Smoking may cause a smell but smoking never caused a fight outside a pub at chucking out time. No-one is ever convicted of driving whist under the influence of nicotine. Drinking is the biggest killer in Scotland. And don't get me started of things that kill people. I am not a supporter of the everyone live forever league.

I know very well what it would do, idiot. However, I don't think creating discriminatory establishments is going to curb anything. In a perfect world, maybe. But it isn't a perfect world.
And no,thanks. I like my lungs tar-free.


Having smoking pubs for smokers is about a discriminatory as having vegetarian reastaurants. This is not a perfect world so allow smokers to have smoking pubs. You want tar free lungs - then go to a non smoking pub. Oh and avoid any road works, or big cities. Infact to keep your lungs clean live up a mountain.

Drinking also causes cancer, heart disease etc. Smoking may cause a smell but smoking never caused a fight outside a pub at chucking out time. No-one is ever convicted of driving whist under the influence of nicotine. Drinking is the biggest killer in Scotland. And don't get me started of things that kill people. I am not a supporter of the everyone live forever league.

Smoking causes house fires, if you're retarded enough to leave it lit. Does drinking? No. Is drinking as horribly addictive as smoking? No. (Yes, drinking is addictive, but not as much as nicotine can be). Smoking, IMO, is far worse than drinking, and setting up pubs JUST so people can light up and destroy themselves doesn't quite click in my brain.

if i drink a beer in a pub that has no effect on other people. if i smoke a cigarette in a pub that has a bad effect on the people around me.

If you smoke a cigarette in a smokers pub you cause no more damage than those patrons are willing to acept. If you have too much to drink in a pub you can end up on Bravo on one of those Cop programmes - I have never seen one of those programmes where it has said - 'This man has had too many cigarettes and is resisting arrest'.

No, but I haven't seen many smokers not get some life-damaging disease.

if i drink a beer in a pub that has no effect on other people. if i smoke a cigarette in a pub that has a bad effect on the people around me.

If you smoke a cigarette in a smokers pub you cause no more damage than those patrons are willing to acept. If you have too much to drink in a pub you can end up on Bravo on one of those Cop programmes - I have never seen one of those programmes where it has said - 'This man has had too many cigarettes and is resisting arrest'.

I know very well what it would do, idiot. However, I don't think creating discriminatory establishments is going to curb anything. In a perfect world, maybe. But it isn't a perfect world.
And no,thanks. I like my lungs tar-free.


Having smoking pubs for smokers is about a discriminatory as having vegetarian reastaurants. This is not a perfect world so allow smokers to have smoking pubs. You want tar free lungs - then go to a non smoking pub. Oh and avoid any road works, or big cities. Infact to keep your lungs clean live up a mountain.

Oh come on, don't be pedantic. I don't want my body polluted to any more extent than is done by society anyway.

[QUOTE=Arinola;12416492]

Winston Churchill smoked around 60,000 cigars in his life and spent around 65 years as an active parliamentarian. George Burns was also a smoker and lived to be 100 years old. I have seen many non smokers get a life threatening disease. Linda Mcartney died of cancer - you know - the vegetarian. If the statistics are right then 1 in 3 people will get cancer in their lifetime - but non smokers claim that 3/4's of people don't smoke. So 33% of people getting cancer - 25% of which smoke - with not all smokers getting cancer - what demon is killing the otherwise immortal non-smokers???

Would you like to find one non-smoker claiming he is immortal, simply because he doesn't smoke?

[QUOTE=HunterST;12416484]

No, but I haven't seen many smokers not get some life-damaging disease.

Winston Churchill smoked around 60,000 cigars in his life and spent around 65 years as an active parliamentarian. George Burns was also a smoker and lived to be 100 years old. I have seen many non smokers get a life threatening disease. Linda Mcartney died of cancer - you know - the vegetarian. If the statistics are right then 1 in 3 people will get cancer in their lifetime - but non smokers claim that 3/4's of people don't smoke. So 33% of people getting cancer - 25% of which smoke - with not all smokers getting cancer - what demon is killing the otherwise immortal non-smokers???

Winston Churchill smoked around 60,000 cigars in his life and spent around 65 years as an active parliamentarian. George Burns was also a smoker and lived to be 100 years old.
Oh, come on. Are you seriously, seriously trying to argue that smoking doesn't cause harm based on two people?

I have seen many non smokers get a life threatening disease. Linda Mcartney died of cancer - you know - the vegetarian.
What on Earth makes you think that vegetarianism has anything to do with smoking?

If the statistics are right then 1 in 3 people will get cancer in their lifetime - but non smokers claim that 3/4's of people don't smoke. So 33% of people getting cancer - 25% of which smoke - with not all smokers getting cancer - what demon is killing the otherwise immortal non-smokers???
Other things than cigarettes cause cancer? Well I never! Now, I don't mind exposing myself to your cancer-infused smog. You see? Just because I run the risk of developing any number of diseases doesn't mean I want to make that risk any higher.

[QUOTE=HunterST;12416476]

Oh come on, don't be pedantic. I don't want my body polluted to any more extent than is done by society anyway.

Then allow smoking pubs and don't go in. Simple. And also don't fly, support china, drive or use electricity. As they pollute your lungs.

Then allow smoking pubs and don't go in.
For the last time, this would leave very little choice for non smokers and be impossible to implement. We have smoking and non smoking pubs now, and it is clearly unsatisfactory for the majority.

Simple. And also don't fly, support china, drive or use electricity. As they pollute your lungs.
Straw man alert!

[QUOTE=Arinola;12416496]

Then allow smoking pubs and don't go in. Simple. And also don't fly, support china, drive or use electricity. As they pollute your lungs.

I give up with you, I really do. You're not actually backing up your argument at all, just throwing the debate around. You've failed to give one benefit of smoking, you just avoided that argument. You're on ignore, you're style of arguing just grates with me, and if I listen to you anymore I'm going to end up flaming.

Winston Churchill smoked around 60,000 cigars in his life and spent around 65 years as an active parliamentarian. George Burns was also a smoker and lived to be 100 years old. I have seen many non smokers get a life threatening disease. Linda Mcartney died of cancer - you know - the vegetarian. If the statistics are right then 1 in 3 people will get cancer in their lifetime - but non smokers claim that 3/4's of people don't smoke. So 33% of people getting cancer - 25% of which smoke - with not all smokers getting cancer - what demon is killing the otherwise immortal non-smokers???
Don't even try that. It's long been known that smoking is the major cause of lung cancer. By using statistics encompassing all the deaths presented by a massive killer when smoking is shown to affect subtypes is an attempt to hide the problem. Yes, non-smokers get cancer. But smokers don't get only certain types of cancer. They have the non-smokers risk with the added risk presented by smoking.

Oh, come on. Are you seriously, seriously trying to argue that smoking doesn't cause harm based on two people?


What on Earth makes you think that vegetarianism has anything to do with smoking?


Other things than cigarettes cause cancer? Well I never! Now, I don't mind exposing myself to your cancer-infused smog. You see? Just because I run the risk of developing any number of diseases doesn't mean I want to make that risk any higher.

I still see no arguement against a smoking pub for smokers. Those people using the pub know the risks and accept them. Please provide an arguement against personal choise and smoking pubs.

The thing about vegetarianism and smoking was an explanation about dicrimination. A non smoker that goes into a smoking pub is as stupid as a meat eater that goes into a vegetarian place and asks for a steak.

Oh, come on. Are you seriously, seriously trying to argue that smoking doesn't cause harm based on two people?


What on Earth makes you think that vegetarianism has anything to do with smoking?


Other things than cigarettes cause cancer? Well I never! Now, I don't mind exposing myself to your cancer-infused smog. You see? Just because I run the risk of developing any number of diseases doesn't mean I want to make that risk any higher.

I still see no arguement against a smoking pub for smokers. Those people using the pub know the risks and accept them. Please provide an arguement against personal choise and smoking pubs.

The thing about vegetarianism and smoking was an explanation about dicrimination. A non smoker that goes into a smoking pub is as stupid as a meat eater that goes into a vegetarian place and asks for a steak.

The thing about vegetarianism and smoking was an explanation about dicrimination. A non smoker that goes into a smoking pub is as stupid as a meat eater that goes into a vegetarian place and asks for a steak.

Are you serious! That is such a poor analogy I don't even know where to begin.

How and to my receoning your arguement has now changed 6 times.

Its good that they are banning it. I shouldn't have to be in a place where someone is smokeing right next to me exhailing basicaly cancer causing chemicals. Neither should little Children. It is not a breach of freedom or human rights because it is protecting the minority. If it only affected the person inhailing the smoke then it would be fine, but it doesn't. If you don't like it give up smoking, if you don't like the government then don't smoke because the governmen't make around 2 Quid off of every pack you buy.

Are you serious! That is such a poor analogy I don't even know where to begin.
How and to my receoning your arguement has now changed 6 times.

It is not a bad analogy. If you are a non smoker can you complian if going into a smoking pub? About as much as a meat eater going into a vegetarian reastaurant and asking for steak.

These petitions fail, as does October3. He even failed to hide his identity as hunterST :o

Don't even try that. It's long been known that smoking is the major cause of lung cancer. By using statistics encompassing all the deaths presented by a massive killer when smoking is shown to affect subtypes is an attempt to hide the problem. Yes, non-smokers get cancer. But smokers don't get only certain types of cancer. They have the non-smokers risk with the added risk presented by smoking.

Now try an arguement for smokers pubs for smokers run by smokers. We know it is bad for us but we don't care. Reason me against having a smoking pub. BTW Captain Hook is one of my heros - so mushy nonsense will have no effect.

"Before you were or your parents used to stay up all night just to watch the sun rise".

These petitions fail, as does October3. He even failed to hide his identity as hunterST :o

The road pricing petition gained widespread publicity. And I have not hidden my identity as October3. My use of HunterST (one of the greatest people ever to have lived) is incidetal. October3 has only been banned until 13/03.

And I have not hidden my identity as October3.

So you admit it!

I still see no arguement against a smoking pub for smokers. Those people using the pub know the risks and accept them. Please provide an arguement against personal choise and smoking pubs.
What? Again? I'll just post what I posted about 5 pages ago. I suggest you read the last 22 pages of this thread, and try and get the point.

Right, I'll go over it. Again.

We have a mixture of smoking and non smoking pubs, with a large majority allowing smoking. This is clearly not a satisfactory situation for non smokers, who don't want smoke related diseases (yes, I don't want lung cancer, despite your 'you'll die anyway! waa!' line); health officials, and the government that picks up the NHS tab.

The current legislation bans smoking in indoor public places. This, despite what you think, does not deprive smokers of choice. Why? You can still go to a pub. You can still have a drink. You can still socialise with your mates. If you want a cigarette, you'll have to have it outside after you've finished your drink, while you're walking home, or during the warmer half of the year, drink and smoke outside. Nothing particularly arduous. Out, smoke, in, like you would do for the benefit of your work colleges.

What you propose would effectively be an attempt for a minority to still infringe on the rights of a majority. Although smokers would still have a choice of smoking and non smoking pubs, being able to smoke at both, non smokers would not have such a choice without having to compromise their health. Therefore, such a mixed system would still leave the majority at a loss. Of course, this says nothing of the bar staff who would still have their health at risk unnecessarily, and the fact that government intervention would be discriminatory between pubs (rather than apply to all) making it unworkable.

The thing about vegetarianism and smoking was an explanation about dicrimination. A non smoker that goes into a smoking pub is as stupid as a meat eater that goes into a vegetarian place and asks for a steak.
What on Earth is that to do with discrimination?

In any case, that just strengthens my argument that smokers can go to non smokers' pubs bot not vice versa.

For the last time, this would leave very little choice for non smokers and be impossible to implement. We have smoking and non smoking pubs now, and it is clearly unsatisfactory for the majority.

Straw man alert!

Are planning laws difficult to implemet? As for choice I thought non-smokers are in the majority - therefore if a change of use planning application was used to implemet a smoking pub it would be easy to enforce and implement. Although a change of use planning application is already being introduced to every pub in the U.K. From libreal to non-smoking - involving smoking areas outside, heaters, the implications of noise reduction and litter problems from the absence of ashtrays. How would smoking pubs add to this?

The road pricing petition gained widespread publicity. And I have not hidden my identity as October3. My use of HunterST (one of the greatest people ever to have lived) is incidetal. October3 has only been banned until 13/03.
Yes, but a majority are against road pricing. A majority are in favour of banning smoking in public places. Hence, the road pricing petition succeeds where yours will fail.

Now try an arguement for smokers pubs for smokers run by smokers. We know it is bad for us but we don't care. Reason me against having a smoking pub. BTW Captain Hook is one of my heros - so mushy nonsense will have no effect.

"Before you were or your parents used to stay up all night just to watch the sun rise".
Alright then, how about the huge burden on the NHS presented by smokers? I mean, after all, this is a UK-based poll. Three things account for most of the costs on the NHS - smoking-related illness, alcohol-related accidents and illness and old people. Drink driving is illegal with potentially very heavy penalties and involuntary euthanasia is not an option. Which leaves a reduction in smoking. A lot of people argue smoking is a social habit. Therefore, a reduction in ability for people to smoke in social situations reduces the cost on the NHS, freeing up resources for more worthy, non-self inflicted problems. This is part of the British govts. main argument for banning smoking in public places - it reduces the negative externalities associated with the demerit good that is tobacco.

What? Again? I'll just post what I posted about 5 pages ago. I suggest you read the last 22 pages of this thread, and try and get the point.

Right, I'll go over it. Again.

We have a mixture of smoking and non smoking pubs, with a large majority allowing smoking. This is clearly not a satisfactory situation for non smokers, who don't want smoke related diseases (yes, I don't want lung cancer, despite your 'you'll die anyway! waa!' line); health officials, and the government that picks up the NHS tab.

The current legislation bans smoking in indoor public places. This, despite what you think, does not deprive smokers of choice. Why? You can still go to a pub. You can still have a drink. You can still socialise with your mates. If you want a cigarette, you'll have to have it outside after you've finished your drink, while you're walking home, or during the warmer half of the year, drink and smoke outside. Nothing particularly arduous. Out, smoke, in, like you would do for the benefit of your work colleges.

What you propose would effectively be an attempt for a minority to still infringe on the rights of a majority. Although smokers would still have a choice of smoking and non smoking pubs, being able to smoke at both, non smokers would not have such a choice without having to compromise their health. Therefore, such a mixed system would still leave the majority at a loss. Of course, this says nothing of the bar staff who would still have their health at risk unnecessarily, and the fact that government intervention would be discriminatory between pubs (rather than apply to all) making it unworkable.


What on Earth is that to do with discrimination?

In any case, that just strengthens my argument that smokers can go to non smokers' pubs bot not vice versa.

How when the employees would know that they are working in a smoking pub? Are you the type of stupid that would work in an environment you don't like when given the option of other minimum wage drudgery?

Discrimination is not allowing smokers to smoke in smoking pubs.

Yes, but a majority are against road pricing. A majority are in favour of banning smoking in public places. Hence, the road pricing petition succeeds where yours will fail.

1.8 million signatures - 31 million drivers. How in your tiny mind is that a majority? A majority of the U.K public are against Trident renewal and the war in Iraq. How is your arguement working against the idea of having smoking pubs for smokers. Please tell me.

Us having private nuclear wars is not the same as having private smoking pubs.

Alright then, how about the huge burden on the NHS presented by smokers? I mean, after all, this is a UK-based poll. Three things account for most of the costs on the NHS - smoking-related illness, alcohol-related accidents and illness and old people. Drink driving is illegal with potentially very heavy penalties and involuntary euthanasia is not an option. Which leaves a reduction in smoking. A lot of people argue smoking is a social habit. Therefore, a reduction in ability for people to smoke in social situations reduces the cost on the NHS, freeing up resources for more worthy, non-self inflicted problems. This is part of the British govts. main argument for banning smoking in public places - it reduces the negative externalities associated with the demerit good that is tobacco.

How much money does the government get from tobacco taxes compared to that which it spends on the NHS. I think you will find a deficit if no-one smoked.

How much money does the government get from tobacco taxes compared to that which it spends on the NHS. I think you will find a deficit if no-one smoked.

There would also be a lot more healthy people walking around. Actually the total taxation in according to forest was £7billion and the total cost of treating the diseases was £1.5 Billion.

Except that is a very simplistic way of looking at the matter, as many of the diseases don't just affect the one person they affect the whole family. Every day taken from work is a cost of smoking, life insurance costs etc etc. I am willing to bet that the costs of smokers habbits have a far greater total affect on the nation than that simple £1.5Billion.

1.8 million signatures - 31 million drivers. How in your tiny mind is that a majority?
What? A majority of the British people are against road pricing. Here's a poll for you:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/6432347.stm

See? My tiny mind does work sometimes.
A majority of the U.K public are against Trident renewal and the war in Iraq. How is your arguement working against the idea of having smoking pubs for smokers. Please tell me.
A minority (being you, inconsiderate smokers) want to be able to smoke, and force others to passively smoke, irrespective of whether they want it or not. A large majority do not want to be exposed to this kind of filth. Hence, under the democratic principle of majority rule, the minority does not have the right to inflict damage upon a majority.

Trident and Iraq and only come into this debate insofar that the government sometimes go against public opinion. Big deal.
Us having private nuclear wars is not the same as having private smoking pubs.
Eh? More of your waffle.

How when the employees would know that they are working in a smoking pub? Are you the type of stupid that would work in an environment you don't like when given the option of other minimum wage drudgery?
Can you rephrase your first sentence into a coherent one? And second, there isn't enough "minimum wage drudgery" to go around. That's we have 'unemployment', and why people will often take the first job they can get irrespective of conditions.

Discrimination is not allowing smokers to smoke in smoking pubs.
There is no such thing as a smoking pub when the legislation comes into force. Hence, no discrimination.

That's a pretty poor quality petition. It should at least say why you should, in their opinion, be allowed to smoke in pubs.


No way I'd sign it btw, even if I was a UK resident.


Also, my thread, mwahahaha

Did you make the poll? That would be pwnt then. :)

I signed it

Not a smoker but I think the manager should choose what we can and can’t do in his own business not some nanny state

Agreed.

His propler name is actually Bliar. Next thing you know we will have a bloody Scot in no10. The Scots can f*ck off north of Berwick for all I care and drink themselves to death like they are so good at.

What another person seeking to split the UK up. A really foolish comment.

I am not so concerned about the stopping of smoking in pubs and restaurants in fact it makes for great socialising oportunities outside!!

I think there are however a number of other situations which are more problamatic

1. Situations where people go to work in someones private space for example people receiving home help support. A number of councils have asked people not to smoke before and while the home help is in their house.

2. Situations where employees are not allowed to smoke on their breaks at risk of dismissal

3. Situations where smokers will not be employed even if not smoking at work

However the petition does not cover these so can not support it

October3, are you a masochist? You take beating after beating and still come for more, seemingly having no memory of your previous beatings.

Despite my being a smoker, and my quite liking the atmosphere created by smoke in pubs and venues, the health implications for non-smokers are sufficient so as to render the ban sensible.

Equally, as Aleshia writes, the social oppurtunities for smokers will now increase!:)

Finally, I do object to any company refusing to hire employees upon the grounds that they smoke, or wherein smoking upon breaks is forbidden.

Despite my being a smoker, and my quite liking the atmosphere created by smoke in pubs and venues...You like the 'atmosphere' created by cigarette smoke. I think you're batshit insane....the health implications for non-smokers are sufficient so as to render the ban sensible.That, however, is very noble of you.

October3, are you a masochist? You take beating after beating and still come for more, seemingly having no memory of your previous beatings.

I'm thinking about intorducing him to The Potatoe Factory... I've got a feeling they'd get along brillinatly.

I signed it

Not a smoker but I think the manger should choose what we can and can’t do in his own business not some nanny state

Exactly why I signed.

Non-smokers (like myself) already have places we can go not to be smoked on.

Our places out number the smokers places - because it's good business to cater to the majority.

The ban is discrimination and government meddling. Plain and simple.

take a Digital Camcorder so we can see how it goes

Somehow that just sounds sick...

You like the 'atmosphere' created by cigarette smoke. I think you're batshit insane.

I like it.

I'm thinking about intorducing him to The Potatoe Factory... I've got a feeling they'd get along brillinatly.

take a Digital Camcorder so we can see how it goes

Exactly why I signed.

Non-smokers (like myself) already have places we can go not to be smoked on.

Our places out number the smokers places - because it's good business to cater to the majority.

The ban is discrimination and government meddling. Plain and simple.

Um, what places would that be? Public transport?

Somehow that just sounds sick...

only want see if one attacks the other

I like it.*shrugs* each to their own. I still think you're insane though.

*shrugs* each to their own. I still think you're insane though.

Many people like the smell of petrol, it would sound really weird and insane if you didn't know millions of people like that smell. The same applies to smoking, I know lots of people who like the smell.

Many people like the smell of petrol, it would sound really weird and insane if you didn't know millions of people like that smell. The same applies to smoking, I know lots of people who like the smell.Yeah, well, they're insane too.

Many people like the smell of petrol, it would sound really weird and insane if you didn't know millions of people like that smell. The same applies to smoking, I know lots of people who like the smell.

There are people who like the smell of petrol? Wow, and I thought I was weird...

There are people who like the smell of petrol? Wow, and I thought I was weird...
They're the people that like getting high off petrol...:p

They're the people that like getting high off petrol...:pYou mean the people who would totally condemn any illegal drug user to rot in prison, but is in no way ashamed to get their high by sniffing petrol, drinking alcohol, coffee and tea, and smoking cigarettes?

Some of my Irish friends said that they would rather smell the smoke than the sweat of everyone.

Some of my Irish friends said that they would rather smell the smoke than the sweat of everyone.

Right... cause smoke makes the sweat go away, right?

Yeah, well, they're insane too.

Why is it insane to like the smell?

Why is it insane to like the smell?Because I'm sane, and I don't like the smell. :p Plus I don't think inhaling petrol vapours is particularly good for you.

For the last time, this would leave very little choice for non smokers and be impossible to implement. We have smoking and non smoking pubs now, and it is clearly unsatisfactory for the majority.


Hi,

As much as these are good reasons for people not to smoke they are not the actual reason for the ban - which HunterST/October3 knows very well. He is trying very hard to keep people from actually debating the real reason for the ban insted prefering to concentrate on debating reasons that have nothing to do with why the ban is being put through.

The real reason for the ban is that an employer has a duty to remove any health risk to their workers and persons other than those at work from the workplace as far as reasonably practable, and further to this an employer cannot require/ask/allow an employee to take an avoidable risk even if the employee would normally do so when performing the same task at home. Similar rules apply to the self employed. The new leglislation is bringing pubs working environments in line with the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

Any other arguements that he brings up that do not directly address this point are either strawmen or distractions because he cannot find a decent answer to the actual reason for the ban.

Hi,

As much as these are good reasons for people not to smoke they are not the actual reason for the ban - which HunterST/October3 knows very well. He is trying very hard to keep people from actually debating the real reason for the ban insted prefering to concentrate on debating reasons that have nothing to do with why the ban is being put through.

The real reason for the ban is that an employer has a duty to remove any health risk to their workers and persons other than those at work from the workplace as far as reasonably practable, and further to this an employer cannot require/ask/allow an employee to take an avoidable risk even if the employee would normally do so when performing the same task at home. Similar rules apply to the self employed. The new leglislation is bringing pubs working environments in line with the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

Any other arguements that he brings up that do not directly address this point are either strawmen or distractions because he cannot find a decent answer to the actual reason for the ban.

I think this addresses the legal reason, mostly. However, seeing that for more than 20 years the existing legislation wasn't applied to pubs and restaurants, it's fair to assume that doing so now is due to additional motivation, which is what people here speculate about.

Right... cause smoke makes the sweat go away, right?

hardly

it just has a stronger smell so it overpowers the smell of sweat. I thought that would be obvious