MPs vote to ban smoking in pubs and clubs

[Marcellus]

MPs have voted by huge margins to ban smoking from all pubs and private members' clubs in England.

Ministers offered a free vote amid fears of a Labour backbench rebellion against government plans to exempt clubs and pubs not serving food.

MPs decided by a margin of 328 to ban smoking from all pubs. They then voted by 200 to extend this to clubs.

Lib Dems said the change would improve the health of workers. The ban is expected to start in summer 2007.

The Cabinet had been split on how far restrictions should go, with Conservatives calling government policy a "shambles".

Link to BBC report

Personally, I'm very relieved at this news. Having someone smoking nearby is topped only by food poisoning when it comes to ruining a meal out, in my opinion. And the health benefits of a ban are great too. I'd be interested in hearing other people's opinions.

[Mongoose]

Forgive my ignorance, but...

Does being around smokers greatly increase the risk of lung cancer? If not, then I think that it should be up to the owners of the pub.

[Dutch_guy]

Well it is certainly unhealthy sitting next to a smoking person, some I believe argue that sitting next to a smoker is just as unhealthy as smoking yourself.

Personally I detest sitting near smokers while eating, and always try my best not sitting near them,it really does ruin a meal- thankfully restaurants have no-smoking zones ;)

As for the ban, I wouldn't mind, me being a non smoker, and I'd vote for banning it myself too, given the chance.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Does being around smokers greatly increase the risk of lung cancer?

It's fairly well established now that persistent exposure to others' smoke does indeed increase the risk of lung cancer.

The employees are most at risk.

[caravel]

Bar staff are also constantly exposed to other peoples smoke, and many have developed smoking related ilnesses, and even lung cancer. Passive smoking is a real problem. But the whole issue is education. People that smoke in their houses with their children around them cannot be stopped from doing so, they first have to realise that it's wrong. Those people will be doing this more, with their cans of beer, if they are banned from doing so at their night out at the pub...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Bad. It should be up to the owners of the establishments whether they want to allow smoking or not. It's their property, smoking is legal, and thus it is their right to decide.

All other things pale next to the importance of this. The health risks should not factor in this decision. Yes, it is unhealthy, but no one is forcing people to work there or eat there. But I guess that doesn't stop the government from telling the people what to do for heir own good, does it?

Crazed Rabbit

[Duke Malcolm]

Pff, after the Scottish ban in March, now this...

Employees can choose whether or not to work somewhere people smoke. If they do not wish to work in a smoke-filled environment, then get a job in some non-smoking place...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I hate these stupid laws. It should be up to the owner. If you dont like smoke dont go or work there. No ones forcing you too.

PS . And I think that smoking is a disgusting and dirty habit.

[Mongoose]

It's fairly well established now that persistent exposure to others' smoke does indeed increase the risk of lung cancer.

The employees are most at risk.

I've done a little research, and this does seem to be the case.

All other things pale next to the importance of this. The health risks should not factor in this decision. Yes, it is unhealthy, but no one is forcing people to work there or eat there. But I guess that doesn't stop the government from telling the people what to do for heir own good, does it?

I was strongly against the ban when I heard of it at first, but after doing some research, it doesn't seem that unreasonable. Other activites that pose a risk to public health are banned as well...such as other smokable substances...

To tell you the truth, and I don't really think there should be laws against either.

[Goofball]

Bad. It should be up to the owners of the establishments whether they want to allow smoking or not. It's their property, smoking is legal, and thus it is their right to decide.

But smoking (in English pubs) is no longer legal, therefor it is no longer the owners' right to decide...



Seriously though, we went through all this where I live a few years ago. It is basically illegal to smoke in any workplace here. And if you look at it that way, it makes more sense. You can't smoke in a bank, or a pet store, or a government office, because those are all peoples' workplaces and it's not fair to force workers to breathe your smoke if they don't want to. So why should it be fair to force a waitress to inhale smoke at her workplace?

When the laws were first passed here, there was such a public uproar about the whole thing you would have thought the world was going to end.

But now if you ask people about it, the only response you're likely to get is "meh."

It's really not a big deal, except that now people don't stink (as much ) when they come home from a night of drinking.

And the old "let them work somewhere else if they don't like it" is a fallacy. That option is not available to everybody. And, why not turn that around? How about "let the pub owners move to another country or start a different business if they don't like it," or "let smokers stay at home if they don't like it."

The actual fact is that neither will happen. The pubs will continue to be profitable, so the pub owners will eventually stop griping, and the smokers will find (as I did) that having to step outside every now and then for a smoke isn't really as bad as they had originally thought.

Life will go on, but it will just be a little healthier for everybody involved.

Edit: typo

[Crazed Rabbit]

Seriously though, we went through all this where I live a few years ago. It is basically illegal to smoke in any workplace here. And if you look at it that way, it makes more sense. You can't smoke in a bank, or a pet store, or a government office, because those are all peoples' workplaces and it's not fair to force workers to breathe your smoke if they don't want to. So why should it be fair to force a waitress to inhale smoke at her workplace?

You're not forcing the waitress to inhale smoke, and businesses should have the power to ban smoking.

And the old "let them work somewhere else if they don't like it" is a fallacy. That option is not available to everybody. And, why not turn that around? How about "let the pub owners move to another country or start a different business if they don't like it," or "let smokers stay at home if they don't like it."

It is not a fallacy. They do not own the stores, and have chosen to work there. They cannot force other people to change their legal actions because they don't like it. So what if they don't have other employment opportunities? That does not give them the right to decide how another person manages their property.

You can't turn it around because the pub owners are the owners, they own the property and should be able to do with it as they please. Employees have no such claim.

The actual fact is that neither will happen. The pubs will continue to be profitable, so the pub owners will eventually stop griping, and the smokers will find (as I did) that having to step outside every now and then for a smoke isn't really as bad as they had originally thought.

Really? In my town in Washington after they banned smoking in bars, business dropped steadly to 50% of what it was, and had to lay off several workers.

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." - Daniel Webster

Crazed Rabbit

[Goofball]

You're not forcing the waitress to inhale smoke, and businesses should have the power to ban smoking.

They do.

And if you are smoking where she is working, then you are forcing her to inhale smoke.

And the old "let them work somewhere else if they don't like it" is a fallacy. That option is not available to everybody. And, why not turn that around? How about "let the pub owners move to another country or start a different business if they don't like it," or "let smokers stay at home if they don't like it."

It is not a fallacy. They do not own the stores, and have chosen to work there. They cannot force other people to change their legal actions because they don't like it. So what if they don't have other employment opportunities? That does not give them the right to decide how another person manages their property.

You can't turn it around because the pub owners are the owners, they own the property and should be able to do with it as they please. Employees have no such claim.

Don't get me wring here CR. I agree that the government passing a law that bans smoking in pubs is an infringement on a pub owner's right to say what goes on on his own property. And I know it makes your conservative blood boil to see the government mess with private property rights. In most cases, it bugs me too.

But when it comes down to it, every law that prohibits any behaviour is an infringement on somebody's right to do something. It just becomes a question of whether or not you agree that there is a net benefit to society that makes that infringement worthwhile. In this case, I believe the infringement is worth it, while you disagree. No big deal.

The actual fact is that neither will happen. The pubs will continue to be profitable, so the pub owners will eventually stop griping, and the smokers will find (as I did) that having to step outside every now and then for a smoke isn't really as bad as they had originally thought.

Really? In my town in Washington after they banned smoking in bars, business dropped steadly to 50% of what it was, and had to lay off several workers.

I find that interesting (and a little bit suspect) because that didn't happen here (in fact, some bars/nightclubs saw their business increase dramatically) and we are very close to you geographically.

One explanation is that AFAIK Washington only passed the law banning smoking two months ago, so you might just be going through some growing pains with it, which will end when people realize that they really do like to go out for a night of dancing even if they have to go outside to smoke.

[Red Peasant]

Good.
The smokers can go outside and kill the wildlife with their noxious fumes.
I've seen it working in Italy and Ireland, so it should be fine here.

[Samurai Waki]

as a general rule I don't dislike smokers, I just don't like ash getting in my food or smoke getting blown in my face.

[Papewaio]

Meh!

It makes for a far nicer place to eat or drink. A lot more subtle flavours and aromas can be smelt when there is no cigarette smoke in a restaurant.

If anything a lot of clubs and pubs in WA had increased attendance... clubbers could club longer now that their lungs functioned better... and people who react badly to smoke could attend the same functions.

If I can smoke in a pub why can't I pick my nose and wipe it on someones plate of chips?

[rory_20_uk]

I'm against it. I detest smokers, but if they want to smoke in dens then that's their business. There are more important issues to worry about than smoking in private clubs. As has been said, it's your choice to work there, it your choice to be there.

Smoke, die and be done with you.

[TB666]

Well the ban worked in Sweden as well.
The Pro-smoking side went out with the "Now restaurants and bar will go bankrupt" and all that.
But they seem to be doing fine maybe even better since I have seen a growing amount of restaurants and cafééés in my city and it seems like they aren't having trouble making a living now.

[Ronin]

Well the ban worked in Sweden as well.
The Pro-smoking side went out with the "Now restaurants and bar will go bankrupt" and all that.
But they seem to be doing fine maybe even better since I have seen a growing amount of restaurants and cafééés in my city and it seems like they aren't having trouble making a living now.

I´d say that is because of the fact that the majority of the population can now go to these places of business without having to worry about choking half to death....


good decision I say....way to go british government.....

no if only these morons over here in Portugal would do the same.

[English assassin]

I usually take a hefty pinch of scepticism with my freedom above all else arguments, but in this case I am not sure.

I don't smoke and have never smoked, but I really can't say smoke in a pub bothers me one bit. (restaurants are de facto non-smoking for about 90% of their covers already) Also I doubt the average pub customer really gets exposed to enough smoke to be at risk (and even if they do, given that they are apparently happy to run the risks associated with drinking I'm not sure I would rush in to protect them) So if its about anyone its about the bar staff.

But, while "they could get another job" arguments usually suck, (hell, putting guards on that machine would cost me $20. OK, so some people get their arms ripped off, but they could have got another job" ) in this case they really could get another job. A bar is almost never going to be the only employer, and barstaff could just as easily be waiting staff (basically non-smoking) or retail staff or any other unskilled job. Then either employers wouild pay more to attract the staff they needed, or bar staff would be exclusively smokers themselves.

I'm very wary of legislation to make people healthy by force rather than choice. My chosen method of transport is a motorbike, which carries something like a 250 times greater risk of a fatality per mile than driving a car. And I guess its not nice for the police and ambulance service to scrape all those bikers off the roads. By the same reasoning that we ban smoking in pubs we should ban people riding motorbikes. After all they have already banned hunting, handguns, and god knows what else.

No, I'm not too happy about this.

[BDC]

I'm happy with this. Finally, being able to go to pubs and not have to immediately wash all my clothes afterwards.

[Kanamori]

This is ridiculous. Thank God it takes place after I leave so I can at least experience the cigar lounges w/ a cigar, since I've never been in them when I smoked them. Who gets the bright idea to work in a cigar club/lounge who cannot stand smoke and knows nothing of cigars?

I'd bet riding the tube everyday is worse for your health than working in a pub, where you cannot even smoke at the bar usually. Have you ever blown your nose after you've used the tube? Lots of soot is what comes out if you're in any doubt. So, I cannot see any reason why smoking in private clubs or all pubs should be banned when there are much larger public health issues that are not even talked about.

[English assassin]

Have you ever blown your nose after you've used the tube? Lots of soot is what comes out if you're in any doubt.

The funny thing is after you have lived in London for a bit that stops happening. True Londoners metabolise asbestos dust and turn it into ATTITUDE.

[Weebeast]

Oh so people who go to bars after work every night wanna live healthy now?

[Viking]

I'd bet riding the tube everyday is worse for your health than working in a pub, where you cannot even smoke at the bar usually. Have you ever blown your nose after you've used the tube? Lots of soot is what comes out if you're in any doubt. So, I cannot see any reason why smoking in private clubs or all pubs should be banned when there are much larger public health issues that are not even talked about.

Why don`t we just set up funnels everywhere, good smelling, but extremely dangerous to health? Cars pollutes the air heavily with soot anyway.

[Kanamori]

Cars pollutes the air heavily with soot anyway.

All that you blow out of your nose is lots and, lots of soot. In the states, where cars are everywhere, and I'm even talking about the big cities LA, Chicago, NYC, the cars don't make you blow soot out of your nose; only after I'm on the tube has that ever happened in my life.

Prior to this, I only expected yellow stuff to come out, but oh I was in for a surprise.

True Londoners metabolise asbestos dust and turn it into ATTITUDE.

By the end of my stay... I've already got the frown and the I-don't-care face, but apperantly, I've got one more thing to learn before I can be considered a Londoner. Are there any shots or medications I can take to speed the process up?

[solypsist]

I applaud this measure and yet somehow wish it wasn't happening. mixed feelings. i just don't like any gov't micromanaging stuff this far in detail.

[Big_John]

does that mean we can finally put the ban on drinking in cigar shops?

i'm tired of dealing with drunks spilling their rum on me when i'm picking out a humidor!

[Slyspy]

I work in the pub trade and greet the forthcoming ban warmly. Now I can go home without reeking of smoke and hopefully wake up without a cough! Sure I could get another job, and get better pay too, but I enjoy the work and will do so even more as of next year (or whenever my company decides to implement the ban). The company I work for has already banned smoking back of house. As a consumer I also welcome the ban. Despite my choice of employment I prefer a smoke-free environment, especially when eating. Around here there were only a few places which we smoke-free, now we all will be. It will be a new challenge business wise, but as a body the pub trade was all for a total ban on smoking and are prepared. They knew which way the wind was blowing and dreaded a partial ban.

[Ja'chyra]

I think it's a good idea in restaurants, but don't agree with it in pubs.

Restaurants are places where you go to eat and cigarette smoke is not cunducive to a good meal if we're all honest, but pubs are primarily for socialising, apart from the old guy that lives at the end of the bar, and as almost half of my friends smoke I would rather put up with it than half of the group disappearing every half hour or not turning up at all.

Oh, I am a non-smoker, always have been.

[Viking]

All that you blow out of your nose is lots and, lots of soot. In the states, where cars are everywhere, and I'm even talking about the big cities LA, Chicago, NYC, the cars don't make you blow soot out of your nose; only after I'm on the tube has that ever happened in my life.

Prior to this, I only expected yellow stuff to come out, but oh I was in for a surprise.

There are millions of health hazards waiting for you out in the big world. Some are bigger than others; like passive smoking. By removing some of the big, you`ve taken a big step in the right direction.
We`ll head for the Tube later.