Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Ban à l'Ecosse will leave French smokers fuming 'in the toilets'

Premium Article !

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

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

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

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

Published Date: 08 October 2006
THERE is something about smoking that is very French. Jean-Paul Sartre enjoyed a cigarette, so did Colette, Bardot, Camus and Coco Chanel.
But as in other European countries, smoking in public is becoming taboo - much to the annoyance of many who are used to lighting up pretty much anywhere, even in the revered corridors of power.

Last week, after a five-month government inquiry, a
parliamentary committee approved a proposal to ban smoking in public areas.

Under the measure, cafés, hotels, restaurants, discos and casinos could designate spaces for smoking only if they could be "hermetically sealed areas, furnished with air-extraction systems and subject to extremely rigorous health norms".

Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said he would decide quickly how to proceed on the matter. "The French people would not understand if we do not make a decision" in the face of the research, he told members of parliament last week.

But not everyone agrees. To diehard smokers and many tobacconists and bar and restaurant owners, the campaign reflects the loss of a core French value - the rights of the individual.

"I see this as a personal attack," said André Santini, a centre-right member of parliament from a Paris suburb and compulsive cigar smoker, who posed for photographers last week in the tobacco kiosk in the National Assembly building. "What disturbs me is the ayatollahs you meet everywhere. They tell you how you have to make love, how you have to eat."

At the end of the year, the kiosk will no longer sell cigarettes, cigars and cigarillos, only sweets and newspapers. Just as bad, he said, smoking will eventually be banned in the high-ceilinged corridors of the National Assembly itself.

"I'll end my life where I started it — in the men's room," said Jean-Pierre Balligand, of the opposition Socialist Party. "I started smoking like every other schoolboy, in the toilets of my junior high school. And that's where I'll end up, in the toilets of the National Assembly, while the school principal, Mr Debré, screams at us for smoking."

The "school principal" is Jean-Louis Debré, the president of the National Assembly, who ordered the ban on the sale of tobacco products inside parliament to "set the example".

France's history with tobacco goes back more than four centuries. Nicotine is named after Jean Nicot, a 16th-century ambassador to Portugal who took tobacco leaves imported from America to Catherine de Medici as a cure for her migraines.

But France was also at the forefront in the anti-smoking movement in Europe, passing what was then the toughest legislation on the Continent, in 1991. Smoking was banned in most public places, including restaurants, except in designated areas. Tobacco products were required to carry health warnings. Cigarette advertising was banned in 1993. But there were loopholes and application of the law has been uneven. The new measure is even stronger by making it difficult - and expensive - to create separate smoking areas.

President Jacques Chirac, who at one time smoked up to three packets a day, declared a "war on tobacco" in 2003, and imposed steep tax increases on cigarettes. Today, nearly 80% of the French support the idea of a smoking ban in public places.

Still, about 12 million of the French - about 20% of the population - are smokers, according to official government figures, and more than 70,000 people die in France every year from smoking-related illnesses and secondhand smoke.

Smoking remains particularly prevalent and acceptable among young people. Public high schools routinely allow students to smoke during breaks.

Maison Prunier, the landmark Art Deco oyster-and-caviar brasserie in Paris, still sells high-end, after-meal cigars to its clientele.

But even its managers believe that a ban might not be a bad thing. "We serve gourmet meals, so it's unfortunate that cigars are smoked here," said Benoít Rade, one of Prunier's maîtres d'hôtel. "Smoke is a problem for most of our employees, some clients, too."

La Coupole, the vast, classic Paris brasserie whose trademark once was a haze of smoke, imposed a near-total smoking ban on its own initiative last July in anticipation of a government decree.

Many French businessmen predict serious disruption of their businesses and a decline in profits. They certainly would demand compensation.

"There is going to be considerable damage," said François Attrazic, the leader of the leading restaurant and hotel owners' union and a restaurant owner (and occasional smoker). "We haven't assessed how much it will be because it's complicated, but we are hearing things from the countries that have bans, and what it shows is a drop of 25% to 30% in sales in some establishments."

The issue was so divisive that de Villepin postponed a decision last spring, asking his health minister, Xavier Bertrand, to carry out a "deep evaluation of the different solutions". Bertrand, who has long advocated a measure to protect people from secondhand smoke in public, said last week: "My conviction is that it's necessary to ban tobacco in public places as soon as possible."

Once de Villepin announces his decision, it is expected to be issued as a sort of government-ordered amendment to the existing law. That will prevent the parliament or a lobbying group from trying to block the ban, which would go into effect before next September.

Some anti-smoking politicians want to take their campaign further. Charles-Amédée de Courson, a centre-right member, last year introduced a proposal in the National Assembly to ban the sale of chocolate cigars, arguing that young people who had consumed them were twice as likely to smoke.

Yves Contassot, a deputy mayor of Paris, meanwhile, recently floated a proposal to start fining smokers who threw their butts on the street.

STUBBING OUT ACROSS EUROPE

ANTI-SMOKING policies have been sweeping Europe since 2003.

France began the European trend by raising the price of cigarettes by 20% in October 2003.

In Spain, a law banning smoking in offices, shops, schools, hospitals, cultural centres and on public transport was introduced in January this year.

Italy imposed a ban on smoking in all enclosed public places, including bars and restaurants, in January last year to a flurry of complaints that cigarettes and smoking are an integral part of Italian bar and cafe culture.

The Netherlands also prohibited cigarettes from many public places including railway stations, trains, toilets and offices. In Norway, a national ban is also imposed on smoking in restaurants, bars and cafes.

The union of Montenegro and Serbia has one of the highest rates of smoking in Europe, with 40% of the population lighting up regularly. In August 2004, the Montenegrin part of the union introduced a ban on smoking in public places. Discussions are currently under way for a similar ban to be imposed in Kosovo.

Ireland imposed tough anti-smoking legislation in early 2004, banning smoking in pubs, restaurants and other enclosed workplaces.

Scotland followed suit in March this year. Wales has indicated it will consider the ban if the law is passed in England next year.



The full article contains 1216 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 07 October 2006 9:16 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Tobacco , Smoking issues
 
1

Sanny,

Ex_pat Scot 08/10/2006 01:14:04

The French will avoid this as they avoid everything else they don't like in the EU dictats. Britian - Watch and learn.

2

Dod fae Orkney,

Bearsden 08/10/2006 06:29:20

Banning smoking in the workplace is good. We should pay smokers less wages, say £1/hour less to compensate employers for lost productivity. That would make all these filthy smokers think again.

3

Mikey,

Carrigaline 08/10/2006 07:54:35

Psersonally, I think we should pay self righteous prats like Rupert to shut up!

4

Donnie,

08/10/2006 08:06:33

1 Alexander couldnt agree with you more but then the French have more guts these days than the British who have become so PC correct and intolerant. Rupert 2 I just love anti smoking people like you. You just cannot make a comment without it being derogatory. It may interest you to know that stress is the biggest loss to industry this year alone 15 million days of illness have been lost to stress and talking of lost productivity how many people sit at work e-mailing one another, personal mobile phone calls, talking constantly about football cricket etc. How much productivity time will be lost on Monday as the win over France is discussed. You need to take the log out of your own eye before you judge others and in the words of one very special man, judge not that ye may not be judged.

5

Pipe smoker,

Balkans 08/10/2006 08:20:57

I note the figure of 80% quoted in the article as the figure for French approval for a ban on smoking in the usual places. I stand to be corrected, but I'm sure the figure I heard last week was 60%, and that was from a survey of questionable objectivity.

This is the first I've heard of plans for bans in Kosovo.

In Skopje, in January, the Government brought in a 60:40 split in favour of non-smokers in bars etc, in a community where around 90% enjoy smoking, presumably in a desire to appear modern. Predictably, the arrangement is very unpopular, is widely ignored and no-one bothers very much about enforcing it. I'm now off into Skopje to enjoy a pipe before lunch in one of the excellent cafes!

6

Gloryhunter Leith,

08/10/2006 08:22:13

Post 1: You've been away from home too long Alexander. Back in the UK, we still call it 'Britain'.

7

BeeGee,

08/10/2006 09:06:50

Rupert...what age are you? Are you aware of the Discrimination in the Workplace Laws?

8

Dod fae Orkney,

Bearsden 08/10/2006 09:13:32

I am aware that there are far too many rules hampering employers like me from running my business as I see it not as some pen pusher, who has never produced anything worthwhile in his entire life, thinks fit. The market place should rule not socialist dogma.

9

Belinda-2,

08/10/2006 10:34:32

It's so-called 'socialist dogma' that tells employers they can't accommodate smokers at work (by allowing them to smoke indoors in their break times). I used to be a Labour voter, but I don't agree with their approach any more.

10

freetalkscotland,

08/10/2006 10:48:36

#8 Rubert

"The market place should rule not socialist dogma."

Democracy should rule, not money.

Join in other debates on Scottish and international current affairs at freetalkscotland

11

ChrisC,

08/10/2006 10:59:11

George (5) The recent IFOP poll mis-quoted in this paper showed that 39% wanted a ban. It also showed that 77% of the French are "rather favourable" to the prohibition of smoking in restaurants, 66% in bars and 61% in Night clubs. In addition 86% are "rather favourable" to hermetically separate the smokers room from the non-smokers room" in establishments of over 100 m2, and they are 68% in favour of leaving leaving the owner to decide when the establishment is under 100m2.
http://www.ifop.com/europe/docs/interdictiondefumer_bars....;
It seems sad that most of the survey is ignored if it doesn't suit.

12

Sanny,

Glasgow 08/10/2006 11:45:29

6. Creme Fraiche
I stand corrected – at that time in the morning my antique brain is not in full working order.
Or maybe it’s just too much postprandial port!

13

Sanny,

Ex-Pat Scot 08/10/2006 11:52:58

Sorry wrong name on my post at 13 - Son on holiday and using my PC.

14

Angela,

08/10/2006 12:04:54

I think it is brilliant that I can go into a public place like a bar, restaurant, bus and even my workplace and not have to inhale other peoples smoke.

When I was a kid many years ago I had no choice, now kids have the luxury I never had by being able to be smoke free in public places.

One day Europe may well be smoke free.

15

KennethM,

Livingston 08/10/2006 12:30:20

"The union of Montenegro and Serbia..." - what!?

The State Union of Serbia and Montenegro was dissolved on 5 June this year.

"Wales has indicated it will consider the ban if the law is passed in England next year." - what!?

If the law is passed next year? The Health Act 2006 - which devolves to Wales the power to make its own decisions on a smoking ban - has already received Royal Assent, and the Welsh Assembly Government has announced not that it will "consider" a ban, but that the smoking ban in Wales will take effect from 2 April 2007.

Scotland on Sunday - this is really shoddy journalism!

16

freetalkscotland,

08/10/2006 12:38:55

#8 "I am aware that there are far too many rules hampering employers like me from running my business as I see it "

Were you one of the four, then ?

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1488652006

__________
freetalkscotland - THE forum from Scotland for serious discussion and light chat

17

Jason,

Japan 08/10/2006 12:45:00

The soon-to-be imposed no smoking rule in France helps me indirectly here in Japan. Surprising how Japanese authority is influenced by Western Europe in the area of social behaviours. For me smoky atmospheres trigger a migraine headache, so I essentially had no social life in the UK or Japan. Belatedly, smoking bans are being introduced worldwide, socially backward countries being the recalcitrant in getting with the programme.

18

Colin,

Banff 08/10/2006 12:58:41

Andrew (19),

And just which "socially backward countries" appear on your list?

We in the First World call them emerging nations, not backward. For a ban supporter you are not terribly PC are you?

I travel at least 15 times a year to various African nations. They seem to have more sense regarding smoking than we superior nations. In South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Angola, the Congo, Tanzania, and several others that I have visited, ventilation is used ubiquitously. And guess what? It works. Smokers have somewhere to smoke, and non smokers have somewhere to enjoy a smoke free environment. It polices itself. These "backward nations" of yours could teach us a thing or two about tolerance.

In an age where we constantly seek to accept all minorities, why do you and your ilk feel the need to attack smokers? The evidence tells us that second hand smoke is less harmful than the smoke from your barbeque, less harmful than cooking a family meal, less harmful in fact, from the carcinogens released into the air by a martini.

Unless, of course, you are one of these sad people that believes everything they read, especially if it has a government stamp on it.

Question everything, my intolerant friend, you may be surprised at what you learn.

19

The Hiker,

Fife 08/10/2006 13:47:00

Folks.
Having been going to France for the best part of 30 years, including 6 years living there, I am pretty certain the French will treat any "no smoking" law, the same way they treat any other law they don't like.
They'll just ignore it.
Or they'll clog the streets in protest till the government gives in (as it usually does) and repeals the law.

There's been a law in force in France for several years that says all restaurants have to provide a no smoking section (la loi Evian I think).
What a laugh, generally speaking the only restaurants that have no smoking sections are the big national and international chains. (ie La maitre Kanter/MacDonald etc)

Requests for the no smoking section in most (note I said most, not all) family run restaurants/bistros are invariably met with glazed expressions.

Even at Roissy CDG airport in Paris, where they have announcements in various languages every 15 minutes telling you that it is illegal to smoke in the airport, there are people smoking all over the place, and nobody gives a toss. Try that at Edinburgh airport and some burly big cop would soon tell you to stubb it out.

As a non smoker, who prefers to dine, without being engulfed in clouds of cigearette smoke, I wish the French government luck, but I doubt it will make on iota of difference.
I wager I'll still have to eat my faux filet, in most French bistros, in a cloud of reek, a year from now.

Ach weel, c'est la vie...!!

20

Colin,

Banff 08/10/2006 15:10:37

Andy,

I was at Roissy last week, and also at Nice (Cote d'Azur) airport for several hours. At Nice, I couldnt find anywhere indoors and whilst using the bar I had to go out to smoke. It was inconvenient as I was waiting for a colleague to arrive and did not like leaving my luggage, or my pint, unattended. In Roissy it is as you say.

I also do not like the thought of "engulfing" people in my smoke. Ventilation and/or separation will cure this instantly, catering for both smokers and non smokers. Any arguments against this are spurious and weak, or uttered, usually without thinking, by health jihadists.

Its too simple for words really.

21

The Hiker,

Fife 08/10/2006 15:41:38

Colin
I have a feeling that they are tightening up at Roissy, I noted last week that they had removed the smokers corner on the lower level of terminal 2F, where the Edinburgh flights/West Africa flights go from.
I have to admit, I'm happy with the ban in Scotland, I really hate fag reek. The way it was before , there was no way of getting away from it. Only big multi room pubs could have a no smoking room. In wee low ceilinged pubs, it was desperate. Gagged. Suffocate, or get out.
Restaurants were worse, where your trying to eat. Still is this way in wee Parisien bistros. I've seen me being seated in this sort of place in Paris, with free tables both sides. In come to two sets of smokers. Rapidly, I'm the sandwich filling, getting mair smoke than an Arbroath smokie, and just getting up and walking out after the starter, or aperitif.

I'm not getting involved in all these spurious or otherwise, arguments about passive smoking. I just hated having to be in a fug of fag reek.
Sorry,
It's good to hear you say that you don't like to engulf people in your fag reek.
If all smokers were that considerate, the problem wouldn't be half as bad.

22

Rab McClair,

FRANCE 08/10/2006 16:40:34

To ALEXANDER (ex pat Scot)
Give yerself a break mate. As a Jock who lives here, I find the French to be the kindest of laid back people living in a great country, aye, and' wi' a guid conceit o' themselves..........Indeed, just the kind of people that we Scots ASPIRE to be

Vive le Auld Alliance !!
Rab
Poitou-Charentes.

23

Winston,

France 08/10/2006 17:27:33

France is getting there. Less and less smokers, although still much more than in scotland.
No smoking on public transport for instance. The total ban in trains is just recent though. Its banned in stations too but its not enforced there. I remember when you could smoke on a plane. Amazing when you think of it now.

24

Chuckles,

08/10/2006 18:36:16

C'est quoi ca ban a l'ecosse?? Mais c'est le pays que nous avait battu hier!!

Anyway public transport is diferent to bars- one's state owned the others owned privately!!

3I think we need millions to get them to shut up given theyve got nothing to do!! The tories should replace cameron with Boris Johnson aka Bozza!! hed make the best person to sort out PC and put it where it belongs the reash can!!!!

25 I agree itds the anglophones who need to learn from the francophones not the other way round as it seems with this antismoking garbage!!

Gordon je suis d'accord avec vous- ou tu come vous preferez!!

25

Iain Inverness,

Inverness 08/10/2006 19:05:56

Robert, @28
"I remember when you could smoke on a plane. Amazing when you think of it now."

Care to let us know why you think it amazing?

I remember when I could smoke in my car in my work car park. Not any more though. Pretty amazing that too eh?

26

Colin,

Banff 08/10/2006 19:21:09

Soon we'll be saying "Remember when we could drink more than 3 pints per night"!

"Remember when we could eat more than one burger every 90 days"

"Remember bacon"?

"Remember cheese"?

"Remember when you could be a stone overweight"?

"Remember when you could fight back against unjust legislation"?

"Remember when Jack McConnell and Andy Kerr werent King Jack and Queen Andy of Scotland"?

Unless we are very, very careful, they will become our new "good old days".

27

Iain Inverness,

Inverness 08/10/2006 20:29:11

To add to your list Colin.

"Remember the pubs we used to have?"

"Remember the bingo halls we used to have?"


Good one Gordon!!

28

John V,

Chester 09/10/2006 01:07:23

Yeah really shoddy journalism I agree. Was in Holland in May and smoked at Amsterdam Airport (lots of places) and on the railway stations - no problem.

However, some good news too, for as various political establishments get pumped with more and more rubbish regarding the dangers of secondary smoke - the engine which drives this most fashionable crusade - prominent doctors are coming out and doing some complaining about the rubbish.

Many, except the antis who plug their ears and shut their eyes, have already discovered Dr Michael Siegel's blog at:

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

Then we had Dr James Enstrom's site:

http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/index.html

And now we have:

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=RO1929177J

This covers the new book by Dr Richard Smith who edited the BMJ for 13 years. Smith's criticism relating to the influence of the pharmaceuticals in medical research is a killer for lots of those rather, shall we say "corrupted clinicians" and should start to make those well meaning but naive people who find the negative influence of pharmaceuticals to be far fetched, think again (oh is thinking too much to ask?).

29

John V,

Chester 09/10/2006 01:10:12

Actually, it is a mystery why some of the journalists on this paper don't do any decent research. What ever happened to investigative journalism?

30

Chuckles,

09/10/2006 01:17:18

I think its political correctness our friend boris though knows everything i believe hes connected to forest!! But i ignore that group i use forces and tbd theyre better!!

31

Michael J. McFadden,

Philadelphia PA 09/10/2006 06:29:55

Robert in #28 wrote, "I remember when you could smoke on a plane. Amazing when you think of it now."

Even more amazing is the report that has now come out that 40% of air rage incidents occur because of the smoking bans on planes and in airports.

See: http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=148862...

These incidents sometimes (often?) lead to "forced landings" where a plane will make an extra landing and takeoff to eject the unruly passenger. Quite aside from the extra risk these bans put all passengers through as a result of the extra landing/takeoff cycles (LTOFCs: the most dangerous part of any flight) there is the pollution to consider.

Did you know that the average LTOFC of a 747 emits over 10 *million* cigarettes' worth of nitrogen oxides straight into the air where it's scooped up right into the nice clean air intakes of those non-smoking air terminals?

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com

32

Dod fae Orkney,

Aberdeen 09/10/2006 06:58:45

Fitlike? I'd love to see the smoking ban enforced on my trawler!!! Any of the lads objecting to us smokers can bu**er off onto anither boat. Maybe my boat will be the last sanctuary for smoking in the workplace. Its my boat and I'll decide what goes on.

33

BeeGee,

09/10/2006 12:21:36

Andrew (19) I simply do not believe you...you are certainly not living in Japan that is for sure. Japan has the strictest Indoor Air Quality Standards in the world set out by their Government

http://www.jicosh.gr.jp/english/guideline/Smoking/index.html

34

Colin,

Banff 09/10/2006 15:17:06

All those people that swear by medical journals, peer reviewed studies, and generally rely on comment from "official" sources really ought to think again:

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=RO1929177J

The truth really is a lie.

You have been conned.

35

mandyv,

Cambs England 09/10/2006 23:20:01

Oh dear Rupert, your attitude stinks worse than any smoker,
There are lots of interesting links on here and I would just like to add this, as I think this is interesting and have not seen it on the news, but then Blairs Broadcasting Company is biased anyway.

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&f...
Rise in lung cancer in nonsmokers puzzling MDs
9/30/06
Doctors who treat lung cancer are facing a puzzling trend: every week about 65 Canadians who have never smoked are being told they have cancer in their lungs.
According to the Canadian Cancer Society, an estimated 22,700 Canadians will be diagnosed with lung cancer in 2
006 and 19,300 will die of it.
About 437 Canadians will be diagnosed with lung cancer every week and an average of 371 lung cancer patients die every week.
Smoking has long been understood to be a key risk factor for lung cancer.
But according to information CTV's Avis Favaro received from doctors at Princess Margaret Hospital and the Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Centre in Toronto, 10 to 15 per cent of new lung cancer cases diagnosed are in people who have never smoked. Many have never been exposed to second-hand smoke.
In Canada, that adds up to 3,500 nonsmokers diagnosed with the disease each year.
Karry Langman is mother who's always tried to live a healthy life. She's never smoked. Yet at age 36, she discovered she had lung cancer.

If you would like a voice and believe there should be choice - please checkout Freedom2choose

36

The Hiker,

Fife 10/10/2006 10:46:09

Ach most of you are missing the point, prattling on about health risks, real, imagined, backed up by, or refuted by, statistics and reports etc etc

Cigarette smoke is a stifling, stinking, suffocating, pain in the a&*, sorry face/lungs for a fairly large part of the community. You can argue till doomsday about how large that community is , but it's pretty significant.

It's a bl*&^dy pleasure to go into a pub now and be able to breathe, and come out without stinking like an ashtray.

To get back to the original point of this forum, whether the French will adhere to any law that they pass against smoking, I still say I doubt it. They'll just ignore it, like they ignore any other laws they don't like.

37

Belinda-2,

Edinburgh 10/10/2006 11:19:32

Andy,

The point is that this legislation has been justified on health grounds, so for people who don't like the ban to challenge the claims made is very relevant and not beside the point at all.

In your own words: 'In many cases smokers are very considerate' (from the other thread). So a blanket solution is not appropriate. The people who don't mind smoke are as important and worthwhile, as deserving to have their views taken into account, as yourself.

I hope you're right about the French!!

38

Colin,

Banff 10/10/2006 12:11:24

Andy,

Please can you tell me why you need ALL pubs to be smoke-free?

If its based on the "off chance" that you will pop into my local, for example, its not a good enough reason.

I really would be interested to hear your views on this. No anti smokers (and I am not suggesting that you are an anti) ever answer this question.

39

The Hiker,

Fife 10/10/2006 12:40:33

Colin.

What's the name of your local, and I'll drop in next time I'm home?
Banff is not a place I've ever been.

I've got a feeling I know where this leading...:-)

I'd first of like to say that I'm not a rabid anti-smoker.
A fair number of the guys I work with smoke, but they go outside to smoke. (I don't work in the UK).
They never smoke in our residence. There's no rule about it. They, the smokers don't want the residence stinking like an ashtray any more than the non smokers do. (their words).

Why a blanket ban in all pubs?
Difficult to see how you could do it any other way.
What are you suggesting? pubs in Fife where I come from, have a ban, pubs in Banffshire don't?

I know your finally going to say it should be up to each indvidual pub. I have no problem with that as long as ALL pubs provided no smoking areas. Few, did before the ban.
The vast majority (probably in excess of 95%) of pubs in Scotland had no No Smoking area/rooms before the ban.
Either because it was not practical, or they just didn't want to.
In the summer you could often sit outside, not practical in winter.
Come to think of it, it's simply become a role reverse.
Before smokers inside, no smokers outside, (freeze your nuts off in Winter).
Now it's the other way round.
Ha ha ha

40

Belinda-2,

Edinburgh 10/10/2006 12:48:45

Why is that funny?

41

The Hiker,

Fife 10/10/2006 13:03:29

Belinda

The role reversal that's all. Sorry if you're offended.

Andy

42

Belinda-2,

Edinburgh 10/10/2006 13:28:16

Not really offended, but I don't see what is funny about people HAVING to stand/sit outside in appalling weather conditions just because their idea of a drink and socialising includes smoking.

It's not a role reversal. As a non-smoker I have never been obliged to stand outside BY LAW.

43

Colin,

Banff 10/10/2006 13:32:16

Andy,

I would have mandated that those venues wishing to offer facilities to smokers did so under license. It could be a simple addendum to their license to serve alcohol. The market would sort itself out, as markets do.

My point is that if 25-28% of the Scottish population smoke, why not cater to their needs without causing unnecessary hardship to licensees and their customers?

Another question I have relates to the "level playing field" argument. If smoke free venues could not compete effectively with those that allow smoking, where is the need for smoke free venues in the first place? If you study data from other bans around the world, you will find that the non smokers do not turn up in droves crying out "Halleluja! Finally, a smoke free pub!" In fact, they stay away in droves, causing pubs that have been in business for decades to close down. For evidence of this, look to Ireland. (Although the city centre pubs fare better, rural pubs are closing at an alarming rate).

Point is, if the ratio of smokers to non smokers is 25-75, then give us 25% of the pubs. If that happened, I would be very happy to buy a pub myself, as it would be chock-a-block every night.

And why?

Because its what people want.

The only time it becomes "undesirable" is when the SE or, more importantly, NGO's like ASH and Cancer Research are running the show. They, of course, are funded mainly by Big Pharma.

This ban isnt about your health or mine.

Its about money.

44

The Hiker,

Fife 10/10/2006 14:08:45

Belinda/Colin

Maybe we should do what the Swiss do. They have referundums on just about everything.
It would be intersting to speculate what a referendum might have turned up. I tend to think it would have been won, if it was a clear 50% needed.

Anyway.
It's here to stay, I kinda doubt a future SE or London Parlaiment will repeal it, once it's in place.


It's been a good bit of banter, but let's draw a line.
I've got work to do..!!

Lang may yir lum reek, wi' other fowks coal. (as long as it's smokeless of course)

45

Chuckles,

10/10/2006 17:20:55

It could get repealed depends what the bar industry does!! They could get a lawsuit in- just because swallows was withdrawn dosent mean theyll be another!!

Given ETS is junk!!

i suppose the same way it was lobbied for the reverse could happen!! If it werent for ASH and their satellites there wouldnt have either been a disussion about it!! So its not necessarily there to stay!!

46

Jason,

Japan 10/10/2006 21:40:58

#19
Oh no, another writer that can't disagree without being disagreeable, or object without being objectionable.
I know from repeated bitter experience that proximity to tobacco smoke will trigger in me a headache that can last for some three days. We're all victims of the tobacco industry, which has a lot to answer for.

47

Chuckles,

11/10/2006 00:46:46

What about ventilation its proven to sort it out in all but a few extreme cases!!!!

48

Chuckles,

11/10/2006 07:53:58

Heres a typical indoor Air Quality Standard

An example of a current Standard in operation providing a safe and healthy environment is:

1. Particles - Below 0.15 mg/m3

2. Concentration of Carbon Monoxide - Below 10 part/million per 8hrs

3. Concentration of CO2 - Below 1000 parts/million per 8 hr

4. Room Temperature - Between 17ºC and 28ºC

5. Room Humidity - Between 40º and 70º

6 Incoming air velocity - 0.2m/sec

7. Air velocity in the room - Below 0.5 m/sec per person

8. Air Exchange - 6

Wouldnt it suit everyone given thered be a mix of smoking and nonsmoking venues! No some governments dont pass such standards because they have too much interests in big pharma and their nicotine replacement therapy products!

49

The Hiker,

11/10/2006 15:04:15

Charles
Yoo hoo, I'm back!

Dream on.
It's here to stay.

Sorry Charles , you can't get away from the fact that's it's a smelly disgusting habit that gets up a lot of people's noses. Probably the majority, since by your own admission in the UK, about 25% of the population smokes.

There may be tons of contradictary "scientific" information around as to what it does, or does not do to you, and the people around you in an enclosed space, but even you could not argue that it's good for you, or the people around you forced to inhale the stuff. The key is the "people around you in an enclosed space".
What you do to yourself is your business, and I would never encroach on your right to smoke, as long as you don't force the people around you, against their will, to also inhale your fag reek.
Smoke on brother, just do it an open space. Not sitting next to me in a restaurant when I'm trying to eat. (Or having a quite pint in a pub.)

There's your next lead........

50

David from New Mills,

New Mills 11/10/2006 21:20:27

#52&55, Charles.
#52 seems very vague. London and Edinburgh did not pursue their threatened legal action. Who is the mystery bar industry plaintiff, or has the so-called Big Debate run dry on gaining sufficient support? The rest I don't understand. ASH and satellites? Are we back to flying saucers and science fiction?
#55 looks very impressive. For the benefit of laymen, could Charlie talk us through this slowly, and maybe even explain the correlation between this list of nos. & real life situations in pubs or wherever?

51

Chuckles,

12/10/2006 00:36:06

No Andy56 i never said i am forcing nyou to breathe my smoke- im just saying that an air quality standards with different venues/areas suits everybody- we have our right to smoke, you have your smokefree air!! Havent you read my whole post??

52

Chuckles,

12/10/2006 00:47:42

David57 apparently i heard from hospitality industry sources that the executive wouldnt let them renew their licence unless they withdrew their case!!

How do you know about TBD?? Have you been spying on there!! Cos ASH wont let you- why?? Cos one has to pay like £50 to get in there- its a censored site- prochoice forums believe in democracy and no sensorship!!!!

No i mean ASH's allies(ie BHF and CRUK- colonies or protectorates by ASH) the term was used during the Cold War between western and eastern bloc countries- ie Capitalist(pro-US) and communist(pro-USSR)!!!!


Please learn physics and nthen youll understand the figures!!

53

Chuckles,

12/10/2006 00:48:29

sorry rather than col/ prot "by" i meant "of"

54

mandyv,

Cambs England 12/10/2006 01:09:53

Nice one Colin, and
Remember when people used to have to wash their clothes -
Remember when people used to wear that choking perfume-
Remember when people did not ask if if their perfumes bothered you as you choked on your dinner-

55

claire,

12/10/2006 19:51:26

Just read today that docs are not going to prescribe drugs for early stage alzeimers. It wasn't too long ago that a study was done indicating that smokers were less likely to get this dreadful disease than non-smokers. Just think all you baying antis, you will probably need smokers to look after you one day. Its the quality of life not the quantity. I see canada are a bit puzzled as to why alot of non smokers who were not subjected to SHS are getting lung cancer. That something for all you antis to go look up and talk about. Happy surfing kiddos!

56

David from New Mills,

New Mills 12/10/2006 21:36:30

#59, Charlie.
Don't know about rumours of alleged S.E. threat, but as L.& E. have gone down the tubes, perhaps we'll never know the truth?
Didn't realise "The Big Debate" website was only open to the esoteric. Have browsed there without £50 entry fee, but found little signs of activity, or are they beavering away underground, so to speak. So much for "democracy"! Who cares?
I had guessed what "satellites" was intended to convey, but pleased to receive confirmation. Perhaps Charlie should have referred to supporters or camp followers.
Physics not one of my 'A' levels, so pleased to have Charlie talk me thro' data, albeit slowly, or did he just copy and paste from a website?
Pity English apparently not one of Charlie's 'O' levels or Baccalauréat subjects.
Still expectantly await details of oppression of smokers in pre-war Nazi Germany.

57

Colin,

Banff 13/10/2006 10:40:04

David,

A couple of points:

Have you considered that English might not be Charlies first language?

The Big Debate is free to join. We just dont welcome anti smoker zealots as it proved to be a huge distraction dealing with their biased, uninformed ravings.

58

Chuckles,

13/10/2006 11:58:59

David63 it is free just one cannot post antismoking comments its as simple as that!! Thats because tbd has no time for useless debate!

To get into ASH's forums one does have to pay!! They require you to give them your adress, real name and phone number which im not comftorble with to complete strangers!!

yes thats what i meant supporters!
No English was not one of my subjects at bac level!!

However English is my second mother tongue!! And i am by the way dyslexic so dont insult me about that!!

59

claire,

13/10/2006 17:37:59

David - Hi Me Bungo Pony - still at it eh? you can't fool me Bungo, I know that sarcastic snarl anywhere. You are obviously firing on all cylinders at the moment. I'll let you carry on. Might come back on for a good row if Im in a bad enough mood later! Im still smoking and you're still an anti-smoker. It nice to know some things can be relied on to be the same. It's rather comforting. Thanks Bungo!

60

David from New Mills,

New Mills 14/10/2006 12:33:48

#66,Claire.
Claire still drawing wrong conclusions, as always. If she needs more comfort, there's always nicotine. Am neither Me Bungo Pony, who I think was from Edinburgh, nor an anti-smoker, just a pro-restrictionist. Still if she wants to be deluded, why not?

61

David from New Mills,

New Mills 14/10/2006 13:02:46

#65.Charlie.
"The Big Debate" is a misnomer if it cannot tolerate debate.
No interest in accessing ASH debating forums.
I thought one, by definition, only had one mother tongue, but I could be mistaken, and certainly wouldn't belittle someone I realised to be a genuine dyslexic.
Charlie might enjoy "Hitler's Holocaust" on Channel 4 at 7.10. Alors à 19.10h au Canal 4!


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

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

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