I certainly can't be bothered going to pubs now that I can't smoke. Just what is the point? It used to be a place where I could go and meet friends, relax, have a chat, drink, smoke, listen to music etc. Now it's a place where I have to go outside whenever I want to smoke; if it's nice weather everyone follows their friends out there, musicians are left playing to a handful, if its bad weather its just plain horrible.
I'm a grown up and of course can choose what I do, but so are non smokers and they can choose not to go somewhere too, this new law forces a way of life onto me that I didn't choose.
I can understand non smoking pubs if there is only one room, but really this is a kind of legal bullying.

Moi wrote:

I'm a grown up and of course can choose what I do, but so are non smokers and they can choose not to go somewhere too, this new law forces a way of life onto me that I didn't choose.
I can understand non smoking pubs if there is only one room, but really this is a kind of legal bullying.
The old law (as such) forced a way of life on non-smokers that they didn't choose.

As smoking is an active imposition, ie people not smoking doesn't impinge on you, so it's reasonable to ask you to go elsewhere.

I am a smoker. One who understands and supports the restriction on smoking. Pubs are more pleasant without the smoke.

There is no rational way to justify smoking.

Pubs in Scotland face financial ruin -

http://www.fifetoday.co.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?SectionID=1015&ArticleID=1670524

Scottish pubs "lost staff" after smoking ban -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6478369.stm

zooloo wrote:
Moi wrote:

I'm a grown up and of course can choose what I do, but so are non smokers and they can choose not to go somewhere too, this new law forces a way of life onto me that I didn't choose.
I can understand non smoking pubs if there is only one room, but really this is a kind of legal bullying.
The old law (as such) forced a way of life on non-smokers that they didn't choose.

As smoking is an active imposition, ie people not smoking doesn't impinge on you, so it's reasonable to ask you to go elsewhere.

I am a smoker. One who understands and supports the restriction on smoking. Pubs are more pleasant without the smoke.

There is no rational way to justify smoking.

I'm not saying that pubs can't be non smoking but to ban them all is just unfair on people partaking in a legal activity. They are not asking me to go elsewhere, they are telling me to get out, there is nowhere else to go.
I think we'll find that more and more pubs will close as an awful lot of drinkers smoke. Just because you smoke and agree with the ban doesn't mean most do.
Ban tobacco completely and I could see the point.

Moi wrote:
I'm not saying that pubs can't be non smoking but to ban them all is just unfair on people partaking in a legal activity. They are not asking me to go elsewhere, they are telling me to get out, there is nowhere else to go.
I think we'll find that more and more pubs will close as an awful lot of drinkers smoke. Just because you smoke and agree with the ban doesn't mean most do.
Ban tobacco completely and I could see the point.

Exactly ! That are trying to ban something that traditionally has taken place in pubs - for centuries.

Moi wrote:
I'm not saying that pubs can't be non smoking but to ban them all is just unfair on people partaking in a legal activity. They are not asking me to go elsewhere, they are telling me to get out, there is nowhere else to go.
I think we'll find that more and more pubs will close as an awful lot of drinkers smoke. Just because you smoke and agree with the ban doesn't mean most do.
Ban tobacco completely and I could see the point.[/quote]
What is the significant difference between asking you to go elsewhere and telling you to get out? There are other places you can go, the pub doesn't encompassed the entire country.

I agree with you final sentiment that it would be best to ban tobacco completely.

I don't need to worry about tobacco being banned any time soon, since it's the government's second most lucrative source of income behind income tax. That is all part of the hypocrisy of this issue which I find so galling.

I am surprised that you would support a total ban as a smoker, zooloo. If I felt I could cope without the dreaded weed, then I would quit now, rather than wait for it to become illegal.

Anthony wrote:
I don't need to worry about tobacco being banned any time soon, since it's the government's second most lucrative source of income behind income tax. That is all part of the hypocrisy of this issue which I find so galling.

I am surprised that you would support a total ban as a smoker, zooloo. If I felt I could cope without the dreaded weed, then I would quit now, rather than wait for it to become illegal.

I'd make provision for existing addicts, even then I'd probably wean them off or at least encourage them to stop.

I keep giving up and starting again, it annoys me a bit because smoking is such a stupid thing to do

There's nothing good about tobacco. I don't think it has an upside except relief from withdrawal.

Oh and it make me look grown up and it's like really totally cool, you know what I mean?.

Anthony wrote:
I don't need to worry about tobacco being banned any time soon, since it's the government's second most lucrative source of income behind income tax.

All those people who want smoke-free (and empty?) pubs shouldn;t worry too much ... they would not be able to afford to go to the pub anyway with the extra