Smoking at The Open

First topic message reminder :

It was not a pretty sight seeing Darren Clarke desperately drawing on a fag to get his nicotine fix at The Open.
Not a good image for young golfers, can you imagine a cricketer or a boxer having a sly puff during a match.
He was smoking at his work place, how do the R&A [EPGA] get round that law?

MPB, Agreed. I don't think with or without cigarettes the outcome would have been any different.

Agreed, and congrats to him.

All the debate about smoking aside, it's actually nice to see a normal-ish sort of bloke win

I agree, very nice to see a friendly and grounded guy win the worlds biggest tournament.

maybe much like a drop zone, they could setup a smoking zone !! as a smoker, i think its fine to smoke in open air, what suprises me is that you get smoking rooms in hotels !!!

I think that the physiological effects of smoking are not what gives a smoker the calming effect but more the habitual act of smoking. Opening a packet, pulling out a lighter, lighting the cigarette and having something to do with your hands for few minutes are all familiar actions for a smoker that would create the calming effect, at least psychologically.

MPB, my point on smokers being victimised was from the angle that a smoker now has to huddle outside of a pub or restaurant and is looked upon as a social leper whereas there is little shame and even some pride in necking 10 pints and going for a calorie rich curry. They all have a similarly bad effect on the body but smoking is the one that society seems to look down upon.

Sharrison
It is an addiction of the weak willed, seen in its extreme at supermarkets when after 40 minutes shopping the addicts are observed walking out the entrance with a fag in mouth and a lighter in hand waiting for that magic moment when the two can meet.

The majority of people don't smoke. Why should the majority have to put up with their clothes stinking of smoke plus passive smoking issues which do exist however small ?
You mentioned before about the ban killing the pub trade , like Britain has a shortage of pubs. I live in a small town which must have over a dozen I could choose from. It was an oversubscribed area which would be effected anyway as people have more leisure time options these days.
The best pubs will keep going and the rubbish ones will close, as it should be.

The majority of people don't smoke. Why should the majority have to put up with their clothes stinking of smoke plus passive smoking issues which do exist however small ?
You mentioned before about the ban killing the pub trade , like Britain has a shortage of pubs. I live in a small town which must have over a dozen I could choose from. It was an oversubscribed area which would be effected anyway as people have more leisure time options these days.
The best pubs will keep going and the rubbish ones will close, as it should be.

Mr Weatherspoon seems to be tied into the nations needs.
How come his business is boomimg while others fail.
Perhaps it is because he is clever.

"MPB, my point on smokers being victimised was from the angle that a smoker now has to huddle outside of a pub or restaurant and is looked upon as a social leper whereas there is little shame and even some pride in necking 10 pints and going for a calorie rich curry. They all have a similarly bad effect on the body but smoking is the one that society seems to look down upon..
sharrison01"

This is such a tired refrain. "Necking 10 pints" and eating "a calorie rich curry" is doing harm only to the person drinking/eating them whereas smoking will impact directly on the health of those close to it. It is also EXTREMELY unpleasant to breathe in exhaled/stale smoke.

Incidentally, smoking is an addiction like any other. It has to be 'fed' in order to assuage withdrawal symptoms hence the preference for smokers to stand outside in the freezing cold of a winter's night. That said, I do have a lot of sympathy for those caught up in the 'changeover era' who find it difficult to kick the habit but absolutely none for those who've taken it up since the law changed.

gaelgowfer wrote:
This is such a tired refrain. "Necking 10 pints" and eating "a calorie rich curry" is doing harm only to the person drinking/eating them whereas smoking will impact directly on the health of those close to it.

One tired refrain deserves another I suppose. There is still very little medical evidence that "smoking will impact directly on the health of those close to it", yet that tired old line comes out every time.

gaelgowfer wrote: It is also EXTREMELY unpleasant to breathe in exhaled/stale smoke.

Now if you are just talking "unpleasant" rather than medical facts, then I could counter that it is also extremely unpleasant to be anywhere near anyone necking 10 pints and eating curry. Especially afterwards

Davie I think you are in denial

Gael, the health implications of three hours in a pub passive smoking equates to the health consequences of eating a single chocolate digestive biscuit.

Doon, Mr Weatherspoon offers "beer and burger" deals, cheap shots and happy hours. Now that smoking is on the road to be banned anywhere outside the home, his establishments will be in the firing line when alcohol becomes fully socially unacceptable.

Diggers, the majority of people don't really do a lot of things so that's no reason to ban something. If there are so many pubs about that people like yourself can already enjoy smoke free, why would the pubs that are suffering because their market is those that live locally, eat at home and just fancy a pint and a cigarette not be allowed to offer what their clientele want?

And while cigarettes might incur health costs in the long term, an hour spent in any A&E of a weekend will show you what alcohol can do. Add this to the equally detrimental long term problems that alcohol causes and it's still puzzling why smokers are social outcasts and drinkers are accepted.

Denial of what, Doon?

sharrison01 wrote:Gael, the health implications of three hours in a pub passive smoking equates to the health consequences of eating a single chocolate digestive biscuit.

Doon, Mr Weatherspoon offers "beer and burger" deals, cheap shots and happy hours. Now that smoking is on the road to be banned anywhere outside the home, his establishments will be in the firing line when alcohol becomes fully socially unacceptable.

Diggers, the majority of people don't really do a lot of things so that's no reason to ban something. If there are so many pubs about that people like yourself can already enjoy smoke free, why would the pubs that are suffering because their market is those that live locally, eat at home and just fancy a pint and a cigarette not be allowed to offer what their clientele want?

And while cigarettes might incur health costs in the long term, an hour spent in any A&E of a weekend will show you what alcohol can do. Add this to the equally detrimental long term problems that alcohol causes and it's still puzzling why smokers are social outcasts and drinkers are accepted.

http://www.patient.co.uk/health/Smoking-and-Others-(Passive-Smoking).htm

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.recyclingappeal.com/graphics/appeal_pages/photo_roy.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.recyclingappeal.com/roycastle/&h=162&w=163&sz=11&tbnid=ElOVLRq6MNSsEM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=94&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dphoto%2Bof%2Broy%2Bcastle%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=photo+of+roy+castle&docid=z_Fcrbgw5jHMXM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gbwtTpG0GtG7hAfa5L2qCw&ved=0CBsQ9QEwAA

Gael, while both of those links are very much correct, they are hardly the same as a couple of hours in the pub. My point is also to do with one of choice - if a pub chooses to have a smoking room or area then people then have the choice to go into it. At the moment, people are choosing to not go to local pubs and the landlords are having to close shop...

Plug "passive smoking evidence" into google and you will get PLENTY of conflicting opinions. The jury is still very much out.

The Roy Castle card is quite an amusing one to be played though. I think I will name it Davie's Corollary to Godwin's Law (when applied to anti-smoking threads)

Plug passive smoking into sound logic and common sense and you get "its not very good for you, at least compared to air".

Anyone smoking within 100 paces of me is instantly an ass hole. end of.

McLaren wrote:Plug passive smoking into sound logic and common sense and you get "its not very good for you, at least compared to air".

Anyone smoking within 100 paces of me is instantly an ass hole. end of.

How about closing golf courses and banning the game? The majority of people do not play it, a lot that do play it are arrogant and obnoxious and the land could be better used for farming with food prices seemingly on the rise or for housing with more affordable housing needed everywhere.

Where do people not get that banning things is not a good way for society to go?

I smoked for 10 years, quit 14 years ago and it's one of the best things I've ever done. I'd be gutted if my kids smoked so anything that helps that is fine by me and if it means a few stinking pubs go under I couldn't give a monkeys.
I don't care about comparisons with other bad habits, smoking is invasive, I counted today and got a mouthful 7 times in London....how nice.
I do quite enjoy looking out of my window at work and watching people shiver outside in the rain though.

sharrison01 wrote:Gael, while both of those links are very much correct, they are hardly the same as a couple of hours in the pub. My point is also to do with one of choice - if a pub chooses to have a smoking room or area then people then have the choice to go into it. At the moment, people are choosing to not go to local pubs and the landlords are having to close shop...

Ah, 'we've' changed the goalposts I see. Quelle surprise. Metaphor mixing aside, yer clutching at straws Sharrison! Smokers have a choice ... they can give up smoking or they can go outside. In any event, smoking areas didn't work because they still stank the place out. Smoking rooms didn't work either because they put the health of bar workers at risk.

Are you a smoker or are you just on the wind up? With that caveat in place, I would just point out to you that non smokers have had to live with the side effects of smoking since the 16th century. Only fair that we non smokers should therefore feel entitled to five centuries of clean air within our places of entertainment, doncha think?

Incidentally, I don't see any evidence of pubs being any quieter. That may have happened in the early days of banning smoking but not now. It would seem that smokers 'cannae do withoot' the drink either!!!

Diggers wrote:I smoked for 10 years, quit 14 years ago and it's one of the best things I've ever done. I'd be gutted if my kids smoked so anything that helps that is fine by me and if it means a few stinking pubs go under I couldn't give a monkeys.
I don't care about comparisons with other bad habits, smoking is invasive, I counted today and got a mouthful 7 times in London....how nice.
I do quite enjoy looking out of my window at work and watching people shiver outside in the rain though.

And if those local pubs, the sort that allow teenagers to go into them and sit quietly in the corner with their family while they quietly sip on a half a shandy and learn how to behave responsibly in a pub, all get closed? It'll be the park and some cheap booze or shots at happy hour on offer for kids. Not exactly a great solution...

Mac is a rather interesting dicotomy, on one hand he's the single handed harbinger of do-gooding, political correctness and Guardian like over liberal ninnying opinions while on the other hand he's a health nazi who can't stand someone smoking within 30 metres of him.

I've no problem with people smoking, of course it shows they are weak willed but as long as they are happy doing it and it doesn't impinge on others then I've no problem with it, disgusting as it is.

One question though, how can homeless people afford to smoke? It seems that every big issue seller or beggar has tobacco, now at around £7 a packet that's an expensive habit that could surely be better spent.

Are you serious? We should keep smoking pubs open to keep kids off the street ? I can't even begin to argue with that logic Im afraid.

Must admit as a non smoker, I get a bit jealous of my smoking playing partners, after they have hit a good shot or birdied a hole, they light up a fag, and take a long satisfying draw on it, as for me sucking on a strong mint isn't quite the same

gaelgowfer wrote:

sharrison01 wrote:Gael, while both of those links are very much correct, they are hardly the same as a couple of hours in the pub. My point is also to do with one of choice - if a pub chooses to have a smoking room or area then people then have the choice to go into it. At the moment, people are choosing to not go to local pubs and the landlords are having to close shop...

Ah, 'we've' changed the goalposts I see. Quelle surprise. Metaphor mixing aside, yer clutching at straws Sharrison! Smokers have a choice ... they can give up smoking or they can go outside. In any event, smoking areas didn't work because they still stank the place out. Smoking rooms didn't work either because they put the health of bar workers at risk.

Are you a smoker or are you just on the wind up? With that caveat in place, I would just point out to you that non smokers have had to live with the side effects of smoking since the 16th century. Only fair that we non smokers should therefore feel entitled to five centuries of clean air within our places of entertainment, doncha think?

Incidentally, I don't see any evidence of pubs being any quieter. That may have happened in the early days of banning smoking but not now. It would seem that smokers 'cannae do withoot' the drink either!!!

Not really sure how I've changed the goalposts - if you re-read my post, the word "also" might imply that I was adding another perspective rather than changing my point.

I have smoked in the past but alas no more and am certainly not on the wind up - I just don't see how banning something altogether is a just way of doing things. There are lots of occasions where there are things that annoy people but that does not mean that they should be banned and if some pubs were allowed, say, a smoking license much like a 24 drinking license controlled by the local council, then surely this would give enough options to cater for all?

Pubs may not be quieter but that is because there are far less of them! The media occasionally reports pub closures at rates of around 50 per week, which sounds very high to me, put the point is that pubs are closing every week.

Davie
Do you smoke in your car when young children are passengers?

Diggers wrote:Are you serious? We should keep smoking pubs open to keep kids off the street ? I can't even begin to argue with that logic Im afraid.

Not as far fetched as you may think. If you assume that all kids will get to an age where they want to drink, where do you suppose that happens if all the local pubs are gone?

I'm not remotely worried that teenagers will find a place they can get a drink in. As I said stacks of pubs still in the UK, more than enough to go round.

Not at all worried that a lot of these pubs, especially the large chains, encourage binge drinking?

Sharrison ... you're really not making any sense. What you are effectively saying is that non smokers should waive their rights to clean air when entering places of entertainment.

Incidentally, so far you've offered up only anecdotal evidence that 50 pubs per week have closed. Even if this were the case, couldn't there be other reasons as to why this may be happening ... like the current financial meltdown and the increasingly distinct lack of 'readies' available to us with which to spend on said entertainment?

If that gets cracked down on as well great, but I don't care if it's unfair on smokers that they get hammered first.
And the beauty of this debate is I know for a fact smokers will only become more marginalised and vilified which is fine by me.

sharrison01 wrote:

Diggers wrote:Are you serious? We should keep smoking pubs open to keep kids off the street ? I can't even begin to argue with that logic Im afraid.

Not as far fetched as you may think. If you assume that all kids will get to an age where they want to drink, where do you suppose that happens if all the local pubs are gone?

Why don't they just do what we did when we were underage drinkers? Loaf in the countryside with some cheap lager.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/leisure/article6722488.ece

Of course there will be other factors as to why pubs close but smoking is one of those factors and in tough economic times, why make it harder for businesses?

What I am saying is that there are ways of making places of entertainment accommodating for all - how unreasonable would it be if a local town had, say, 10 pubs and two of those pubs were granted smoking licences to allow their customers to smoke in them. How would this affect non-smokers as they have the choice of 8 other pubs to drink in and exercise their right to clean air?

Oh sod it, I'm for a drink.

Doon the Water wrote:Davie
Do you smoke in your car when young children are passengers?

No idea what that's got to do with it, but no I don't

Diggers wrote:If that gets cracked down on as well great, but I don't care if it's unfair on smokers that they get hammered first.
And the beauty of this debate is I know for a fact smokers will only become more marginalised and vilified which is fine by me.

There is clearly little I can say that will open you up to the idea that maybe banning something might not always be the best thing to do...

Certainly nothing you have said has. As far as I can see your argument revolves around me feeling sorry for pubs going bust when there were just too many anyway. Big deal. I run a business, if I lose a client Ill find more or get another job.
I wouldnt ban smoking on golf courses but banning it in pubs has been a good thing and I think the majority of people believe that to be the case.

sharrison01

Have you checked Anders Behring Breivik's manifesto to see if your 606v2 posts have been quoted, a lot of other right wing lunatics have had that privilege.

Mac, you're such a champagne socialist. It was only a few quotes ago that you said anyone smoking within a 100 paces of you was an "ass-hole"

McLaren wrote:sharrison01

Have you checked Anders Behring Breivik's manifesto to see if your 606v2 posts have been quoted, a lot of other right wing lunatics have had that privilege.

Really good point mac. I congratulate you on having a very small mind...

S_R think cava not champagne and you might be about right.

Bolliinger Bolshevik

Diggers wrote:Certainly nothing you have said has. As far as I can see your argument revolves around me feeling sorry for pubs going bust when there were just too many anyway. Big deal. I run a business, if I lose a client Ill find more or get another job.
I wouldnt ban smoking on golf courses but banning it in pubs has been a good thing and I think the majority of people believe that to be the case.

Diggers, I agree that people should not be subjected to passive smoking and stinking of smoke every time that they wish to go for a drink but at the same token do not understand why a solution is not found than can accommodate everybody?

As per my example above, in a town with 10 pubs what harm to people like you would there be if 2 of those pubs allowed people to smoke in them? You have 8 other pubs to choose from whilst allowing those that choose a smoking pub to pick from the other 2. Where is the harm to you?

I just dont see why they just dont give it up. There is no real reason to smoke, it's bad for your health and fiendishly expensive.

Nope, they can smoke outside and that suits me fine. I don't want to accommodate smokers in a pub I might want to go to. Like I said I believe most people prefer the ban so again I'm happy with that.

super_realist wrote:I just dont see why they just dont give it up. There is no real reason to smoke, it's bad for your health and fiendishly expensive.

I agree SR, but people should not be forced to give up. And of course the government cannot afford for them to give up, so lets not encourage them with too much enthusiasm...

I wouldn't force anyone to give up, it's just a pointless thing to do and so I don't think they should expect any special treatment because people choose to smoke.

Davie
If you do not smoke in your car with young children as passengers I can only assume that you must be aware of the risks of passive smoking.

Pub closures are still around 50 per week, but earlier this year the net number of open pubs stopped dropping. In other words, more are opening than closing. Naturally the article didn't mention how many were opening at that time, since that's nothing like the same story, but rest assured the 52 was a gross rather than net figure. Interesting, though, that the peak came fully two years after the smoking ban was introduced, but exactly at the height (nadir) of the recession.

As another ex-smoker, I'm all in favour of the ban. I'd like to think, were I still smoking, that I'd still approve of it, given the huge improvement to the atmosphere in all public places. It's one thing to smoke your own cigarette, but quite another to be breathing smoke constantly. There can be no middle ground either, since people don't socialise exclusively with fellow smokers or non-smokers, and even if they did, smoking pubs would be impossible under employment law; for non-smokers, it'd effectively be discrimination comparable to age or sex discrimination. Even if the staff are smokers, allowing smoking in their working environment would leave the employers liable to all manner of lawsuits if they contracted smoke-related illnesses later in life.