Will Pubs Survive?

[Albert Tatlock]

My sister works in the UK health service. Some time ago smoking was banned within NHS buildings, but 'smoking shelters' were built in the hospital grounds for patients and staff to use instead.

 

Then they were removed. So my sister designated her car - in the staff carpark - as a place she and her staff could take their breaks and have a smoke.

 

That's all been stopped now too. It's no smoking anywhere on the premises, inside or out. The next move will be to ban smoking at the hospital gates. After that, no doubt smoking will be banned anywhere on a work day.

 

I'm with Glad - they should just ban tobacco sales. Heard on the radio that in the UK tobacco taxes raise £9.5 BILLION a year, of which only a quarter is spent on smoking-related disease. So £7 bigguns a year is propping up their economy - and I'm sure it's a similar percentage here.

 

How hypocritical then to take the tax money yet launch such a concerted witch-hunt of propoganda against us smokers. We don't dispute that it's a bad and dangerous habit for participants (less convinced by the proof against passive smoking, but with enough research they'll no doubt manufacture a compelling case), so if it's such a no-brainer, let's have a complete tobacco ban.

 

...surely with that logic, then if you didn't have as much money as you wanted - you'd give away what little you had left?

 

So what's next? We know cars are bad for us and the environment, people slip on soap every day, and the TT is dangerous. Soon we'll be saying: abortion saves people from poverty and the associated high incidence of ill-health, and that wars are really a good thing - as those left have more resources, a better quality of life and lower hospital waiting lists.

 

Life is full of risk...but always ends in death. Surely the love of life is putting that risk into perspective and living life to the full.

[iomcombat]

"Life is full of risk...but always ends in death. Surely the love of life is putting that risk into perspective and living life to the full."

 

But living life to the full is about educated risks. Smoking is a no-brainer that puts you and others around you at risk WITHOUT benefit. Non-smokers desrve a night out without some selfish halfwit breathing chemicals on them. Are you saying that the majority of the population should have to risk a variety of painful and slow deaths aided by passive smoking so that a few people can have a vice? Its a bit like me saying I like hitting people (something I am v well trained in) so people who don't like being hit should not go out. Its is defending the minoroty over the well being of the majority. Which isn't really fair.

[catchy]

But living life to the full is about educated risks. Smoking is a no-brainer that puts you and others around you at risk WITHOUT benefit. Non-smokers desrve a night out without some selfish halfwit breathing chemicals on them. Are you saying that the majority of the population should have to risk a variety of painful and slow deaths aided by passive smoking so that a few people can have a vice? Its a bit like me saying I like hitting people (something I am v well trained in) so people who don't like being hit should not go out. Its is defending the minoroty over the well being of the majority. Which isn't really fair.

nobody has said that, but the non smokers do not have to risk anything, they have chosen to enter a smoking establishment, that was their choice all along, when they are given no smoking pubs they do not support them chosing instead to continue going to the smoking establishments. If we used your analogy with hitting, then back to a boxing club, would I have the right to go along to your boxing club but complain I do not like the hitting and it should stop?

 

Mobile telephones. The case for their use and masts causing cancer is growing and growing, why do you have a right to impose your radiation on me?

Exhaust fumes. wreck the quality of air in the outdoors on a grand scale, why do you have a right to impose your exhaust fumes on me?

Barbeques, coal fires, garden rubbish burning. Release large amounts of toxins into the air, why do you have a right to impose your fumes on me?

 

life is dangerous and your share this world with other people who do not always do things you approve of, it is all about tolerance.

[Albert Tatlock]

Are you saying that the majority of the population should have to risk a variety of painful and slow deaths aided by passive smoking so that a few people can have a vice? Its a bit like me saying I like hitting people (something I am v well trained in) so people who don't like being hit should not go out. Its is defending the minoroty over the well being of the majority. Which isn't really fair.

 

This is not what I said.

 

Individuals, and groups of individuals, should have the right to freely associate and be able to smoke in a pub on private premises, if that pub wishes to allow smoking...just as you have the right not to go there and go to non-smoking premises. There has to be a compromise where some pubs are permitted to continue to allow smoking and people given a choice.

 

A good compromise would be to allow smoking – perhaps in pubs that don’t serve food - and hence don’t cater for children. This was planned for in the UK, but did not go ahead, mainly through lobbying by the breweries and pub associations that own 98% of pubs - in order to create a level playing field for themselves – NOT ‘Joe Public’. If you allow business to make your choices for you, who knows where this could end.

 

I could equally argue that you are promoting violence and giving the impression that the island is more dangerous than it actually is, and as a result some people may tend to go out less. If violence is banned everywhere including pubs – I could argue that it should be banned in private clubs and establishments.

 

If you want to freely associate with others to enact violence with consenting adults on private premises – away from me – then you have my full backing. All I ask is for the same consideration. If you want to run a higher risk of damaging yourself with a blood clot to the brain or a dislodged retina – you go for it! If people want to kill themselves with a perfectly legal product - away from you - let them go for it too.

[Jacqueline]

A good compromise would be to allow smoking – perhaps in pubs that don’t serve food

 

Excellent idea! And the most sensible I've heard.

 

Let's face it. If you're going for our an evening out with your partner and hoping to have a meal in pleasant surroundings then you're hardly likely to go to the Forresters are you? (no offence to the Forresters btw - they have lovely beer)

 

And conversely, if you're 69, wear a flat hat, fancy a good pint, a smooke and a yarn then you're hardly likely to choose to prop up the bar in Bar George.

 

It's horses for courses. People smoke. We shouldn't be putting in legislation to protect them and us from each other... we should be doing it because... as catchy said,

 

life is dangerous and your share this world with other people who do not always do things you approve of, it is all about tolerance.

 

A direct definition of where smoking is and is not allowed would give the opportunity for us all to make a choice. It would allow some of our oldest and finest pubs to carry on as they are - rather than become distant memories like many that have gone before them.

 

If I had anything to do with the negotiations about the proposed change in legislation, then that is what I would propose as a fair compromise and retaining the last of the 'real' pubs would be my argument.

 

How the parameters for that would be agreed - ie what pub would fall into which category - heh - I wouldn't like to be the one to decide that one.

 

But maybe that might be a subject for another thread. ;-)

[hboy]

I hate to state the obvious but pubs sell alcohol; people like alcohol; therefore pubs will always survive.

[Jacqueline]

I hate to state the obvious

 

Perhaps not, but it appears that sometimes you need the obvious pointed out to you.

 

but pubs sell alcohol; people like alcohol; therefore pubs will always survive.

 

I could name you ten pubs where, if a smoking ban came in, I would bet you money that they would be out of business within a year or two. These pubs are, in the main, frequented almost exclusively by people who smoke. Smoking is part of the whole 'experience' just as the 'wine at the table' is - in another non-smoking pub - where a couple might be having a meal. If the right to smoke is removed then punters will vote with their feet - to the Off-licence and the DVD rental shop.

 

We've got some lovely pubs. I know it's kind of part of the culture to take a pop at the Waterloo and the Market kind of pubs - but I'm old enough to remember having a pint in the Dogs, and the Globe and the Star - and I can tell you that I wish with all my heart that they were still here now.

 

Do you want to look back in 20 years and say the same?

 

Because I'm certain that these pubs would not survive.

[hboy]

Jacqueline' date='Mar 23 2006, 08:39 PM' post='150083']

We've got some lovely pubs. I know it's kind of part of the culture to take a pop at the Waterloo and the Market kind of pubs - but I'm old enough to remember having a pint in the Dogs, and the Globe and the Star - and I can tell you that I wish with all my heart that they were still here now.

 

Do you want to look back in 20 years and say the same?

 

Because I'm certain that these pubs would not survive.

 

I hate to get this way but what we have had on the IOM, over the last 20 years particularly, is all the good traditional pubs close, and all the "arsey" drinking houses take over.

 

What your left with is arsey places that take in the big money whilst the smaller pubs are being marginalised anyway so smoking is not the real reason for the demise of the good local its the brewery's policy of basically looking for volume from as few licensed premises as possible.

 

A pint of Okells is £2.70 in C'Est La Vie and £2.15 in your local so I doubt the smoking ban will affect them as much as your local.

[Albert Tatlock]

With the government’s record of ‘cut and paste’ legislation, if such an ill considered ban was to go ahead, they would be likely to adopt the same regulations as apply in Scotland and Ireland and probably England. So, if 40% of a pub's garden area was covered, for example, then the ban would not apply. But if 60% of it was covered, then the ban would apply…

 

…the problem is that most Douglas pubs don’t have beer gardens…just a pavement or a back lane.

 

I can see the advertising slogans now:

 

"Extensive and windswept beer lanes"

"Free cocktail with every pint – you’ll need the umbrella!"

"Towels available!"

"Smoking (life) jackets provided in case of high winds and high tides"

"Quiz night – question 1…where the heck’s everyone gone?"

 

Douglas is very different to Dublin and the UK and I can see few Douglas pubs offering suitable facilities for smokers as are available in other parts of the UK and Ireland. Other than on a Fri/Sat several pubs are going to be empty (especially in Winter) and will probably end up closing, as the regular drinkers/smokers are not going to be replaced with non-smokers. I also see the eventual closure of several private and charitable clubs.

 

Wouldn’t it be better for those quiet pubs and clubs that don’t currently serve food to be able to offer smoking and thus survive? That means everyone would have somewhere to go - and freedom of choice.

 

Otherwise, for any budding entrepreneurs out there, now seems like a good time to get into the off-licence trade.

[Hugh Jampton]

I'd just like the next generation not to smoke by making it so difficult for this one.

[LoneWolf]

Wouldn’t it be better for those quiet pubs and clubs that don’t currently serve food to be able to offer smoking and thus survive? That means everyone would have somewhere to go - and freedom of choice.

 

Otherwise, for any budding entrepreneurs out there, now seems like a good time to get into the off-licence trade.

 

Im afraid the verdict has already been passed on workplace smoking. Yes, pubs are workplaces too !

Smokers, including myself, will just have to accept it.

Its a radical change but change is inevitable and this change in particular was always inevitable.

I think it was Harold Wilson who said "He who rejects change is the architect of decay"

So maybe there will be an upside for the drinks industry and that might well be reflected, as you say, by expansion of the off licence trade.

[Albert Tatlock]

" Unquestioning acceptance of that advice will get you into deep, perhaps catastrophic, trouble. Not all change is good, and resisting bad change is more than a good idea, it's the act of a responsible employee (or citizen).

 

This the great trap for those who embrace the idea that we must change or die. Unless we find some way to distinguish between good and bad change, we are compelled to change when faced with each and every innovation.

 

You can find a good example of this failure in Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass", where there is sad character known as the White Knight, who's taken the advice "Change is good" too literally.

 

The White Knight believes in embracing anything that's new. His mistake is to accept that all change is mandatory. His sturdy horse is festooned with gadgets. There's a small box in which he keeps his sandwiches, but it's turned upside down, "so that the rain can't get in" he says proudly. Until Alice points out that the sandwiches have fallen out, he was totally unaware of this significant flaw.

 

He's also attached a beehive to the horse in the hope that bees will take up house and provide honey; not realizing bees never set up house on a moving horse. And then there's the mousetrap he's strapped on the horse's back to keep the mice away, and the fancy anklets on his hooves to keep away the sharks. Both of which seem to be working...

 

Yes we must change, otherwise we can fall so far behind that we lose effectiveness and fade into obsolescence. On the other hand, to embrace every change is the highway to chaos.

 

Our problem, despite the many dinosaurs lumbering in the tar pits of yesterday, is not the lack of recognition that change is necessary. It is that there is far too much change to choose from, and we suffer from an abundance of choice and a shortage of judgment. "

 

...which is what happens when you listen to every half-witted lobby group in order to score a few media points!

[LoneWolf]

...which is what happens when you listen to every half-witted lobby group in order to score a few media points!

 

If we set aside the small problem of H&S at Work, risk of litigation by damaged employees and parliamentary majorities in favour of anti smoking legislation then you may well be right

[Albert Tatlock]

...which is what happens when you listen to every half-witted lobby group in order to score a few media points!

 

If we set aside the small problem of H&S at Work, risk of litigation by damaged employees and parliamentary majorities in favour of anti smoking legislation then you may well be right

 

Well...it is possible to legitimise contracts under H&S law, provided that risks are identified by all parties, and through this it is possible to avoid litigation.

 

All we need to do after that is persuade the politicians to stop listening to the half-witted lobby groups - who can be free to argue about the environments they choose to occupy, and leave others to theirs.

 

Unfortunately, the majority of the politicians are from the half-witted lobby groups - and I fear we are lost.

 

:equal roll of eyes plus a sigh.

[LoneWolf]

Well...it is possible to legitimise contracts under H&S law, provided that risks are identified by all parties, and through this it is possible to avoid litigation.

Sorry Albert that just isnt the case. The H&S at Work Act is not optional ! Employers have an absolute duty of care towards their employees and this just cannot be contracted away.

We also have the other little matter of bills having passed through parliament with substantial majorities.

In other words the horse has already bolted ! too late for a rearguard action even