do you even go to many pubs?

The views of the average landlord is wildly at odds with yours. Almost across the board, they noticed a large drop in trade the moment the ban kicked in.

The comparison with asbestos is flawed. The dangers involved with the latter were not immediately obvious. Anyone who doesn't, in this day and age, realise that fag smoke may be a teensy-bit bad is probably fucked anyhow - if they take the risk whilst being aware of the possible consequences, that's their choice.

Of course it's not just the ban - it's the cash side, too - which is why your assumption that a 'generation of kids will grow up blah blah' is just plain wrong. They can't afford it, and are consequently spending their drinking apprenticeships on park benches, behaving like cunts, rather than being kept in line by older blokes who've been at it for a while.

Pubs are simply not what they used to be. Find someone who is old enough to shave, and ask.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Wed 21 Oct 2009, 22:36, 1 reply)

Judging by your attitude I'm a damn sight older than you.
I've been drinking in pubs for the last 15 years, so yeah I may have had the odd pint. They're better now by a country mile as far as I'm concerned.

People never went to the pub for cheap beer, even in the 90s it was miles cheaper to drink at home. They go to meet other people, relax and to socialise. They can still do that now, the smoking ban hasn't changed that at all. Oh and teenagers have been drinking in parks for the last 15-20 years or more. That's not changed so don't talk shite.

Even so, do you think older men can keep teenage twats in line any more? You must be living in a different country to me. The little shits are immune to any form of community discipline short of vigilantism. See what happens when they get older and towns turn into warzones at the weekend now. The old fellers haven't done a great job before the ban have they?

When smokers want a night out, they still go out to pubs and clubs but the situation is now reversed. Where non-smokers went out despite being poisoned and coming home stinking, non-smokers now go out and have the terrible hardship of having to choose to stand outside poisoning no-one but themselves for 5 minutes if they want to feed their addiction. Fair exchange to me.

I've no sympathy for sanctimonious smokers. They don't have a right to poison me, but they can poison themselves if they want. I don't have a right to piss all over everyone in the pub, however much I may like pissing. I have to do it in the toilet where it doesn't affect anyone else. Smoking is no different, except piss would only make you stink.

Regardless of this, you're arguing against improving workplace health. By your argument we should never have cleaned up dangerous workplaces. Companies should still not provide safety equipment and should still be allowed to poison their workers as "they take the risk whilst being aware of the possible consequences, that's their choice". That's bollocks.

People need jobs which is why many have died in unsafe work environments. They should be and are protected by law. Bar staff should no more be subject to toxic smoke than office workers. Hell, If you don't advocate allowing chemical workers to inhale the shit we work with, the same should apply to all places of work. Oh and in fact it does. Can you think of many workplaces that allow you to smoke? I can't.
(The man with the flan swashed his buckle on, Thu 22 Oct 2009, 8:09, closed)