British pub finds smoking ban loophole: report
May 13, 2009The landlady of a British pub has exploited a loophole in the country's smoking ban by opening a "smoking research centre" where drinkers can light up legally, reports said Wednesday.
Locals at the Cutting Edge pub in Barnsley, northern England, must fill in a questionnaire on their smoking habits to satisfy legal requirements before sitting down for a drink and a cigarette in the centre.
England and Wales introduced a ban on smoking in enclosed public places in 2007, contributing to tumbling beer sales which have forced over 2,000 pubs to close in the last year, according to the British Beer And Pub Association.
The Cutting Edge's landlady Kerry Fenton opened the centre, which is a separate room in her pub, five days ago.
"It's given business a shot in the arm and it's all in the name of research, legal and above board," she told the Sun newspaper. "I'm a non-smoker but I believe in the freedom of the individual."
The loophole in the law was discovered by pub regular James Martin, a 40-year-old printer. The local council told the paper it intended to enforce the smoking ban at the pub.
(c) 2009 AFP
Apr 03, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
Whenever big brother interferes with individual rights, it is refreshing to find that some people have discoverd a remedy.
Perhaps the number of squares of toilet paper you use will become a hotly debated environmental topic, ending up with new forms of taxation and criminal penalties for this highly anti-social behavior.
Perhaps it's time for the civilized west to reconsider the structure of their governments. We don't need more laws. We already have a sufficient framework of law to provide protections for life, liberty and happiness. Beyond that the government can only do harm.
We need to limit the influx of new laws, most of which are used to profit a few oligarchs and monopolists anyway. We need to do this before both our governments (USA and UK) start deciding they really don't need the vote or approval of people anymore to hold power. That's just like the bad old days, if anyone can remember history.
You right, it should be forced upon you by law enforcement.
So a pub has 100 people in it, one person decides to light up and smoke, and the rest of you are saying that the the 99 non-smokers must just pack there things and leave if they are unhappy about being subjected to that one smoker's inconsiderate, and invasive, habit? Does that really sound fair to you? That smoker is free to smoke away at home, or walk outside and have a smoke there in the cold, but no instead it should be the non-smoker who is inconvenienced and be forced to leave?
So those who do not mind smokers next to them in the pub, would you, or the owner of the pub in question, be happy to sit next to me if I had a bad case of flatulence and spent the whole evening passing gas next to you? Well smoking is as invasive! There is no justifiable reason for someone to NEED to smoke in a closed public space. It is easy to step outside for a few minutes! Your habit is antisocial anyway so the few minutes alone should not worry you too much.
SMOKING IS A DISGUSTING HABIT no matter how you try to spin it!
and to spin it back, if 100 people are in the pub, and 99 of them are smokers, do they all have to put their cigarettes out to "be fair" to one person?
and cigarette smoking IS a social habit, if you're with other smokers
and i registered just to say that =)
See, Lance, what you've done here is a strawman argument. You, rather than addressing the argument realistically, created an absurd argument and then knocked it down. You see, the 99 to 1 ratio is simply silly, and that goes a long way to exposing your argument for what it is, you would like your personal choice enforced by the government.
Others here are saying that they would like everyone involved to have personal choice. If smokers want to smoke, they may, if non-smokers don't want to be around it they may go to non-smoking establishments.
You see, as you inadvertantly point out with your flatulance example, the government should not be legislating pesonal morality or preference. You surely wouldn't advocate criminalizing farting in public (I assume) yet when forced to find an analogy for smoking that's the one you found to be closest.
And as for fthmguy, pubs are not public places, no place is a public place that is privately owned, hence the bristling at the removal of rights. No smoking in a government office, perfectly reasonable, no smoking in your home, unreasonable; so on that scale where does a pub fall closest? Also, you make the case for smoker only pubs being ok, that's really no different than what this pub has done, so you are actually supporting it.
Add to this the cost of the public health care for all those hospital cases and it is a no brainer for the government.
I heard that non-smokers were worse off than the smokers because they did not have the filter contained in the cigarette.
I think smokers still use pubs - its just they have to light up outside.
I suggest that the reason for pub closures is economic stress on households. Record high HH debt and a near zero HH savings rate indicate that there is no money left for those expensive pub nights out followed by the inevitable visit to a curry house. Now with job lay-offs maxed out and taxes on the rise I see more nights in with 'tinnies/6 packs'.
Smokers breath the filtered smoke & second hand smoke so get much worse effects i would imagine.
I see it as a brilliant idea on this pubs behalf, an excellent solution to the lost patronage through non-smoking laws whilst still providing the majority of space for a non-smoking environment.
Hopefully a ventilated space to limit staff exposure.
I'm sorry, but if you are smoking, as you do not exist in a vacuum, you are affecting others around you (including doing vast amounts of pointless damage to yourself) so this behaviour had to be socially regulated.
That argument that a non-smoker can just walk away does not work. Most of my friends are smokers and it is really annoying to have to smell the stuff and cough all the time.
Also, in the pubs, you are subjecting the workers in there to second-hand smoke, they do not get to choose, they have to work there.
Segregating places into smoking and non-smoking area also does not work, as within the same building, the ventilation would let the smoke reach non-smoking areas, as well as the staff who have to circulate throughout the area.
Not saying that smoking should be banned, everyone has the right to choose. But some legal middle-ground has to be found.
"those that smoke can enjoy it, those that don't can stay out"
the difference between smokers and non-smokers, when arguing about this law, is that the former defend their addiction, and the latter - their sanity.
Don't expect any smoker to sympathise with the moaning wussies when their locals close down for want of customers.
"the studies that "Prove" that second hand smoke is dangerous, actually do not."
really guys... it would have been appropriate to start reading this site thoroughly, before signing in only to post nonsenses. it would have saved you from embarrassment.
amazingly, the most insistent appeals to commons sense are emitted from texts consistently lacking the said ingredient.
I have now grown used to smoking outside, but with it currently chucking it down (raining) outside, my flatmate is avoiding me.
Anyway, I just think that there could have been a happy medium reached, taking into account all parties human rights. A seperate well ventilated smoking room. With the air expelled into the street, where people can smoke anyway. Away from the bar, so the people working aren't exposed, and the path from the toilets, so non-smokers need never enter that room should they choose not to. It could resemble the old fashiioned smoking carriage on a train, which before I smoked, I didn't even know existed.
However, i totally understand smoking being banned from restaurants and public spaces where children might be present. (See, told you was cosciencious)
Oh and hipmonkey, I was in the pub the other weekend and a group of guys got chucked out for singing along to the jukebox!! It's happening man!
So kudos to this landlady for finding a loophole to satisfy her customers. I applaud her effort, and I hope NOTHING is done.
Hurrah!
Oh and sorry for the ridiculously long speech. ^__^
Sorry, but they don't "have" to work there. They chose to work in an establishment. That means that if they have a problem with a place allowing smokers to smoke, then they are going into it by their own accord.
Also I don't think that those of you who are against smoking are getting the point that the smokers/smoker supporters are trying to get at. The choice should be up to the pub owners. Not the staff, government, or the customers. If you want to be free of second hand smoke, don't go to a place that allows it. It really is that simple. I don't see why this is so much of a problem.
As far as the smoking being an "anti-social" thing. It is not, I find that when I am with friends that smoke I meet a lot of new people when they go outside to smoke. And while I am on it, most smokers don't seem to have much problem with going outside to smoke. But I think it is a bit messed-up to make them go outside when there is bad weather (i.e. heavy rain, very cold weather, etc.).
>that I could post a comment agreeing
>whole-heartedly with "fhtmguy".
I registered after stumbling upon this comment just to say that you are an absolute idiot for registering just to post a comment to an online physics journal.
The Internet: Serious Business. :D
As a toker I've noticed a small difference since the smoking ban, I used to get kicked out of establishments for blazing one up and I still do, funny that eh! It certinaly makes it more difficult (impossible tbh) for me to be stealthy indoors but then it also gives me the chance to meet many fellow tokers outside at smoking areas who are generally very grateful to share my doob :-D It's especially nice since there's no whiny non-smokers around to moan about us being "criminals"... (no offence to the non-smokers who disagree with the law btw, u guys aren't freedom haters)
but I also believe in freedom, so if someone wants to smoke then let them, don't impose your beliefs on another, by all means use your freedom of speech to converse on the subject but ultimately everyone must decide for themselves.