blonde poker forum

Bad news

30/6/7

The last time i'll go to my local HOOTERS in Notts and have a pint and a smoke after work.

The Smoking ban IMHO SUCKS. 

Regards

M

Do you smoke at home John ?

Good news 1/7/07 onwards I can go to any pub and casino cardroom and not smell like I've smoked 40 cigs after ..

Smoking ban ...marvellous :)

It cost my pal (a landlord) over £10k to have a purpose built smoking area outside his pub including a HUGE umbrella canopy complete with heater for the winter..
Last week they decided to test it out in preparation for the ban but the numpty behind the bar switched the heater on before opening the umbrella, result was a 7 metre high fireball!!
He was not impressed, currently trying to get it repaired thru his insurance but not looking good...........

PRetty pleased I don't have to sit through it, smell it, and smell of it to be honest. Smoke where you are less likely to affect other people as it should be.

Delighted

:goodpost: ;iagree;

As a smoker myself, I welcome the ban .... I would rather go outside the casino or pub for a smoke anyway, rather than feel concious of my smoke going towards people that are obviouskly hating it ... if they get annoyed at me smoking outside however ... thats a different story LOL

 

yep, i agree. I smoke socially but think its a shite habit, the ban is the first bit of good Labour have done.

Well having experienced the smoking ban in Ireland when it came in, brace yourselves for the overwhelming smell of peoples feet and bad odour which will leave people calling for smoking to be allowed back in to mask the unbearable stenches:D

 rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao

Really simple for me :

Smoking Ban = SAVING LIVES

We should ask ourselves how many people working in the Licensed Trade have died through Passive smoking?

Good news for me. Take last weekend at the Broadway. You couldn't smoke in the card room, but you could smoke everywhere else and i felt dog rough by the end of the evening through the smoke by the bar.

was that deliberate?

 :)up

unexpected consequences of the ban, pretty funny (global warming, new smokers.....)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6664871.stm

Had to laugh at Andy Hughes, you can't make this stuff up but there really are people like this.    :D

rotflmfao

"being an asthmatic, I had always been against smoking" (wheeeze)

Loved this, talk about nanny state:

"Environmental groups say the heaters are energy-hungry and their advice is simple - if it's cold outside, wear a coat." But where do I put these arms things, do they go in the big holes at the side? And this hat thing you gave me, it goes on my head, does it?

They have a cage at the G casino Luton ready for the smokers so they can go outside the back door but not allow anyone else to get in. I am very tempted to get some bananas and feed them through the bars  ;D

They are also giving out wrist bands so you can go out the front and not have to check in again at reception. A lot of the guys last night said they were using the ban to help them give up. i think it's all good.

They have a cage in Coventry, it looks like some thing from a zoo, it is accessed via an old fire escape and is located in the car park with anti ram raiders bollards. There is going to be some piss taking Monday, I think I will bring my camera.

I am a smoker.   I would like to stop smoking.  Since being ill and on bed rest I only smoke more.  However,  I disagree with the ban.  Not because I mind going outside I dont.  There are many reasons why I think the owner of certain permises should be allow to choose whether their establishment is smoking or non smoking.

We have a cafe in town,  it is always full.   Nearly all of the customers smoke  there are many non smoking cafes in the town.   Doesnt the man have the right to choose how he runs his business.   My father for many years had a pub, not a trendy kiddies pub but a darts and dominoes old timers pub.  Roll ups cigars and a lounge for the women.  My father would have lost 3/4 of his trade.  How many pensioners, many who fought for the country and were issued tabacco by the armed forces should now be forced to stand in a cage.

1. Knowledge about smoking is different now then when they issued tobacco. What happened before is irrelevant - the government issuing tobacco was wrong but they didn't know that. If we don't embrace and act on new information men would still use pig skins instead of condoms.....

2. They don't have to stand in a cage - they can choose to leave the building if they want. Their choice if they want to smoke.

3. In Ireland the pub trade hasn't suffered, in fact I would be keener to return to Ireland now because going to a pub was much more enjoyable than before the ban. I am much more likely to go out for a drink than I was before.

4. No one is stopping ayone else from smoking - just not in my face and to the detriment of my health. If someone sat at a casino and chose to poke you with a sharp stick while sitting nextdoor to you you would have cause for complaint, although it's probably doing you less harm than a smoker sitting next door puffing away.

Im not saying that you as a non smoker shouldnt have a choice.  Im saying as the owner of a business the owner should have a choice.  Then I as a smoker would have a choice.

As it is my choice is to go into a non smoking establishment and stand outside or in a cage.  In my opinion no choice at all.


Whilst I appreciate we are better educated these days it doesnt change the fact that my 90 year old grandmother would now be treated like a second class citizen, imo, she smoked roll ups all her life, she fought for her country, the fed her addiction in war times and now she has to stand outside or in a cage to enjoy her only vice.

I agree in principle you shouldnt have to suffer passive smoking I just think this is the wrong way forward.  

Staff don't have a choice.

Interesting, i saw a program about the Irish pub trade that said it was devastated by the ban.
Also there is STILL no proven link between lung cancer and smoking, passive or otherwise.
It increases the risk but not particularly significantly actually.
Before everyone jumps on their soapbox i'm not saying it's all good just some manipulation of facts is all.

Who is to say that over a period of time , say 12 months public houses /casinos ..ie what have allowed smoking enviroments,  will not see an increase in custom from non smoking folk who have chose in the past to avoid these areas due to smokers. I know for one I absolutley hate comeing home after an evening out stinking of dirty smoke and having to ge to bed with wet hair at 3am in the morning.

This way we all get to enjoy and you smokers still have a place to do what you have to without harming others.

Going smokefree does not damage profits, global report shows
THURSDAY 2 JUNE 2005

Ending smoking in all workplaces and enclosed public places has not damaged the economy in the many countries, cities and states around the world that have adopted such legislation, according to a report presented at the Smokefree Europe conference in Luxembourg today (Thursday).

The report shows that a Europe-wide trend to drink alcohol at home rather than in bars and pubs appears to account for the apparent downturn in trade after the Irish smokefree legislation was introduced in 2004.

The news comes shortly before the Government begins its consultation on restrictions on smoking in workplaces and enclosed public places in England. At present, it proposes to end smoking in all workplaces and enclosed public places by 2008, except in pubs that do not serve ‘prepared’ food. Cancer Research UK strongly opposes this exemption, as it will leave thousands of workers unprotected.

Luk Joossens, Advocacy Officer for the Association of European Cancer Leagues, of which Cancer Research UK is a member, has compared statistics from regions that have introduced smokefree legislation, and compiled new data on drinking trends from across Europe.

He says: “Tobacco companies are at pains to show that smoking bans in bars and restaurants have a negative impact on business and lead to drops in sales and job losses. They frequently use anecdotal facts and speculative projections to make these claims.

“But rigorous analysis of studies from Ireland, New York, British Columbia and other places shows that smokefree legislation does not damage profits. In some places it could even have a positive economic effect.

Mr Joossens only analysed research that met stringent quality criteria and had been funded by a source with no links to the tobacco industry. He also examined economic trends prior to the introduction of bans.

“The main argument used by the tobacco industry is that drinking and smoking go together. If that is the case one would have expected a ban on smoking in pubs to affect Ireland, as the Irish drink more in bars than any other European nationality”, Mr Joossens adds.

“But the evidence shows that the ban did not affect Ireland’s bar economy. In fact, using objective measures such as till receipts and peer reviewed research, it is clear that going smokefree has not damaged the economy of any country examined so far.

Representatives of the Irish hospitality industry have estimated losses in the pub trade of between 15 per cent and 25 per cent since the ban was enforced 1.

However, the actual decrease in sales of alcohol was in line with declines that started in 20022.

These declines follow a Europe-wide trend towards consuming more alcohol at home. This is the case even in Ireland, where the estimated share of beer sales consumed in private homes increased from 12 per cent in 2000 to 23 per cent in 2003.

The UK has seen a similar trend. The estimated share of beer sales consumed in private homes across the UK increased from 12 per cent in 1980, to 33 per cent in 2000 to 39 per cent in 2003.

Governments will need to consider these drinking trends when they judge the success of future smokefree laws, including the comprehensive smoking ban planned for Scotland.

Mr Joossens adds: “The hospitality industry in countries that are considering smokefree legislation has a tendency to exaggerate.

“A group of representatives from the Belgian hospitality industry visited Ireland. They reported that an Irish style ban in Belgium would lead to between 20,000 and 40,000 job losses. However, even their own website shows that only 14,183 people worked in drinking places in Belgium in 2003.”

Jean King, Cancer Research UK’s Director of Tobacco Control, says: “A smokefree law that covers all workplaces and enclosed public places is Cancer Research UK’s primary policy objective.

“Going smokefree protects bar workers and customers from the serious health risks associated with secondhand smoke and can help the vast majority of smokers who want to give up.

“Because the Irish smokefree law covered all licensed premises, it created a level playing field for the pub trade. This was undoubtedly an important factor in ensuring that no elements of the hospitality trade were affected.

“This detailed analysis stresses the importance of using objective measures to evaluate the effects of smokefree legislation, rather than anecdotal evidence and statistics described out of context.”

Love this quote :D

"The report shows that a Europe-wide trend to drink alcohol at home rather than in bars and pubs appears to account for the apparent downturn in trade after the Irish smokefree legislation was introduced in 2004."

So it admits to a "downturn in trade" but blames it on folks not being arsed to go to the pub, fantastic!!!! :D

none

passive smoking is a myth

no it isn't

studies show non-smoking spouses of smokers have a 20-30% increase in lung cancer and non-smoking workers exposed to second hand smoke have a 12-19% increased in lung cancer cases

I think initially there was a drop in punters in the pubs in Ireland but once they realised they could get on a bus in the carpark and have a fag they came back!

A myth? I would love to see the evidence to support that. I guess it is like the warnings on ciggy pkts..are they myths too?

Anyhow, tough sh*t is all I have to say to all those who feel that the ban is an infringement on their civil rights.

 ;bumwiggle; ;bumwiggle; ;bumwiggle; ;reallyamsorry; ;reallyamsorry; ;reallyamsorry; ;bumwiggle; ;bumwiggle; ;bumwiggle;

 :goodpost: ;iagree; :goodpost: ;iagree; :goodpost: ;iagree;

Oddly to a high degree yes, "smoking causes cancer" is not actually true is it?
I smoke and don't have cancer, of every smoker i have met or known in my life i know of none that have had any form of cancer, the only person i have ever known is my brother in law who is a Jehovah and has never smoked or drank in his life.
If smoking caused cancer then everyone who smoked would get it, now with other substances this is correct, if you ingested nikel every day (actually every once in a while) you WILL get cancer because that does cause it.
The truth is may increase the risk of cancer but that doesn't fit on a fag packet does it?

So smoking does NOT cause cancer....wow .. news to me. But not here to argue with you .

I didn't say that did i?
You asked about the warnings on packets.
I am saying that it is not that black and white, it increases the risk it does not cause it in every case as the warning i referred to indicates.
The warnings are designed to put people in fear, nothing wrong in that i would hate my kids to smoke but it's not technically correct.

It relates to a medical parameter known as 'diathesis' or vulnerability (to a certain disease). In those people with the vulnerability, the smoking itself causes the cancer. Of this there is no doubt. The carcinogens come from the smoke. These carcinogens cause the cells to go out of control (cancer). Even though this may not happen to everyone who smokes, it still is the case that smoking does cause cancer.
Drinking 5 pints of alcohol causes slurred speech and lack of coordination.......
There will be some people for whom this is not the case........does this mean that alcohol is not the cause of the slurred speech and lack of coordination in the others?
The risk of cancer/heart/lung disease in those who smoke is substantially higher than in those who do not: fact. And this is demonstrated in longitudinal and cross-sectional studies. If you have not smoked, it is quite difficult to get lung cancer. Is this a random fluke? Is lung cancer in the smokers caused by touching too many matches???????????
My last boss, (strangely himself a top scientist), was a 60 a day man, and also denied the link. I think it was the nicotine talking to him.....

I'm not in denial i know it ain't good for you i'm fascinated by the manipulation of the "facts" is all.
For everything you paste from the Ash website there is contrary stuff on the forrest website, truth is we probably need another few generations to even explain why cancer appears in some and not others.
Why some non smokers get lung cancer and some 60 per day smokers don't, it's a great enigma at the moment, passive smoking is described by many as the big cop out, a way to explain the statistical anomalies where smoking "related" diseases affect those outside of that particular range.
I don't care either way who is "the most accurate" truthwise, as said i know it isn't good for myself and those around me, my kids will have hell to pay if they smoke because i believe it to be a bad thing.
The ban itself i dislike because it simply is not fair, just another staelth tax on businesses.

in what way is it a stealth tax?

well as long as i can go where i like and come home smelling/ feeling as fresh as when i went out without the added worry of possibly getting lung cancer i am happy.

Businesses get large fines for any infraction.

hardly constitutes a tax though.

They get fined for serving under age drinkers but that's not a tax

No they get warned then lose their license.

I am so happy its getting introduced. My throats so delicate everytime I play poker at local casino my throats sore for 3-4 days after.

People can argue over how bad they are or not, but I really dont care now as long as they cant smoke near me.

a fine is also an option

No point arguing but i thought the fines were for individuals, i was talking about businesses.

businesses can be fined for all sorts of things.
what I'm saying is those fines aren't taxes, stealth or otherwise.

quick search tells me max £5000 fine for selling alcohol to minors

My quick search says "persistant" abuse of the law.
It's a tax IMO because it is brought in under the guise of something else.

You mean if they break the law and fined  its a tax?

It hasn't proved to be a tax in Scotland in the last year or so. It's been incredibly well respected & even most smokers wouldn't change it now.

Personally I think there should have been more study on proper air-conditioning etc to diminish the passive smoking for staff & then a choice made whereby a pub/club could pay for proper aircon or ban smoking. I don't reckon there'd be too many smoking pubs even then.

it's not tax because no-one ever has to pay it

I live in Ireland and that's a load!!!  People stopped going to the pub because of the ban...full stop.  In our village they started having more house parties...because of the ban.  We live in a small village that used to have 11 pubs and is now down to 7...because of the ban.  That said, 7 pubs for such a small village is still great going.  I smoke and I still go to the pub probably more regularly than I should...lol  BUT, we don't meet half as many of our friends as we used to on a night out.  It's true...they can't be arsed...because of the ban. 

With all that said, even as a smoker, I've learned to deal with the ban and have seen some of the benefits.  I don't smoke NEAR as much as I would have in the 'ole days'.  I wear contact lenses.  It used to feel like they'd been welded to my eyes after a night out before, but not anymore.  I'd shower and pretty meself up for a night out, but the clothes I'd worn for those few hours of the night out were wrecked from the smell of smoke by the time it was over.

Glass if half full....glass is half empty.  All the statistics in the world can't paint it black and white because there are far too many sides to it.

IMO Nicotine should be reclassified as a class c drug and banned completely. Let the addicts buy their drugs from the illegal drug dealers, it may even reduce the number of children that get introduced to this useless drug each year.

 Nice idea perhaps they should reclassify alcohol at the same time

In that case, I'm going to jail for sure!   rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao

I already do :D

the only thing with the ban is. How many players will revert tothe net to play now they can not smoke at a live event?

How many move from playing solely on the net to playing live as well now that there's no smoking?

Certainly I will now be playing some casinos such as Sheffield Napoleons now that it's goimg tol be smoke-free.

I still want to come back smelling of something - hopefully a mans aftershave etc etc but smoke - no thanks!  ;D

Just a thought but does this mean all the self righteous non smokers will have to stay indoors at pubs and clubs throughout the summer?
It'll be fun when all the smokers are lounging about in the sun in the beer gardens around the country with the non smokers gazing forlornly out of the window at us :D
Because lets face it if you come outside you are hypocrites!!!!!!!

hmm

?

No roof outside.  The smoke can escape, and the air doesn't constantly contain cigarette smoke. 

Interestingly (possibly), I drove past a pub yesterday and people were sitting outside in a 'beer garden'.  I say garden, but it was a yard really, and was right next to a busy crossroads.  Sitting there would probably be worse than sitting in a pub full of cigarette smoke to be honest with the amount of car fumes being blown into their faces.

Had it in Wales for a few months, and yes, its marvellous!