Wondering why pubs are closing?

[LymmParent]

LP, I suggest you revisit the maths: IF the majority of anti-smoking fanatics (like yourself), didn't frequent pubs/clubs cos of the smoke hazard; I think it's reasonable to assume that the majority of folk who did frequent pubs were either smokers or folk who didn't mind being in the company of smokers - are you with me so far? So, if these folk who actually used the pubs, now cease to do so, they will tend to be empty. Now, IF the majority (ie. non-smokers) led by the fanatics, were to begin frequenting the pubs, in theory, they should be full to the gills. However, previous smoking clients havn't been replaced by the no-smoking lobby, for, as YOU said, YOU prefer the comfort of your own home and wouldn't wish to associate with the masses. So now the pubs remain empty - hope the logic of that isn't too much for you to cope with?!

 

 

Excuse me? Smokers stalk off in a tantrum because their local is not now permitting them to filth up the place, and they are asked to step outside to smoke. And somehow, you insist that the decline in trade is not THEIR fault, but mine? That's not logic, Obs, that's your usual twaddle. What sort of absolute stupidity is it to suggest that non-smokers have an obligation to keep pubs open and smokers don't? Go and harrass all the selfish people who've gone off in a peeve since the ashtrays went outdoors!

[LymmParent]

If they were in my local I would definitely stop going, are you lost again Geoff?

 

Accurate summary Obs, you could have added that smokers tended to drink in larger amounts than the few wimps, WI members and diners that have replaced them in the eateries.

 

The smoking ban killed my local club.

 

And you as well!! The droves of smokers throwing tantrums and flouncing off without regard for, or loyalty to, your local club - they are the people who killed it. Nobody else. But there you go, making out that the poor, dear smokers are victims of some terrible conspiracy..... 21% becoming the majority. You must have been in the same math class as Obs!

[asperity]

It doesn't alter the fact that the smoking ban has directly led to the closure of thousands of pubs and clubs and the consequent unemployment of thousands of staff. Nobody was forcing anyone to visit or even work in a pub or club where smoking was allowed. It was an unneccessary and spiteful measure.

[Geoffrey Settle]

If they were in my local I would definitely stop going, are you lost again Geoff?

 

Accurate summary Obs, you could have added that smokers tended to drink in larger amounts than the few wimps, WI members and diners that have replaced them in the eateries.

 

The smoking ban killed my local club.

 

and I've been to enough funerals to understand the direct link between a friend who was passionate about smoking to see them go up in smoke from the crem chimney.

[LymmParent]

It doesn't alter the fact that the smoking ban has directly led to the closure of thousands of pubs and clubs and the consequent unemployment of thousands of staff. Nobody was forcing anyone to visit or even work in a pub or club where smoking was allowed. It was an unneccessary and spiteful measure.

 

The smoking ban has not led to the closures - smokers have done that. Nobody else. They've punished their local licencees and lost local people their jobs because they are too damn up themselves to care any more about other people making a living than they care about other people's health or comfort. They have been asked to step outside for a fag - and instead of recognising that as a perfectly reasonable thing (in view of the fact that they are a 21% minority) they're playing the victim to the hilt and doing as much damage to pub trade as they can by way of a protest vote and then blaming everyone else.

[asperity]

We aren't talking about the rights and wrongs of smoking here Geoff. Cigarettes are still legal in this country. If the government wants to stop people smoking then they have to make the buying and selling of cigarettes illegal as well as the act of smoking. They won't do it a)because it would be impossible to do, they would lose too much revenue and c) there would be a revolution.

[Eagle]

geoff, I am an ex-smoker who gave up before the ban and appreciate that there is a possibility of a health risk by passive smoke. However, when the smoking ban was mooted most responsible premises made plans for dedicated smoking area which would not affect the worriers amongst the non smokers. Non smokers would however be able to continue to enjoy the company of these smokers if they so wished.

Unfortunately the self servers in the Government went totally OTT and pandered to the wailers and shouters , most of whom didn't use the pubs and clubs anyway.

LP, come out of your supercilious prat mode and appreciate that members of servicemen's clubs deserved to be able toontinue with their Sunday lunchtimes and bingo nights in their dedicated smoking areas served by smokers totally seperate from others who didn't want to join them. There was no need for the draconian measures brought in by the gobbins in power. Smoke in prison or parliament but not in a British Legion. Disgraceful.

[LymmParent]

smokers tended to drink in larger amounts than the few wimps, WI members and diners that have replaced them in the eateries.

 

 

Statistics, please? Research sources? Empirical proof? See, factually speaking, as pubs have limited opening hours as a rule, non-smokers would logically get through more, as they don't waste good supping time on lighting and smoking fags. Similarly, smoking suppresses appetite, so the salty snacks sold in pubs to increase thirst would be more likely to be eaten by non-smokers, who would then buy more drink....

 

And why focus on the smoking ban - when surely the appalling desecration of the right to consume a gallon of ale and still drive home has had more of an impact? I mean good grief, if a man's going to be denied the right to mow down the odd pedestrian in the pursuit of happiness, where are we headed!!

[LymmParent]

LP, come out of your supercilious prat mode and appreciate that members of servicemen's clubs deserved to be able toontinue with their Sunday lunchtimes and bingo nights in their dedicated smoking areas served by smokers totally seperate from others who didn't want to join them. There was no need for the draconian measures brought in by the gobbins in power. Smoke in prison or parliament but not in a British Legion. Disgraceful.

 

Dedicated smoking areas? How do you propose to confine smoke? Osmosis will ensure that it spreads evenly throughout the available air space. Unless you are proposing that separate entrances, loos and bars are installed, all with airtight doors - never mind the expense? Or are you now reinventing science as you've just reinvented maths, human rights and social obligations to suit your baseless argument? Or do you mean that smokers should still be free to walk through no smoking areas with lit fags and the same disregard for everyone else?

 

And whatever your opinions, watch your mouth - there is no excuse for personal abuse like that in an online discussion forum.

[disgusted]

 

And why focus on the smoking ban - when surely the appalling desecration of the right to consume a gallon of ale and still drive home has had more of an impact? I mean good grief, if a man's going to be denied the right to mow down the odd pedestrian in the pursuit of happiness, where are we headed!!

 

Being a lad from the country myself, I've got to totally agree with you there. Tougher stance on drink driving has killed off many a country pub over the last 30 years, much moreso than the smoking ban.

[LymmParent]

I know - I was serious. But nobody started screaming about the fact that it's only a POSSIBLE risk drunks might kill someone.... perhaps Eagle, Asp and Obs would like to crusade on that one next?

 

The sale of cheap booze in supermarkets is another coffin nail for pubs - and that's wiped out many of the independent and chain wine shops too. The purchase of decent pubs by large chains has also destroyed a huge number of pubs where the food used to be great and bring in trade, but is now microwaved muck from a cloned national menu, served in a cloned interior!

[observer]

Alas, no crusade LP; it's your ilk in Parliament and politics that did the crusading, interfering in the lifestyles of others, without regard to the economic or social consequences of their actions. It's simple market forces LP, if the majority of pub users either smoked or didn't mind being in the company of smokers, and some petty minded, self rightious, pompous group (who had no intention of ever using pubs) disrupt their social routine: then they have every right to withdraw their custom and leave premises where they no longer feel comfortable. This micro-managing of the lives of the Plebs by a self appointed elite, is reminicent of the actions of the Puritans during Cromwell's reign, which makes it no surprise that the populace couldn't wait to welcome the Merry Monarch back. As for the threat from the grim reaper, are we saying that the cemeteries are only occupied by smokers? Did that singer from Boyzone smoke? Suggest you concentrate on your own obsession with longevity and allow others to live their own lives - however short.

[LymmParent]

Sometimes, Obs, it really is difficult to work out how you make so much noise when your head is so firmly wedged out of sight...

 

I did not campaign for any ban, anywhere, of anything, ever. Smoking is not banned, merely restricted. And having just told me smokers aren't responsible for pub closures, you now say they are, but they're well within their rights. How does smoking exempt a person from all responsibility and endow them with absolute freedom over others?

 

I'm tired of this discussion - it's like saying that if 79% of the electorate vote for the Lib Dems, then the 21% voting for the BNP are the only people entitled to a vote, so the BNP are unanimously elected. If that's your stance, then rather than waste my breath, I give in, you're right - smokers are the majority, it ought to be compulsory from the age of 16 and of course the Earth is flat, Nessie is real and nobody's ever been to the moon - even though there's a spaceship in that American Hangar......

[observer]

Attempted humour and sarcasm are the usual exit routes from debate; but you must be tiring by now - so as Ann Robinson says "good-bye". Smoking IS banned b law "within enclosed public spaces". Your surreal and satirical attempt at the mathmatics doesn't impress either; in theory the 79% of the populace who don't smoke should be crowding into the smoke free pubs and clubs, but the fact is, they aint.

[LymmParent]

Why? What is the leap of logic that says now pubs are smoke free, all non-smokers must attend? Are you under the impression that all smokers went to the pub? Was it compulsory and I just never heard about it?

 

Freedom of choice means anyone can go to a pub, or not, as they choose. That has always been the case, and those of us who chose to go to the pub when smoking was allowed in there had to accept the rules and put up with the inconvenience of stinking hair and clothes afterwards, and accept the risk of harm - whatever it may be. Now, those who smoke have to accept the rules and put up with the inconvenience of stepping outside to smoke and the risk of catching a chill - whatever that may be.

 

How is that unfair? When formerly, the majority were inconvenienced and put at risk, and now it is the minority?

 

This has gone beyond debate, Obs - I'd happily discuss it with you if you had any sensible point left to make, but what you're saying is disconnected and contradictory. Granted, stopping smoking in pubs has made some people choose to stay away - but it hasn't forced them to do so.

 

And trust me, old man, you can pick any quarrel you like and I will outlast you and still look better in a thong!

[observer]

The "leap of logic" IS: that the fanatics wanted smoke free pubs; now presumably that was because THEY wanted to start using them - any other reasoning suggests they are merely in playground terms "spoil sports", just going round wrecking everyone elses pleasures, then moving on to the next crusade. The consequence of their agenda was predictable in terms of market forces, and previous customers have voted with their feet.

[Evil Sid]

just a thought (and not a serious one at that) but maybe it is a cunning plan to cure the binge drinking, closing down all the pubs and then blaming it on the smokers/anti smokers

 

also would have an effect on global warming. if all the pubs are closed down then there would be a saving on the power needed to run the lights, disco, beer engines and air con units thus lowering the carbon footprint.

 

all those who no longer have to endure the effects of secondary smoke inhalation will be healthier, this means that there will be less of a drain on the NHS.

 

a healthier workforce will mean that there will be less man hours lost to illness so that production will go up and costs should go down which will stimulate the economy and lift us out of the recession we are currently going through.

 

all this from, er hold on a minute there is a couple of guy's in dark suits want to speak to me, will be

[LymmParent]

The "leap of logic" IS: that the fanatics wanted smoke free pubs; now presumably that was because THEY wanted to start using them - any other reasoning suggests they are merely in playground terms "spoil sports", just going round wrecking everyone elses pleasures, then moving on to the next crusade. The consequence of their agenda was predictable in terms of market forces, and previous customers have voted with their feet.

 

Can you not get past the fact that PUBS were not the target? Public places. Buses, trains, workplaces, theatres, concert halls, shops....... and jolly heck, they are all surviving!!!! The Trafford Centre is packed to the doors and has always been smoke-free. Pubs are closing for a variety of reasons, but these drooling, pub-obsessed fanatics are a figment of your imagination..... the important issue was places where people HAVE to go and HAVE to breathe! And if giving other people cancer is your choice of sport, then it wants spoiling.

[LymmParent]

just a thought (and not a serious one at that) but maybe it is a cunning plan to cure the binge drinking, closing down all the pubs and then blaming it on the smokers/anti smokers

 

also would have an effect on global warming. if all the pubs are closed down then there would be a saving on the power needed to run the lights, disco, beer engines and air con units thus lowering the carbon footprint.

 

all those who no longer have to endure the effects of secondary smoke inhalation will be healthier, this means that there will be less of a drain on the NHS.

 

a healthier workforce will mean that there will be less man hours lost to illness so that production will go up and costs should go down which will stimulate the economy and lift us out of the recession we are currently going through.

 

all this from, er hold on a minute there is a couple of guy's in dark suits want to speak to me, will be

 

Sid? Sid? Oh dear..... Obs has had him rubbed out!

[Dizzy]

Not wanting to get in the way of LP and Obs' battle to the death.... and also having not contributed so far I hope you don't mind me joining in for a second but ...

 

excluding just going out for a quick bite to eat then home straight away.....

 

Question 1 : DOES ANYONE actually know ANYONE who has actually STOPPED going to pubs since the smoking ban was introduced ?

 

and just to be fair

 

Question 2 : DOES ANYONE actually know ANYONE who has started going to pubs MORE since the smoking ban was introduced ?

 

I must admit I don't

[asperity]

Keep talking nonsense like that Sid and it'll be the men in white coats coming for you

[LymmParent]

Oooh, Dis, Obs will have you joining Sid at the bottom of Latchford Locks for asking things like that!

 

I have to hold my hands up - I go more often. Regular nights with smoking and non-smoking mates alike haven't changed. No dropouts, no additions, same venues. It's the times when someone suggests a pub lunch or holding a meeting in a pub. Before, the smoke put me off eating or meeting there. Same with taking the kids for a pub meal.

 

I have to say though, the issue wasn't a big deal for me - if I chose to go to the pub, I accepted smoke was part of the deal. I'm only objecting to the attitude that smokers rule the world..... as I would if any minority made the same claim!

[Bill]

Dizzy

 

My son say?s the smoking ban has completely changed his regular so much so that it?s not only devoid of smoke it?s completely devoid of atmosphere and as a result, he rarely bothers going out these days. That?s from a none smoker by the way.

 

My drinking mates most whom are also mostly none smokers all agree that the ban has had a detrimental affect on pubs even to the point where weather permitting they actually prefer to sit outside in the smoking areas.

 

I used to occasionally nip out to the pub round the corner for the last pint but since the ban I just don?t do it now.

 

Bill

[disgusted]

The "leap of logic" IS: that the fanatics wanted smoke free pubs; now presumably that was because THEY wanted to start using them - any other reasoning suggests they are merely in playground terms "spoil sports", just going round wrecking everyone elses pleasures, then moving on to the next crusade. The consequence of their agenda was predictable in terms of market forces, and previous customers have voted with their feet.

 

Can you not get past the fact that PUBS were not the target? Public places. Buses, trains, workplaces, theatres, concert halls, shops....... and jolly heck, they are all surviving!!!! The Trafford Centre is packed to the doors and has always been smoke-free. Pubs are closing for a variety of reasons, but these drooling, pub-obsessed fanatics are a figment of your imagination..... the important issue was places where people HAVE to go and HAVE to breathe! And if giving other people cancer is your choice of sport, then it wants spoiling.

Hooray, finally. Wondered when someone would post that.

[observer]

Errrm LP, folk don't HAVE to visit a pub, but they do HAVE to sit on a bus, sit in railway stations, or fly in aircraft - but I've not heard a pro-smoker suggest that there shouldn't be non-smoking pubs or non-smoking areas in pubs - the rational option was for a compromise, alas the health facists don't want that. And it seems their next crusade is already emerging, with the release of a report suggesting 90,000 folk will die from drink related disease over the next 10 years - so, perhaps they've killed two birds with one stone with the pub closures?!