Some good points there Doug, it's all about freedom of choice. I think the most important point here is this:

Whilst it is against the law for a smoker to open a PRIVATE member's bar FOR smokers run BY smokers and with employees who smoke, with a large sign on the entrance making it clear there will be smoke inside, then freedom of choice has gone. And that makes a mockery of everything our fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers have fought for in the past.

Why should smokers not have the same freedom of choice as non smokers? OK so maybe someone should have the FREEDOM to go to a bar that is non smoking. But a smoker should have the freedom of choice to go and carry out his legal activity in a separate bar. It's called democracty. FREEDOM OF CHOICE FOR ALL.

I agree Drew, it has worked really well in Scotland, and even the anticipated problems of people smoking outside pubs/clubs/public buildings on the streets hasn't really materialised.
One downside has been that smoke no longer camouflages the awful smell of stale beer/sweat etc etc inside various pubs and clubs!! It is however a great thing that clothes/jackets etc don't stink of smoke for days after you've been on a night out...
I believe that it didn't work so well in Ireland though - lots of drinking establishments closed down or reported huge drops in profits as a result of the ban.
But overall I think that Britain (and previously Scotland) have done well to preemp the overall European ban as there is ample evidence of passive smoking impacting on health, and with health levels in the UK (and even more so in Scotland than England) being one of the worst in Europe this is surely a sensible road to go down??

Mike and Drew, you're both wrong. Read what I said. This private establishment would be worked in by smokers or people who have no problem with the fact that smoking happens in the club. And Drew, you're wrong because we can't "knock ourselves out" because it is illegal for us to have our own private club where we all smoke.

Why is this illegal? Please explain it to me. It's spiteful and vengeful lawmaking.

Drew, at what point in any of my posts did I suggest you had no right no not inhale carcinogens. I stated freedom of CHOICE. The CHOICE to go in a smoking establishment or a non smoking establishment.

Some people are so blinded by their hatred of smoke, smokers and all things to do with smoking that they can't listen to reasoned arguement and stated facts.

GC77, could you direct me to the evidence of passive smoking being dangerous. I have searched long and hard and have found no reputable study carried out by neutral parties that prove there is a significant risk to people's health from passive smoking. The mythical dangers of Environmental Tobacco Smoke were created by hateful health mafiosos who needed a reason to stop people from doing something they enjoyed.

I love the way people accept things "because ASH said so". Can I direct you to the following article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=389463&in_page_id=1774&in_a_source

An excerpt:

"The International Agency for Research on Cancer recently concluded that of 23 studies on exposure to smoke in the workplace, only one found a significant link with increased risk of lung cancer. A study two years ago claimed the risk of developing lung cancer increases by 24 per cent in those exposed to second-hand smoke. But another put it at 15 per cent.

The report says: "Given the evidence about the impact of passive smoking, we are concerned that the decision to ban smoking in public places may represent a disproportionate response to a relatively minor health concern." "

Can I also point out who ridiculously low them percentages are. For a report on health risks to be published by the World Health Organisation, the researchers would have to prove a risk ratio of 3.0. This is equivalent to a 300% increase. On exceptional occassions, they may allow a report that only shows a risk ratio of 2.0

This is simply because anything lower than this becomes statistically insignificant as it is impossible to rule out other factors or simply coincidence. A 0.15 RR or even a 0.24 RR is so small and insignificant our elected leaders should never EVER be basing our laws on it.

Please direct me to a report that shows a RR of 2.00 or higher for passive smoking. I would love you to do so. OK, so maybe you don't like the smell. Fair enough. I don't like the smell of curries so I don't go into indians. If we're passing laws based on smells, then soon you'll be chucking people in jail if they have bad breath or BO.

So you accept that these new laws are over the top and Draconian in nature. This law should not apply to private member's clubs. Who are the government to tell people what they can and can't do on PRIVATE property. I can find no one who can give me a good reason why a private "smoker's" club could not be accomodated yet the government have made this illegal.

Therefore the new laws are over the top for no reason. Therefore they are unjust as there is no viable reason for them to prohibit myself and millions of others the CHOICE to go into a smoking establishment. Therefore, as Martin Luther King Jr. said: (sig)

You make "hatred" of smoke sound like a bad thing, john.

-- Edited by mkkreuk at 08:05, 2007-06-13

mkkreuk. Hatred of smoke is not necessarily a bad thing, but when you allow that to extend to hatred of "smokers" then it becomes a big problem as there are around 14 million of them in this country. Nobody should hate a particular group of people, and in any other case it would be demonic to do so, but not in the case of the smokers. That was my point regarding that. Besides, you may well "hate" smoke, but what right do you have to extend that hatred onto other people who enjoy to smoke.

Secondly, I can't stand this rubbish about someone not having a choice but to accept the job in a smoking bar. People always have a choice. The fact is that I am talking about opening a NEW place (in theory, I'm not actually doing it lol) so if this new place wasn't open then the jobs would no exist at all. So the idea that somebody would have no choice but to work there is rubbish. For the sake of argument let's change it to "all the bar staff are themselves smokers".

Also, what entitles bar staff to added protection over other people. I think it passes people over that the exact chemicals found in smoke are found in many other work places. However, found in any other environment, the chemicals in smoke are given "safe levels" and are measured and controlled. I believe benzene is one example of a chemical in smoke found in many work places, but as long as it is below a certain level it is considered safe. However, with smoke people refuse to even consider the idea that ventilation can reduce the levels of smoke to "safe levels". At a place I used to work there were lots of solvents. The place really stunk badly but after a while you got used to it. I used to use these very strong solvents to clean paint off of paints rolls and trays. My head was inches away from the solvent and sometimes you would get light headed etc. There was a hazardous warning on the side of the barrel containing this solvent. Every now and then health and safety would come in with a probe thing and measure the levels of solvent in the air because exposure to certain amounts was very dangerous in the long term, but we had to test the ventilation was ok.

How come the same standards in the workplace are not enforced for smoke? There are very efective ventilation systems available these days that could reduce smoke in the air to very low levels. Yet with smoke, people are blinded and simply believe that any level is dangerous, which is of course, absolute tosh.

Drew, can I just say that most of my second post that you quoted wasn't aimed at you either. Was more at GC77 who said "there is ample evidence of passive smoking impacting on health". My point was whether he has actually seen this evidence or could point me in the direction of it. People see a quote in the paper from a spokesperson from the evil and self-serving organisation ASH and then like to repeat it even though the initial quote was fraudulent and misleading. I wish people were more willing to question things instead of accept them and maybe we would have a more tolerant society instead of one so easily blinded and misguided towards such division as we have at this point in time.