<<Back to most read

Comment | Read Comments (52)

It is about time someone stood up to this government and the infringement of human rights of those who put them in power. Sure people have the right not to breathe in smokers second hand smoke and the right to fresh air. But on the other hand smokers have rights too—or should have in a democracy. By buying a pint at the local pub cigarette smokers contribute to the cost of heating, staff and seating cover just as much as non-smokers. Yet they are denied a covered place to have a cigarette and have to stand outside in the cold and wet while non-smokers, often in the minority during the week smirk among themselves. It should be law that public spaces such as pubs should be made to provide a covered heated place, with an extractor fan if necessary so that smokers can enjoy a cigarette without having to stand outside getting wet through in the pouring rain. How the government got way this law is beyond me, and we can bet that a good many other local pubs will be doomed and confined to history books because of this stupid law. By the way I speak as a non-smoker.

The Spanish have a great balance, any bar under 100m2 has the choice of being a smoking or no smoking bar. People then have the choice if they go in or not. Why couldn't that have been applied in the UK? It would have stopped all the closures that we are now seeing.

Where else can you eat good quality meals at low prices and meet colleagues for a conversation in relaxed surroundings? We have lost all the village halls and public spaces that we had at one time. So what has the smoking ban got to do with any of the above? How does lack of cigarettes, stop eating and conversation?

[quote][bold]john[/bold] wrote: Where else can you eat good quality meals at low prices and meet colleagues for a conversation in relaxed surroundings? We have lost all the village halls and public spaces that we had at one time. So what has the smoking ban got to do with any of the above? How does lack of cigarettes, stop eating and conversation? [/quote] Yates in Burnley - I still call it the 'Boot' or 'The Boty Go-Go'I was one the local Booties before Yates took over.The last landlord at the time was a tenant and he know runs 'The White Lion'just opposite. You have read what the owners have said about the Yates Pub.The main reason for closing is because of the smoking ban! This is just the beginning of many more closures all around the country and for the same reasons too.I was not a great lover of the Yates but i do have sympathy with the governor and the staff though.I have been reading the 'Blackpool Gazette'and i noticed that the laurel pub company have got no intentions of closing their pubs in Blackpool,which i find a little hypocritical of the company,because it also states that the pubs are losing money hand over fist too. Regardless of whether there is food on the menu in pubs or not it is not going to save the pub trade in the long run. The anti smoking lobby has made their decision to ban the dreaded weed from all places.Because very soon there will be no where for them to go and have a conversation with their friends or if they have got any friends that is. In another ten years or so we will see probably 40-45% of both pubs and working mens clubs completely gone to the wall and they will be no more. I agree with the comments about Spain,as having plenty of time over in the costas,in 2005 smoking anywhere then from 1st January 2006 things changed as 'spanishblue' as kindly stated and there are not many complaints either. I know for one i wont go to a place where it is as sterile or even more sterile than an A&E,and not welcome because i smoke,i will just stay at home.Yet all these non smokers think they have got a result by banning smoking in pubs etc,Oh how the anti's are mislead in their victory.The powers that be-namely European bosses will and have targeted the alcohol trade and as we have already seen the price of beers have and will go up even more there for the pub trade will be a place that will cease to be in the very near future.I may be a smoker but i am not a driver yet there is more danger from the fumes from vehicles than from tobacco,yet do i complain about your cars,no i dont,so i take it as an affront when people have a go at smokers as they are having a go at me personaly then.

The Boot is on the back foot so to speak. One of Burnley's oldest and best known pubs is to close and that is a sign of the times in which we now live. As the doors shut and the song "those were the days my friend can be heard from ghostly voices another chapter of Burnley life, as it was, finishes. It's not the smoking ban that has closed the pub it is the trend in which we now live. Breweries don't want to have boozers they want successful eating houses, look at the famous Whitbread's name. I'm not sure whether the Boot, sorry Yates's, was a Massey's or Dutton's pub. Dutton's a fine local Blackburn brewery was taken over by Whitbreads and then they went all posh in catering and sold out their boozers. Society as we knew it where conversation including football, racing and politics was always on the tap room agenda has now practically gone. The final nail in the coffin has been the banning of what we called "coffin nails" themselves, the eradication of the good old fag. Our normal thinking man who only wants justice for all and a peaceful life has yet again been targeted by the establishment. They don't want you to have views or a place where you can discuss them. What they want is control. You are no longer an individual and the closing of the Boot is just one of many ways our thinking working class society is being divided. You are allowed your night clubs, and student's bars where noise is paramount and conversation inaudibile. Our younger end won't get to know the joys of serving a pub apprenticeship. Of being underage when sneaking into the taproom. Listening to wise men and seeing their pecking order and if you stepped out of line being put in your place. No swearing in front of ladies and respect for the landlord and landlady. The Boot wasn't a place to be seen coming out of by your mother. It certainly had a reputation but I don't think there will be one lad above his mid-forties who hasn't ventured into what was one of Burnley's best pubs and offered something of interest. Yates's of Bolton as we knew it tried their best, then again sold out to the present owners. Lets hope the building doesn't become another solicitor's office or an estate agents, a trend we seem to have in Burnley today. It is with regret another of my memories from the good old days has well and truly been given the Boot.

Those were the days 6 pints 10 woodbines and change from 10 bob.

Al tel thi wot letterman..an tha wer after pushing a bike'a'bread alt way up Manchester Road when a were diliverin fer Thomas's bakery.

I have the right to go out without the risk of me dying a horrible painful death being increased, If you want to smoke go outside, that is th choice, I choice I made was to give up. And as for Spain, workers get no choice. They still have to work in smokey conditions. Anyway it doesn't add up because taking at pubs is up overall since the smoking ban came in. As for Yates in Burnley it has been left to go down hill. It has got tatty and the client base has really down down the pan, I don't go in any more. I hope someone takes it over, spends a few quid on it and makes it teh smoke free gold mine it coudl be.

Could this loophole beat the smoking ban?. Visit http://www.smokeupst airs.com .

A Spanish person can choose whether to work in a smoking bar or not. Anyway, go into a well kept bar/club in Spain and there is no smoke because of 1st class air con. Why on earth do anti smokers talk about second hand smoke as a potential killer - it is a myth created by ASH and co., do some research, go to freedom2choose dot info and have a look at the medical/scientific experts who have been brave enough to come out and show the evidence of this massive fraud. Anti smoker, you may not like the smell, but SHS does not damage non smokers.

Terminator, is this smokeupstairs idea a joke? I'm a lawyer and the legal logic is full of holes. Gave me a good laugh though, good luck finding some prat to try it in court.

why not have smoking and non-smoking pubs and clubs?,everyone has a choice then.

Thank you Jack post 1. Also the many tolerant people on here. I would not go out and freeze, if I was paid to do so. That is not my idea of fun or relaxing. The smoke haters (not to be confused) with the tolerant non-smokers, as I am married to one, so I do know the differance! were never banned from opening their own venues were they? They do not care how many places shut or how many jobs are lost.If you wait until the alcohol puritans have finished and called those that like a few drinks, all the filthy names under the sun, denormalised the drinkers, it will be too late to make a stand. It does not matter that alcohol will be legal to buy (like ciggies) you will treated, by the drink haters, like vermin. Intolerance leads to hatred, this antis are infecting the world, through their proganda and misinformation (lies). Read the Enstom/Kabat study. We are being run by the drug companies and fanatics. Warning: Anti-tobacco activism may be hazardous to epidemiologic science http://www.epi-persp ectives.com/content/ 4/1/13 8th August 2006 the HSE in the document OC 255/16 Paragraph 14 " HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to second hand smoke to the raised risk of contacting specific diseases". 8th August 2006 the HSE in the document OC 255/16 Paragraph 14 " HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to second hand smoke to the raised risk of contacting specific diseases". We need to get this ban amended to include ventilation, freedom2choose.info -- for tolerant non-smokers and smokers alike Please show your support, donations, large or small, toward our fighting fund, become a member, or join the forums. Stand up and be counted. “Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred” Jacques Barzun http://petitions.pm. gov.uk/smokinglicens es/ ends in October 2008 These could do with some support please, http://www.innthecol d.com 1000 Pubs in 90 days, can you help with this one? http://uk.youtube.co m/watch?v=Bn6zye0nh8 w http://uk.youtube.co m/watch?v=mN-xDlsNXI I Hamish Howitt Publican http://cleanairquali ty.blogspot.com/ Air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:

Mandyv in banitland, you have really swallowed the propoganda haven't you? I bet you have been told that quote from the HSE means tobacco smoke is harmless - it doesn't. Are you employed by the tobacco industry to spout this nonsense?

rebecca, I am not saying as a smoker I am at zero risk, but nothing in life has zero risk does it? No I am not paid by anyone to post on here. I do not need payment to fight for the truth. I do know the antis like to use the "do you work for the tobacco companies" though in their arguments. The antis heart attack miralces have been debunked by many including the antis once upon a time hero, who was instrumental in bringing these bans about (USA) even he fights for the misinformation on that to stop! and although he has differant thoughts than myself, he at least has integrity, which appears to have been lost by the anti movement.

rebecca, the HSE statement is saying that the risk of second hand tobacco smoke is minimal. You people talk as if every person who smokes is going to get lung cancer. Yes, if you smoke, it is a risk, but nowhere near as much as the propaganda says. 2 in 100,000 smokers get lung cancer, are you telling me that a non-smoker can get it? If a non-smoker gets lung cancer, it is not from tobacco smoke.

The smoking ban is a complete red herring and bogus excuse for closing. If it was truly so why wouldn't the same apply to the Big Window? The Boot actally has an enclosed beer garden that is perfect for a nice smoking area whilst with the Big Window you are on the pavement. If anywhere would go if the smoking ban was the only reason it would be the Big Window. Kid yourselves all you want but smoking in enclosed public places is a thing of the past and rightly so.

timbone the HSE statement isn't saying that the risk of second hand smoke is minimal, you also clearly struggle to understand complicated concepts. Which is why your advice is misleading and dangerous. You categorically say in your last post "If a non-smoker gets lung cancer, it is not from the tobacco smoke" How could [bold]you[/bold] possibly know? You don't even understand the HSE statement.

The public vote with there feet. Flat caps and rovers return are relics of a bygone age, smoking or not is not the cause of the demise of the british pub. It`s the new generation`s of young people with far more choice available, as to where and when to spend their money.

[quote][bold]rebecca[/bold] wrote: timbone the HSE statement isn\'t saying that the risk of second hand smoke is minimal, you also clearly struggle to understand complicated concepts. Which is why your advice is misleading and dangerous. You categorically say in your last post \"If a non-smoker gets lung cancer, it is not from the tobacco smoke\" How could [bold]you[/bold] possibly know? You don\'t even understand the HSE statement.[/quote] No, the HSE statement goes further than that - it says that it can find no epidemiological evidence to link second hand smoke and raised risk of contracting specific diseases.

It is you antis that have been brainwashed by the propaganda put out by the likes of ASH. Restore the freedom of choice to the publicans etc. If we had smoking pubs for smokers then you antis out ther would have no need to go near them still leaving you plenty of choice of places to go. At present we have NO choice atall & this is not right in a so called democracy!Give choice back to the people.

Amazing, young people determine whether pubs continue since the people that want them don't matter. It really is galling that they are trotting out all these spurious excuses, when all the 'surveys' said that Non-smokers would flock to what was already provided. Oh! they want to go out to any place they choose. Pity it's closed down though.

Tim, Timbone and Mandyv. [bold]How clever of you to edit the HSE statement to make it suit your purposes before posting it on here.[/bold] The first part of paragraph 14 of the [bold]real[/bold] HSE document OC255-16 says "The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish" Mandy quotes it as "HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to second hand smoke to the raised risk of contacting specific diseases" The real text, aimed at HSE Inspectors, who are educated to degree level and beyond, talks about individual circumstances of exposure, not the generalised interpretation that the three of you prefer because it suits your beliefs. You clearly don’t understand this and the other complex information related to smoking and health, which is presumably why Timbone makes stupid statements like "If a non-smoker gets lung cancer, it is not from the tobacco smoke"

I've just had a look at the HSE document. It says quite clearly [quote]There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban.[/quote] Perhaps Tim, Timbone and Mandyv would care to explain why they choose to ignore that phrase from the HSE document?

[quote][bold]A light in the north[/bold] wrote: I've just had a look at the HSE document. It says quite clearly [quote]There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban.[/quote] Perhaps Tim, Timbone and Mandyv would care to explain why they choose to ignore that phrase from the HSE document?[/quote] because it wasn't in the original statement. Someone from ASH or their allies must have edited it.

Rebecca we do clearly understand Im afraid. We, people with common sense also dont believe the passive smoking scam for this reason.

another empty building in burnley,what a run down place its turning into,goverments to blame,killing buisnesses by being greedy,burnley will be finished in next 5 year

I am an ex Burnley man now living in Canada, where the smoking ban came into effect a couple of years ago. What is happening in the UK now, happened here too, plus the States and ireland. That is that local pubs, where people go for a 'pie and a pint', survive, but big business runs on such a tight budget that a miniscule drop in revenue alerts the company accountants that money must be saved to maintain a profit margin. We have to be quite clear that first and second hand smoking causes health hazards, how many people are happy to find out that their children have started smoking? However we all have rights, the problem with the smoking issue is that a once socially acceptable habit has now become anti social, by the majority of people. No one likes to be called anti social, especially in a social environment such as a pub, however now they are. This problem then becomes a personal issue, and not a health issue, what a recipe for heated debate! On a purely health issue no one can deny the facts that cigarettes kill, my deceased parents are proof of that, if the smoke is first or second hand is irrelevant, it kills. On the opposite side peole do have a right to what they want with a product that can be legally purchased in virtually every shop in the country. It does eem somewhat hypocritical that a product that has the potential to kill is not only freely available, but legal! Imagine trying to legalise tobacco now if you had just invented it? So where does this argument end, probably in the next generation when non smokers and smokers find a way to pursue their habits or non habits with out argument. By the way, where I live it routinely egts to -30 degrees celsius, and yes we do have people who stand outside bars smoking, and yes kids are still starting to smoke to 'look cool'. However both of these are decreasing, once smokers realise that it is they who have the addiction, then they willalso realise that is they who have the choice, to smoke or not. In the meantime, pubs that were or are being run inefficiently willclose and will blame some ban or other instead of the real truth of bad management not changing with the times to keep up with modern trends in customer care. I watch and wait for this to develop, it really is deja vu for me!

Carlos - How wrong you are. And how ignorant to claim that "Someone from ASH or their allies must have edited it". You'll find the phrase [quote]There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban.[/quote] appears in both the earlier and later versions of the HSE guide.

Carlos "There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban. Perhaps Tim, Timbone and Mandyv would care to explain why they choose to ignore that phrase from the HSE document? because it wasn't in the original statement. [bold]Someone from ASH or their allies must have edited it.[/bold] " I suspect you and your cronies didn't bother to read that bit because it doesn't fit into you blinkered view. Seems more likely than Ash hacking a government web site.

West2, youre right round the bend.Of course it`s the young people and their spending power, that determines the viabilty of town centre pubs and clubs.Unlike you they`ve moved on, and now choose where and when to part with there cash.

Rebecca, this is from the oringinal paragraph, but for some strange reason it moved. 8th August 2006 the HSE in their document OC 255/15 article14? state " HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to second hand smoke to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases". 9 The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act. Inspectors are therefore urged to exercise caution in considering any formal enforcement action in relation to SHS (with one exception – see below). However, the full impact of the smoking ban is difficult to foresee completely, and if serious circumstances emerge where inspectors believe they must consider enforcement, then they should consult Health Unit and the Policy Team (see Annex 2 for contacts) before taking action. The exception to this guidance relates to pre-existing health conditions of employees which can be made worse by exposure to second hand smoke e.g. respiratory or cardiovascular disease, or to pregnancy. In such circumstances, specialist and medical advice may be necessary to secure support for enforcement action. It contradicts itself anyway, I always leave a way for people to check the rest of it out should they want to. I would like to know why the antis choose to ignore the biggest or longest study ever done on this issue!! Believe you me, I would love to have enough room to put that in every post. I have cut it down and the Enstrom/Kabat to one line and a link, because most places I leave them, have a word restriction. If anyone has cronies that are blinkered, it is the smoke haters. Check out Micheal Siegels blogs once in a while.

Mandyv So your quote ealier in this thread was from a different paragraph of a different document to the one you said it was? You can't get something like that right? No wonder you think the original paragraph 9 of OC 255/15 indicates that passive smoking is safe.

OBJECTIVES: Even from the scientific literature it is difficult to conclude whether the increased risk of lung cancer due to exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), as reported in many epidemiological studies, is based on sound data from reliable studies, or rather on passionate assertions derived from unsound investigations. To shed some light on this matter the differences between cigarette mainstream smoke (MS)--inhaled by the smoker- and ETS--inhaled by everyone exposed-, the concentration of ETS under real life conditions, the internal dose of toxic compounds due to ETS exposure, and the risk of lung cancer as found in epidemiological studies are discussed. RESULTS: MS and ETS differ considerably in their physical, chemical and toxicological characteristics because of the different conditions under which they are generated, the dilution in air, and the degree of ageing. Based on toxicological data, a very low internal dose of potentially genotoxic compounds can be measured in people after ETS exposure. The epidemiological data suggest a slightly increased risk of lung cancer in non-smokers chronically exposed to ETS. However, it is equally well known, that none of these studies is free from bias and confounding effects. CONCLUSION: The average intake of toxic and genotoxic compounds due to ETS exposure is that low that it is difficult, if not impossible, to explain the increased risk of lung cancer as found in epidemiological studies. The uncertainty is further increased because the validity of epidemiological studies on passive smoking is limited severely by numerous bias and confounding factors which cannot be controlled for reliability. The question of whether or not ETS exposure is high enough to induce and/or promote the carcinogenic effects observed in epidemiological studies thus remains open, and the assumption of an increased risk of lung cancer due to ETS exposure is, at present, more a matter of opinion than of firm scientific evidence.

[quote][bold]rebecca[/bold] wrote: Carlos "There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban. Perhaps Tim, Timbone and Mandyv would care to explain why they choose to ignore that phrase from the HSE document? because it wasn't in the original statement. [bold]Someone from ASH or their allies must have edited it.[/bold] " I suspect you and your cronies didn't bother to read that bit because it doesn't fit into you blinkered view. Seems more likely than Ash hacking a government web site.[/quote] actually we did. We have open minds Im afraid unlike you "debate is over" bunch.

BTW by ASH I meant ASH and co through HMG forcing HSE to change their stance.

rebecca, concerning the altered version of the HSE document, you will find all the info here http://freedom2choos e.info/news_viewer.p hp?id=496

Enstrom found that exposure to tobacco smoke increased the risk of COPD. What's your take on that mandyv?

http://web.archive.o rg/web/2006111007551 8/http://www.hse.gov .uk/foi/internalops/ fod/oc/200-299/255_1 5.pdf 9 The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act. This was before it got moved for some reason or other and it said this document was up to 2011 I believe, why was it changed and moved? out of interest. http://web.archive.o rg/web/2006111007551 8/http://www.hse.gov .uk/foi/internalops/ fod/oc/200-299/255_1 5.pdf 9 The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act. I have changed nothing!

man in a pub, yes I probably am right round the bend. The pubs are closing though in contradiction to what the surveys said. A point you failed to address. west ----

Errrmmmm.... Yates is shutting down; halle-blooming-lujah ! The place has become a dive over the last 3-5 years. In fact there are many who would assert that its best days were behind it when it became Yates' originally. Instead of blaming the inability to smoke in enclosed public places how about we mention the real causes for the demise of Yates: * Ever increasing price of booze meaning its cheaper to dfrink at home * Collapse of Sidewalk 53/Club 53/Bootleggers means there is no real need to 'stay' up in that end of town now * The weekend 'drinking circuit' no longer includes the top end of town as more effort has been put into regenerating the bottom part of the town centre * Growth of pubs etc down towards Hammerton Street * Stagnation of decor etc in Yates over time leading it to become dated and unnattractive to punters... All of those need to be examined before smoking is reeled out by the uninformed as the main reason for a crappy pub closing down! Here's hoping that something decent is done with the place; not quite sure what though...

Paul you are so right. Yates is going under because it is a dump and a penny hasn't been spent on it in years. Big companies are using the smoking ban as a erm... smoke screen (sorry!) to close pubs like this. People should ask themselves would you take your kids in during the day to grab some food like you would a Wetherspoons. No, it has gone down hill, that is why people don't drink there. Did this company also own teh Litten Tree next to Calico that closed well before the smoking ban arrived. And how many clubs have tried to open in the building next to teh libary and gone under. That part of town has been going down hill for years. Takings since the smoking ban in pubs is up, not down just that you need to get in a different customer. As for passive smoking it DOES cause cancer. There is proof. If you smoke and believe that it doesn't you are kidding yourself. It is no surprise that pro smoking funding comes from the same pot as those that denied climate change. The simple point is that it has gone and will not come back, live with it or give up. You're right to smoke has not been effected you just have to go outside and be inconvienced. To cut no ice you are simply getting a dose of the inconvienice you put people in for years blowing smoke in their face. Other customers or workers got no choice, not you don't. I'd persoanlly go furtehr and say if you smoke now you've had 40 years of being told the risks so why shoudl my taxes pay for your healthcare? AND BEFORE you all start on teh "The tax I pay on my fags..." it is actally a pitance when you see that about 1/3 of all NHS care is for a smoking related disease. You have a choice, you can give up and get help in doing so. If you choose not to then pay teh silly prices, go outside when you want a fag and stop meaning, you've made teh choice. We are not born smokers, so get over it.

Mandyv at 1.45 today (24th) you shot your credibility in the foot again with another double senseless post. Let me help you. In your post at 11.18 on 22nd you quoted something as coming from OC 255/16 Paragraph 14. The text you quoted didn't come from there. I now see you didn't edit it, you just quoted the wrong source. No matter what document you look at though, neither says that passive smoking is safe. You and your mates just aren't capable of reading the full document in context, you just misread selected paragraphs that [italic]sound[/italic] like they support your case. You seem to be sidestepping the inconvenient part of the enstrom study which found that passive smoking increased the risk of COPD.

Pete, you say that passive smoking causes cancer and there is proof, name three. SHS can certainly be an irritant to some people, and unpleasant for non-smokers, that is why I and most other smokers, as we became a sizeable minority over the years, respected the non-smoker, and fully understood and never complained about the fact that smoking was already restricted in most indoor public areas, places of work and transport. All I and my smoking friends, (and many tolerant non-smokers) want is separate smoking rooms in places of hospitality, with good ventilation, or if the place is too small, a choice for the owner/landlord to be smoking or non-smoking. 57 pubs a month are closing, most of these are traditional pubs, not gastric family places, but adult drinking places. rebecca, I believed that SHS could cause serious illness to the non-smoker until last year.I did some research, and found out that this draconian, unnecessary blanket ban is based on theories, assumptions and estimates from junk science - and there are some top medical scientists who have had the courage to come out and say that.

Pete, you say that passive smoking causes cancer and there is proof, name three. SHS can certainly be an irritant to some people, and unpleasant for non-smokers, that is why I and most other smokers, as we became a sizeable minority over the years, respected the non-smoker, and fully understood and never complained about the fact that smoking was already restricted in most indoor public areas, places of work and transport. All I and my smoking friends, (and many tolerant non-smokers) want is separate smoking rooms in places of hospitality, with good ventilation, or if the place is too small, a choice for the owner/landlord to be smoking or non-smoking. 57 pubs a month are closing, most of these are traditional pubs, not gastric family places, but adult drinking places. rebecca, I believed that SHS could cause serious illness to the non-smoker until last year.I did some research, and found out that this draconian, unnecessary blanket ban is based on theories, assumptions and estimates from junk science - and there are some top medical scientists who have had the courage to come out and say that.

im an none smoker,i hate the smell on my clothes,at the end of the day,there should have been air conditioning in smoking pubs,i didnt mind,look at pubs now there dead,so obviously none smokers had no probs anyway because majority of pub goers were smokers????

I think there should be smoking & non smoking pubs. Most people enjoy a ciggy & a drink. PC gone wrong again. The fumes from vechiles is wors than fumes from smoking but there is nothing done about that but again the smokers are targeted.BTW I dont smoke before the anti smokers get me!

What drivel. If it is only the smoking ban forcing Yates' out of business how come they can keep their other local pubs open? Once again a company finds someone else to blame. And personally one less source of alcohol and tobacco sounds good to me.

Where did Mandy go?

I used to live in Bly 10 yrs ago. Chicago has just gone non-smoking and they are having similar issues with bars. I think the powers that be are rather smart, they wouldn't dare ban smoking altogether or make it illegal (most municipalities would go bankrupt without the tax a smoker pays - 80% or more of the cost of cigs is TAX). So what would be funny is if the smoker could just not smoke on tuesdays for one month say and instead go to the pub after work (by then you'll be tearing your hair out 'cause you haven't had a fag all day!) and get plastered on your favourite brand of scotch whisky and annoy the hell out of smug non-smokers. Anyway, if my arithmatic still serves, this equates to a rather painfull tax deficit of 14.3% per week to the government and evidenced by the fact that certain whisky companies will have a had a substantial "spike" in sales. The Boot, (and that's not the pub), will be on the other foot as the non-smoker starts bleeting about his petrol and car and house tax has gone up an average of what shall we say...14.3%!! I've been smoking since I was 9, I'm well into my 40's and smoke about 25-30 a day and I know that the situation is not going to change, so I've just got to make things up like this and laugh about it!! There is some good from all this - you can now go out and have a spliff in peace without having to explain why you're going outside - see thee 'ron

ban smoking alltogether cancer on sticks you live through to find outwhat pain andsuffing it can cause i have my husband had lung cancer lucky hes still hear bold]

Pauline It's a pity Mandy hasn't stuck around to hear what you have to say.

Share this: Digg | del.icio.us | Furl | reddit | Facebook | Yahoo! | What's this?

What are these links for?

If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.

At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.

Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.

More on Digg

More on del.icio.us

More on Furl

More on reddit

More on NowPublic/

More on Yahoo!

Archive