smoke free union?

[Amanda]

"Resign..."

there speaks someone who obviously has enough money to be able to be picky about what job they get to pay their way through university. if they indeed work at all.

some people, huh.

[Amanda]

It looks like lots of you are going to get your wish in the near future, the British govt are definately watching to see how the Irish ban works, and it seems to be pretty successful so far

good stuff, i for one would be really pleased to see a ban like this implemented.

[Al]

"i for one would be really pleased to see a ban like this implemented"

Then I fear you will be disappointed as any ban would have to come from the Scottish Parliament, and with approximately 1000000 smokers in Scotland they are not going to do anything hasty. In fact, the Scottish Executive has already said that they have no plans to follow the Irish experiment.

[hr]Life is too important to be taken seriously.

[Bonnie]

The Scottish Executive already put a ban on smoking in places of work (hence Nicola and Ben are so grumpy lately, the SSS staff are often seen in the Union carpark now, and Ben is more often seen in the Main Bar during office hours-- and Bruce has an even bigger smirk on his face).
Politicians looking for the housewife "I'll save your children" vote will try to push it through.

[hr]I love cheese.

[mdec]

[s]Al wrote on 08:09, 18th Apr 2004:and with approximately 1000000 smokers in Scotland they are not going to do anything hasty.
[/i]

What about the other 4,000,000 non-smokers?

[Pandora]

I think that a ban on smoking in bars is inevitable. Since other parts of the world have done it (Ireland , parts of America) it will become more widespread with other countries doing it. Scotland will eventually have no choice but to follow the trend.

[paloma]

I am not really taking a stand on the issue but would like to present this interesting factoid that rarely comes up in conversation. My cousin (non-smoker) went clubbing in New York before and after the non-smoking ban was introduced and said that after it was absolutely horrible. Why? Because with no smoke to mask the smells, you could smell vomit, spilled beer and, worst of all, sweat and body odour really strongly. The drunken, sweatty, dancing crowd gave off such a stench you could appearantly mistake it for a locker room after a football match on a hot day. This applied to the bop, for example, sounds less than appealing. I am not of the opinion that smoking is a better option but I wonder if bars are going to try to deal with this problem, and what they could actually do to solve it.

[underworlddreams]

According to a pub trade newspaper I was reading yesterday, the CEO of JD Wetherspoons, one of the largest chains in the country, has come out backing an entire banning of smoking in public places, saying that pubs and restaurants would recover eventually from the lull in trade as they've done in California. But, in a typical manner of anyone saying something controversial, he says that JDW won't be putting a ban into place in there own pubs until the government does something about it.

Now, as a smoker myself, I'd be kinda worried about banning smoking - it smells to much of the 'nanny state' syndrome that nobody really likes. However, if it were to be passed, I'm sure I'd be happy about it (and it'd be extra motivation to give up permanently.)

[hr]They say that if you play a Windows Install CD backwards, you hear satanic messages. That's nothing - play it forwards, and it installs Windows...

[Mr Comedy]

I think the issue of smoking bans causes two main problems, that would need to be adressed.
The first one is a logisitical problem. What would be the impact upon other members of the public if there were large group of smokers on the street, and a number of these (especially in somewhere like St Andrews) being drunk?
Would this cause problems for pedestrians?
Problems for the police?

The second point that needs to be addressed is that of enforcement. To what extent will bars feel able to enforce a ban on smoking, and how will they comply?
How much resources will need to be diverted into detecting smoking, and will there be a fine system for not only smoking clientele, but bar owners?
Will it create extra problems for an already overstretched police force?

Although the idea is an interesting one, there needs to be a serious evaluation of the socio-economic effects of such a move.

[hr]"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung

[iohannes]

[s]Bonnie wrote on 08:27, 18th Apr 2004:
Ben is more often seen in the Main Bar during office hours--

Shouldn't he be in the office during office hours?

[Mr Comedy]

There is no shame in having a bar as your office..

[Bonnie]

In a way, it's highly appropriate and conducive to that line of work.

[hr]I love cheese.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Really though, I'm not sure the nanny-state argument really applies so much here as polls seem to suggest that quite a high percentage of people (as demonstrated here) are fully in favour of a ban.

[Biitchboy]

[s]Prophet Tenebrae wrote on 13:56, 18th Apr 2004:
Really though, I'm not sure the nanny-state argument really applies so much here as polls seem to suggest that quite a high percentage of people (as demonstrated here) are fully in favour of a ban.


I don't think it's right for the government to impose on business owners whether they can smoke or not in their establishments. If you don't like the smoke, don't go in. And if there were a non-smoking bar to open, I'm sure it would get alot of business.

I'm not a smoker, so I'm not saying this out of self-interest. I just would oppose any ban on smoking like this. I believe in a thing called liberal negative freedom.

[hr]
If I gave a shit, you'd be the first person I'd give it to.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~lgbtsoc
*This post does not necessarily reflect the views of the society*

[RaphX]

As another post is made about whether it's right for the government to impose on business owners whether people can smoke in their establishments, this thread has looped once more.

[Biitchboy]

[s]RaphX wrote on 14:09, 18th Apr 2004:
As another post is made about whether it's right for the government to impose on business owners whether people can smoke in their establishments, this thread has looped once more.


God can people just stop being so bloody miserable and anal about grammar, and thread etiquette, and shit like that. What was the need in posting that?

[hr]
If I gave a shit, you'd be the first person I'd give it to.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~lgbtsoc
*This post does not necessarily reflect the views of the society*

[mdec]

[s]Biitchboy wrote on 14:01, 18th Apr 2004:
If you don't like the smoke, don't go in.

So you go into a pub or a restaurant where no-one is smoking, get halfway through your meal, then someone comes in a decides to have a fag right next to you. What do you do, leave half-way through your meal? Personally I'd ask them to not smoke next to me ,but the abuse I get from these arrogant ignorant stupid f**kers that smoke is quite something...

[Elvis]

As a barman in the union, one of the most annoying things about the job is having to constantly tell smokers not to smoke at the bar.

To be fair, most people are quite apologetic but you do get the odd twit (almost always male) who either ignores you or makes their unhappiness well known. Not particularly important but I just thought I'd get this gripe off my back!

Also in response to the Union staff's post earlier - like so many other workplaces, the non-smoking area is not sufficiently divided from the (unreasonably larger) smoking area - it's just one big room and the smoke just drifts across.

Ventilation for the Union staff? At the bar there are air vents over the barmen but they are practically useless - clean air is not pumped through, it just wafts through since it's basically a pipe connected to a hole in the exterior wall. The bar staff aren't protected at all from the smoke (much less glass collectors).

Basically the non-smoking area should (a) be larger than the smoking area and (b) be physically separated.

The current arrangement is just paying lip service to smoking/non-smoking areas; when in reality there isn't any useful distinction between the smoking/non-smoking areas in the main lounge bar. Despite signs around the non-smoking areas, it is only really enforced by not supplying ashtrays in those areas more than anything else.

[Rapunzel]

[s]underworlddreams wrote on 09:30, 18th Apr 2004:
According to a pub trade newspaper I was reading yesterday, the CEO of JD Wetherspoons, one of the largest chains in the country, has come out backing an entire banning of smoking in public places,

But you have to remember that this is the same chain of bars that recently caused controversy by suggesting they ban swearing in their bars...

[Biitchboy]

[s]Rapunzel wrote on 19:28, 18th Apr 2004:
But you have to remember that this is the same chain of bars that recently caused controversy by suggesting they ban swearing in their bars...


They don't play music either. What's next? Banning alcohol in pubs?

[hr]
If I gave a shit, you'd be the first person I'd give it to.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~lgbtsoc
*This post does not necessarily reflect the views of the society*