my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » No smoking ban starts 1st July in UK (Page 2)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Author Topic: No smoking ban starts 1st July in UK Paul Mayer Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under! Posts: 3836 From: Albuquerque, NM Registered: Feb 2000 posted 06-30-2007 07:30 PM                        After a referendum vote last year Nevada banned all indoor smoking, including bars and restaurants. The ban doesn't apply to casino gaming areas. But gaming and smoking largely go together, and many "bar & grill" establishments that have gaming but aren't big enough to be classed as casinos have noted a large drop off in business and gaming revenue. These businesses are either shutting down their restaurant operations or installing barriers and air handlers to separate the smoking bar from the non-smoking restaurant areas, in an effort to retain their smoking and gambling (and profit making) clientele. The large casinos lobbied hard to make sure the smoking ban didn't apply to their gaming areas. Many bars here in 'Vegas have refused to enforce the ban and are working to bring a class-action lawsuit against the state to ease up on the ban or get it overturned. Meanwhile another referendum is in the works to get indoor smoking banned outright anywhere in the state, including the big casinos. The next legislative session (in 2009) should be a fun one to watch. It's mostly people new to the state that are pushing for this. Long-time Nevadans are quite libertarian (and ornery and contrarian to boot) and don't like the idea of government (or large numbers of newbies) telling them what they can or can't do. The tradition here always was to leave people alone to do what they want and to not get involved in other peoples' affairs. And we had enough space to pretty much allow for that. But thanks to the insane uncontrolled growth we're had here for the last 15 years or so the old-timers and their traditions are way outnumbered now. Nevada (at least in Clark and Washoe counties) ain't the wide open Old West it once was.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-30-2007 07:51 PM                     quote: Paul Mayer and many "bar & grill" establishments that have gaming but aren't big enough to be classed as casinos have noted a large drop off in business and gaming revenue. Of course they are going to loose... as long as thaere is some other place to go smoke. That a good three.... Duh's in a row for the stupid people that let the politicians in office gat away with it! Mark  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 06-30-2007 08:00 PM                     quote: Ken McFall I'm impressed that you voted against something that you really would have enjoyed and benefted from. It's the principle. If I want to have a drink I don't HAVE to go to a bar that has smoking. I CHOOSE to go. Just like I could've gone to a bar that had no smoking but out of convenience I went to a closer one (and made sure my smoke-filled clothes went straight into the washer what with my allergic family member and all). Granted, now that the issue passed I personally enjoy the situation more but I don't like how it came about.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 06-30-2007 08:03 PM                        Eugene banned smoking in most workplaces and restaurants years ago (2000 I think), and in bars more recently. It's also illegal to smoke within 10 feet of an entrance or open windows of any public building. The bars and smokers whined about how they were being discriminated against and they'd go out of business blah blah. Turns out it didn't really hurt any businesses as far as I can tell. Some bars have outdoor areas for smokers, some have no special smoking accommodations, and they all seem to stay in business. I find that most smokers around here these days are fairly courteous about keeping their smoke to themselves.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 06-30-2007 08:25 PM                     quote: Long-time Nevadans are quite libertarian (and ornery and contrarian to boot) and don't like the idea of government (or large numbers of newbies) telling them what they can or can't do. But thanks to the insane uncontrolled growth we're had here for the last 15 years or so the old-timers are way outnumbered now. I agree our local and federal governments shouldn't be getting involved in the lives and people and telling them what to do -for the most part. I feel anyone should be able to do whatever he wants so long as that activity isn't affecting anyone else. The problem is smoking does affect other people directly through 2nd hand smoke and indirectly from all the costs of the long term habit. Businesses are hit with lost productivity. The cost of health care and insurance are hiked. And a greater share of our taxes go to paying for it as well. As I said earlier, more than half the smokers in my state have no health insurance. If/when they get cancer or heart disease directly from that risky activity that cost is passed on to everyone else. And that just isn't very fair. My own opinion is anyone can choose to smoke if he/she wants to do so -as long as they can foot the whole bill for the health problems that are likely to result from that filthy habit. If that would be smoker can't foot the bill and chooses to smoke anyway, then I'll regard that person as an irresponsible, selfish dick. That's the flip side of the "liberatian" ideal. Doing whatever you want has to be coupled with being 100% responsible for the consequences of that activity. Americans don't want to acknowledge that other side of the coin. They want the fun without the cost. That's why we can't have things like diving boards at swimming pools anymore -not even at a private residence. It raises the cost of home owner's insurance premiums too high. This is all because we can't direct the blame and responsibility at its true culprit. If I smack my head on a diving board, splitting open my skull on the way into the pool, it is all my fault. It isn't the fault of the person who owns the home or the pool. It isn't the fault of the company who made the diving board. But fun-ruining attorneys in search of big paydays everywhere misdirect blame at other parties and wind up getting things like diving boards banned. I'm also a bit pissed off that I cannot buy bottle rockets in my state anymore. Arkansas is the nearest state where you can buy bottle rockets legally. I have heard that a nationwide ban on bottle rockets will be put into effect in 2008. We can thank the combination of lawyers and accident prone klutzes for all of that. It's never the fault of the idiot who hurt himself. It's always someone else's fault.  |  IP: Logged Aaron Mehocic Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 804 From: New Castle, PA, USA Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-30-2007 09:10 PM                     Pittsburgh and surrounding Allegheny County went smoke free back in May, but a court overturned the decision some thirteen or fourteen hours later. Since I don't go down there too much anymore I'm not quite sure what the status is currently. My State Senator (not Federal) was on local radio last week proposing a law to exempt the casino they want to build on the North Shore near Heinz Field and PNC Park. These smoking bans would have more meaning to me if I was still hitting the bars, but I fear those days may be gone for a very long time.  |  IP: Logged Warren Smyth Expert Film Handler Posts: 158 From: Auckland ,New Zealand Registered: Aug 2003 posted 06-30-2007 09:39 PM                     A smoking ban in work and public places such as restaurants and bars have existed in New Zealand for some years. After a few scare complaints about alleged loss of business from bar owners at first, it was accepted and is no longer an issue. Smoking in theatres has never been permitted. A health warning is required on each packet of cigarettes and tobacco sold here and there has even been a suggestion by a politician that this should be extended to films which show actors smoking. With the high level of product placement in films these days, it is assumed that people should have a right to have these movies identified before sending their kids to see them. Obviously it wouldn't prevent kids from seeing these films but at least it might prompt timely discussion between parent and child about the dangers of the activities they see on the screen. It may even go some way to countering this concealed form of promotion. There is already a ban here on cigarette and tobacco advertising in local media. Given that hundreds of thousands of women were encouraged to smoke by films of the nineteen thirties and forties, perhaps the film industry owes it to its patrons to sacrifice the bucks and do the moral thing, by stopping the nicotine promotions. Oh I forgot, this is the film industry!  |  IP: Logged Justin Gorka Expert Film Handler Posts: 174 From: High Wycombe, England Registered: Apr 2006 posted 06-30-2007 09:40 PM                     Nevada had a referendum? We never have such luxuries here. The government just rides roughshod over out civil liberties. the are even calling for a ration on how much people drink! Big Brother is alive and well in the UK and ....Yes I am a smoker but the ban in pubs would not really bother me as most of my friends are non-smokers!  |  IP: Logged Warren Smyth Expert Film Handler Posts: 158 From: Auckland ,New Zealand Registered: Aug 2003 posted 06-30-2007 10:02 PM                     quote: Justin Gorka The government just rides roughshod over out civil liberties Unfortunately, Big Brother, including your National Health System has to pick up the tab for activities that result in medical cost blowouts. In short everyone pays. It really comes down to a conflict between the right of smokers to continue feeding their addiction at any location they wish, against the right of non smokers to breathe air free from the contamination of nicotine. It is the role of Government to balance these rights as they do in restricting alcohol consumption and driving.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 06-30-2007 11:59 PM                     Money is the real issue in the end. The folks who feel they need to be able to smoke, drink and eat whatever they want and however as much as they want need to balance that with personal responsibility. If they were held to 100% responsibility to the costs of those actions they damned sure would not be doing it in the first place. Therefore, I think the folks who yell about smokers rights, rights of eating like a gluttonous, corpulent pig and rights of drinking like Dean Martin are all hypocritical pricks. They're full of shit. If they had to pay all of the cost for their vice-ridden activities they wouldn't be yelling about it in the first place. They want to party and make the government, or big business, or the general public pay for it. They deserve a middle finger in response. We have been having to carry those bastards for too long. It's time we dump them off a cliff. [ 07-01-2007, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-01-2007 12:10 AM                        Bobby - ever heard Denis Leary's rant about cigarettes? "You could put 'em in a black pack, with a skull and crossbones on the front, and name 'em TUMORS, and charge a hundred bucks a pack, and you know what? WE'RE STILL GONNA SMOKE, OKAY?"  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 07-01-2007 12:25 AM                     And my response to Dennis Leary is, "smoke like a flaming chimney stack as long as you pay 100% for your own lung cancer and heart attacks and keep that stinking shit away from me." Smokers-rights types seem to all fall short of that one little requirement. They want to smoke. But they want everyone else to pay for the costs of the consequences. Sorry, but that dog just won't hunt.  |  IP: Logged Rick Hunter Master Film Handler Posts: 452 From: Melbourne, Australia Registered: Feb 2003 posted 07-01-2007 12:29 AM                     Eating areas and public places have been smoke free for years here, now it is the pubs turn. I bet the sky does not fall in.... The Melbourne Age NOSTALGIA, anger and nicotine mixed with the last curls of cigarette smoke as Melburnians begun getting used to smoke-free pubs last night. At the Labour In Vain in Brunswick Street, Fitzroy, a "Farewell Cigarette Party" was thrown to see off what some described as an old friend. Music by David Bowie (Ashes to Ashes) and Oasis (Cigarettes and Alcohol) set the tone as people basked in the indoor heat with a smoke and a drink for the last time. Barman and smoker Luke Stockdale said life in Melbourne's pubs would never be the same. "It's a celebration of the remaining freedom we have to hang out, drink and smoke at the same time," he said. "It's like having a mate go overseas; you're happy for him but sad at the same time." Swede Jonas Bylund said he had cut back from about five packs a week to one since similar laws were introduced in Sweden two years ago. But he said going out had become a lot more boring and he feared the new ban would make Victoria a duller place. Simon Scrase said he was not looking forward to smoking in the winter cold. Down the road at the Rainbow pub, Ali Holloway said the law would make smokers more marginalised. "I don't want to spend the night on the street." But barmaid Sarah McDonald was more positive. "We have a band play every Sunday who have had members get cancer. So we have a no-smoking rule every Sunday and it's one of our busiest days." At the blue-collar Spottiswoode Hotel in Spotswood manager and licensee Themi Babalis reckons he could lose up to 40 per cent of his business because of the ban. The Cancer Council of Victoria is putting extra counsellors on its Quit Line to cope with an expected jump in demand.  |  IP: Logged Chris Hipp Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1462 From: Mesquite, Tx (east of Dallas) Registered: Jul 2003 posted 07-01-2007 02:33 AM                     Very sad to hear. I cringe at notion of any level of government putting bans in place. It should be the decision of business owners and their patrons to determine if a place of business should be smoke free. If there is a significant market for smoke free businesses then they will open up or existing owners will make the change, which most have without needing a gun to their heads. I am not a smoker and I choose where I take my money. Certain restaurants will only serve food for to-go orders from the bar after a certain time. The bar is not smoke free so I don't go to said restaurant after whatever time. The restaurant owner has the right to allow smoking in his or her establishment and I have the right to eat somewhere else, just how it should be. There are certain risks that you have to accept when you decide on a certain job. To say that a ban is needed to protect the lives of the bartenders and wait staff is utter nonsense. There are countless jobs with higher danger factors than second hand smoke and the people who take these jobs know and accept those risks before hand. I also agree with Bobby that no one else should be paying for someone else's lifestyle decisions. I should not have to pay for anyone else's healthcare, period. Does not matter if it is self inflicted, natural or accidental. I do some activities that are inherently dangerous and I am the one who will have to bear the cost when my recreational activities end up biting me in the butt. Bottom line is that governments do not ban one thing and then stop. Any law or ban is simply a means to allow for a bigger ban or law later on. Some call me paranoid, but history has shown that paranoia is always the best approach when dealing with government. I feel sorry for anyone who believes that their government has their best intentions in mind.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 07-01-2007 02:47 AM                        What about places like concert venues? I think it would be a lot easier for a smoker to enjoy a concert in a non-smoking facility than it would be for a non-smoker to enjoy it in a smoking facility. Basically if the place allows smoking and you want to see the concert, you're fucked right up the anus without any lube whatsoever. You can't choose to go and see the concert at a different location that doesn't allow smoking. And when you don't show up and spend your money, they have no clue WHY you aren't spending your money there. It's not like you'd show up and say "Hey, I'd pay $40 or more to see this concert tonight, but I won't since you allow smoking". They'd just assume that the musical act isn't as popular as they thought it might be. I think gambling and smoking are closely related to each other in most people's minds because both are incredibly stupid activities that only retards and spastics participate in. But it is true, if you gamble you most likely smoke. Maybe a brain defect?  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.