# (poposed) UK smoking ban (in pubs/restaurants) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 8, 2004, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poposed-uk-smoking-ban-in-pubs-restaurants/278664 "2004-12-08T01:45:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poposed-uk-smoking-ban-in-pubs-restaurants/278664/61 "2004-12-09T11:24:59Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > Does that mean that Dublin airport is a more pleasant place now, then? (OK, that’s rather wishful thinking 😛 …) Well they now have a Sbarro that does rather nice pizza slices. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poposed-uk-smoking-ban-in-pubs-restaurants/278664/62 "2004-12-09T11:28:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Are they shown to do harm for “absurdly brief periods”? Benzene and its compounds are extremely hazardous molecules. We are talking about _how many_ molecules are ingested by a human being in the course of their work: long exposure to a weak source would equal brief exposure to a stronger source. What we are talking about here is exposure for that brief period of collecting glasses or whatever, in an air-conditioned room, containing a source that becomes very dilute _anyway_ in passive ingestion compared to smoking one of the things oneself. Such a dose, I believe, will be comparable to the dose you receive when you visit a petrol station. What is it about _outside_ that magically makes passive smoking disappear, exactly? Clearly, it is simply “better air-conditioning” that reduces the dose to infinitessimal levels. I am suggesting that if it can be proven that the levels in that room are comparable to those in the smoking zone _outside_, that a ban as extreme as Ireland’s is unnecessary. ---
**Author:** ![curly\_chick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7ba0ec/32.png) [@curly\_chick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curly_chick)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poposed-uk-smoking-ban-in-pubs-restaurants/278664/63 "2004-12-09T11:29:33Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > Yes, and I presume the law will remove the smoking zones in airports ( Why? According to the OP, the the proposed legislation is only concerned with restaurants and pubs where food is served. I spend a bit of time in UK airports and any of those that I’ve been in have smoking zones in areas where food is not served. So their removal can’t be part of this particular proposal. Of course, the _next_ anti-smoking law brought in might very well address these zones, and their removal, but for the moment, this first law hasn’t even been passed, never mind any future ones. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Death](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecccb3/32.png) [@Evil\_Death](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Death)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poposed-uk-smoking-ban-in-pubs-restaurants/278664/64 "2004-12-09T12:04:49Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > Unfortunately, many people have little choice but work in a pub. If they’re on benefits, and they refuse to apply for pub work (other than, eg, on religious grounds), then they can be stripped of all benefits. Sorry, GM, but that’s complete bullshit. Health issues are absolutely considered legitimate grounds not to apply for a job. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poposed-uk-smoking-ban-in-pubs-restaurants/278664/65 "2004-12-09T12:21:18Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > What we are talking about here is exposure for that brief period of collecting glasses or whatever, in an air-conditioned room, containing a source that becomes very dilute _anyway_ in passive ingestion compared to smoking one of the things oneself. Such a dose, I believe, will be comparable to the dose you receive when you visit a petrol station. Firstly, you seem to be arguing against the health risks of passive smoking, or am I misinterpreting? Secondly, it’s not necessarily ‘brief periods’ - what about somebody collecting glasses for an 8 hour shift, with one smoking room and one non-smoking? 4 hours exposure is hardly brief. > [@Evil Death](#): > > Sorry, GM, but that’s complete bullshit. Health issues are absolutely considered legitimate grounds not to apply for a job. Specific health issues, sure (e.g. asthma) - but would a Jobcentre really accept somebody refusing to work in any environment where smoking is permitted, purely because they want to avoid passive smoking? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poposed-uk-smoking-ban-in-pubs-restaurants/278664/66 "2004-12-09T12:31:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Firstly, you seem to be arguing against the health risks of passive smoking, or am I misinterpreting? I am associating health risk with benzene exposure and arguing that a smoking room could involve less benzene exposure to staff than many other jobs. > [@](#): > > Secondly, it’s not necessarily ‘brief periods’ - what about somebody collecting glasses for an 8 hour shift, with one smoking room and one non-smoking? Well, the stipulation could be that smokers take their glasses in and out _themselves_, but in any case the glass-collector could be told to collect the glasses only at intervals dictated by a health and safety policy, and stand outside the smoking room at all other times. For giggles, they could even come in wearing a full radiation suit. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poposed-uk-smoking-ban-in-pubs-restaurants/278664/67 "2004-12-09T12:59:34Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > I am associating health risk with benzene exposure and arguing that a smoking room could involve less benzene exposure to staff than many other jobs. There’s more than one carcinogen in cigarette smoke. And in any case, your argument could just as easily be used to make the case for increased protection for your example of petrol station workers. (And that’s still a fundamentally different example, because the presence of hazardous substances is integral to the operation of a petrol station.) ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poposed-uk-smoking-ban-in-pubs-restaurants/278664/68 "2004-12-09T13:09:54Z")
> [@](#): > > There’s more than one carcinogen in cigarette smoke. As there is in paint, traffic or whiskey fumes. Almost _all_ of them are based on benzene rings. > [@](#): > > And in any case, your argument could just as easily be used to make the case for increased protection for your example of petrol station workers. And that’s still a fundamentally different example, because the presence of hazardous substances is integral to the operation of a petrol station. OK, let’s exemplify not just the petrol station worker but the _outdoor_ worker in general - the postman, the traffic policeman, the road workman (or “person” if you prefer), whatever. What is their daily dose of harmful molecules? Let us call it X. Now, this dose might well lead to health problems: traffic pollution has long been linked to respiratory disorders. But is this _avoidable_? **Of course it is**. Those little charcoal filter masks which you see on cyclists - how easy it would be to stipulate that **everyone** working in or near traffic, or indeed experiencing a dose equal to or greater than X in the course of their work, wear one **by law**. And so what of the dose to the staff working in the bar or restaurant with the deadly smoking room? Given certain standards such as effective air-conditioning and containment and limits to the time they were allowed to spend in the room when people were smoking, would their dose be higher than X? If the dose to staff in such an establishment is shown to be _lower than X_, I can see no reason to make such rooms illegal. And even if it was _higher_ (which I _seriously_ doubt), well my precious wee glass retriever or whatever you are who absolutely has to go into the Room of Death, _put the frigging mask on_. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poposed-uk-smoking-ban-in-pubs-restaurants/278664/69 "2004-12-09T13:18:15Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Now, this dose might well lead to health problems: traffic pollution has long been linked to respiratory disorders. But is this _avoidable_? **Of course it is**. Those little charcoal filter masks which you see on cyclists - how easy it would be to stipulate that **everyone** working in or near traffic, or indeed experiencing a dose equal to or greater than X in the course of their work, wear one **by law**. Don’t be silly - give us a _realistic_ parallel to not allowing smoking in pubs. > [@](#): > > If the dose to staff in such an establishment is shown to be _lower than X_, I can see no reason to make such rooms illegal. If it were realistic to be able to monitor this accurately, then fine. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poposed-uk-smoking-ban-in-pubs-restaurants/278664/70 "2004-12-09T13:30:14Z")
> [@](#): > > Don’t be silly - give us a _realistic_ parallel to not allowing smoking in pubs. Eh? Are you arguing _ad numerum_ or _ad antiquitatem_ or something? We are speaking here of what dose of harmful chemicals a worker ought to be allowed to be exposed to in a working day, given that measures _could_ be taken to forcibly lower that dose via legislation. > [@](#): > > If it were realistic to be able to monitor this accurately, then fine. As accurately as in the original WHO report on passive smoking, say? ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poposed-uk-smoking-ban-in-pubs-restaurants/278664/71 "2004-12-09T13:37:12Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Eh? Are you arguing _ad numerum_ or _ad antiquitatem_ or something? We are speaking here of what dose of harmful chemicals a worker ought to be allowed to be exposed to in a working day, given that measures _could_ be taken to forcibly lower that dose via legislation. All true, but there’s a huge difference between simple rules (‘No smoking’), and ridiculous, complex, bureaucratic or intrusive ones like in your suggestions. > [@](#): > > As accurately as in the original WHO report on passive smoking, say? Note that I said _realistic_. Is it realistic for all your licenced smoking rooms to be constantly monitored in the way the WHO monitors a sample group for a set period of time? How would you implement this? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poposed-uk-smoking-ban-in-pubs-restaurants/278664/72 "2004-12-09T13:51:05Z")
> [@](#): > > All true, but there’s a huge difference between simple rules (‘No smoking’), and ridiculous, complex, bureaucratic or intrusive ones like in your suggestions. I’m arguing that _oversimple_ rules like Ireland’s are ridiculous, bureacratic and intrusive. > [@](#): > > Is it realistic for all your licenced smoking rooms to be constantly monitored in the way the WHO monitors a sample group for a set period of time? How would you implement this? Well, the dose in the room is a function of the amount of smoke and the efficacy of the air conditioner. So, on the original inspection, a portable smoke machine could be set to output a reasonable maximum of smoke assuming full room capacity and everyone chugging away like mad on Gauloises. The air conditioner would have to be capable of removing that smoke faster than it was being produced, such that the dose of harmful chemicals which the bar worker could expect to receive on a very busy night was still below that from other jobs. So, as long as the air conditioner indicated its operability reliably from then on, the room could be declared legal. Look, I _agree_ with limiting smoke in bars and restaurants: indeed, _I am a bar worker_ in that smoky pubs pay me to play guitar there. I am simply arguing that **_outside_ is effectively achievable _inside_** , and that Ireland’s ban is overly nannyish. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poposed-uk-smoking-ban-in-pubs-restaurants/278664/73 "2004-12-09T13:56:57Z")
I don’t see how Ireland’s simple, easy-to-understand ‘no smoking inside’ can be described as bureacratic. Having environmental health officers trekking around with smoke generators (and subsequent spot-checks that a/c units are working properly etc.) seems to fit that description far better. And who pays for all that time and equipment, anyway? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poposed-uk-smoking-ban-in-pubs-restaurants/278664/74 "2004-12-09T14:08:44Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t see how Ireland’s simple, easy-to-understand ‘no smoking inside’ can be described as bureacratic. And who goes around checking that the ban is being complied with, and prosecutes those in violation of it, both of which are unnecessary here at present? Bureaucrats, effectively. > [@](#): > > Having environmental health officers trekking around with smoke generators (and subsequent spot-checks that a/c units are working properly etc.) seems to fit that description far better. Env health officers must inspect such properties _anyway_ - the smoking room would be just another tick on the list. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poposed-uk-smoking-ban-in-pubs-restaurants/278664/75 "2004-12-09T14:35:48Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > And who goes around checking that the ban is being complied with, and prosecutes those in violation of it, both of which are unnecessary here at present? Bureaucrats, effectively. So you object to inspections to enforce a ban, but approve of inspections to enforce a selective-licence system? How is the latter less bureaucratic? > [@](#): > > Env health officers must inspect such properties _anyway_ - the smoking room would be just another tick on the list. It would be a lot more than a ‘tick’ - getting the smoke generator to accurately get the room to a simulated 10pm-Friday-night will take hours. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poposed-uk-smoking-ban-in-pubs-restaurants/278664/76 "2004-12-09T14:41:57Z")
> [@](#): > > So you object to inspections to enforce a ban, but approve of inspections to enforce a selective-licence system? No. I argue that Ireland’s ban requires just as much bureaucracy as allowing smoking rooms. > [@](#): > > It would be a lot more than a ‘tick’ - getting the smoke generator to accurately get the room to a simulated 10pm-Friday-night will take hours. Which is why the smoke generator need only be used to test different models of air conditioner in different sized rooms rather than literally hoofed around town, which is the basis of all standardised testing. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poposed-uk-smoking-ban-in-pubs-restaurants/278664/77 "2004-12-09T14:44:40Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Which is why the smoke generator need only be used to test different models of air conditioner in different sized rooms rather than literally hoofed around town, which is the basis of all standardised testing. But we still need checks to ensure the a/c units in the pubs are maintained and functioning correctly. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poposed-uk-smoking-ban-in-pubs-restaurants/278664/78 "2004-12-09T14:51:27Z")
> [@](#): > > But we still need checks to ensure the a/c units in the pubs are maintained and functioning correctly. As we do _already_ to ensure that they are not an electrical hazard. ---
**Author:** ![fortytwo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f9ae1b/32.png) [@fortytwo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fortytwo)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poposed-uk-smoking-ban-in-pubs-restaurants/278664/79 "2004-12-09T15:16:06Z")
I feel a bit guilty about interrupting this but just because something is “part of the culture” doesn’t mean that it can never be changed. There are many things not allowed today which previously were allowed. As a life- long drinker but an ex-smoker I take heart from the Irish experience, and I think people here would also take it in their stride. I don’t like the government poking their nose into personal business (but that’s what they seem to do best!) but the smoking lobby don’t appear to want to compromise. As an example my local club were threatened with closure if they didn’t fit air conditioning and filters and keep the doors shut to prevent a noise nuisance to immediate neighbours. They complied, and the atmosphere in the club was much better, but as time has gone by they switch off the a/c and open the windows again because the humming fans “are too noisy”. Another warning has been issued by the council… Most non-smokers of my experience don’t give a monkey’s if someone else smokes, they just want to breathe clean air and clothes that don’t smell like an ashtray. I have only ever found one complete non-smoking pub (it’s in Stratford on Avon if anybody wants to know) but I spoke to the manager there. The pub was absolutely packed out and I asked if him it was unusual. He said that they were as busy as before the ban, with a few smokers moving to other pubs but being replaced by non-smokers. He also said that the majority of smokers stayed as regulars but went outside when the need arose. I would prefer the trade to take the responsibility on themselves, but if they don’t then I would have no problem accepting a new law. It’s true you see, there’s nothing worse than an ex-smoker. ---
**Author:** ![Unregistered\_Bull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3da27b/32.png) [@Unregistered\_Bull](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unregistered_Bull)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poposed-uk-smoking-ban-in-pubs-restaurants/278664/80 "2004-12-09T16:23:35Z")
It’s about time for the UK to ban smoking. The UK is supposed to be a freedom hating, nanny state. It wouldn’t be keeping up with this image by not attacking yet another freedom. You don’t like something because its unpleasant or unhealthy, then don’t do it. This includes going to someplace that allows smoking even if its for a job. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poposed-uk-smoking-ban-in-pubs-restaurants/278664.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/poposed-uk-smoking-ban-in-pubs-restaurants/278664.md?page=5)