Community Terms & Conditions
Content standards
These content standards apply to any and all material which you contribute to our site (contributions), and to any interactive services associated with it.
You must comply with the spirit of the following standards as well as the letter. The standards apply to each part of any contribution as well as to its whole.
Contributions must:
be accurate (where they state facts);
be genuinely held (where they state opinions); and
comply with applicable law in the UK and in any country from which they are posted.
Contributions must not:
contain any material which is defamatory of any person; or
contain any material which is obscene, offensive, hateful or inflammatory; or
promote sexually explicit material; or
promote violence;
promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation or age; or
infringe any copyright, database right or trade mark of any other person; or
be likely to deceive any person; or
be made in breach of any legal duty owed to a third party, such as a contractual duty or a duty of confidence; or
promote any illegal activity; or
be threatening, abuse or invade another’s privacy, or cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety; or
be likely to harass, upset, embarrass, alarm or annoy any other person; or
be used to impersonate any person, or to misrepresent your identity or affiliation with any person; or
give the impression that they emanate from us, if this is not the case; or
advocate, promote or assist any unlawful act such as (by way of example only) copyright infringement or computer misuse.
Nurturing a safe environment
Our Silversurfers community is designed to foster friendships, based on trust, honesty, integrity and loyalty and is underpinned by these values.
We don't tolerate swearing, and reserve the right to remove any posts which we feel may offend others... let's keep it friendly!
The boat is sinking, who do we throw out the boat ?...Or The boat is sinking, i suggest those that are able and willing to swim along-side by holding on please do-so as it ''May'' prolong the inevitable out come of a sinking ship !...
If it also keeps Nigel Farage out of pubs then that in itself is worth keeping the ban.
I as a female used to do the same and as the same would have pint and fag in hand. Then the wives decided that they would like to go to the pub at five o'clock and then I heard the comment 'We could bring the kids down so they did. Then it was, 'it's a shame they don't do food cos we could have tea here' so they did. Then it was the great smoking debate and the law was passed - Now you can't find a normal pub, there has to be an extensive menu, comfort and kids catering - give me strength the pub was never masquerading as an eating house/restaurant but that is what it has had to become to survive and despite best efforts, hundreds of pubs have closed because they cannot invest or evolve into a food place - just a plain drinking house with smoking would be such a refreshing change! Men now have nowhere to just unwind and get away from the women which is what the pub was for and have become emasculated because of this constant pink fluffy culture - respect the differences of the sexes and I just wish the pub culture would come back.
Surely the amount of people who have stopped smoking since this ban can only be good for our environment.
(1) prior to the ban I would go home and the smell of cigarettes clings to your clothes etc so you go home smelling vile.
(2) More importantly it's a major health hazard and as a public health issue the non smoking public should not be exposed to other people's cigarette smoke.
I also believe the smoking ban should be taken one step further and outside smoking areas be removed from doorways and set up at a distance from other pub users; again in order to protect the non smoking public.
free choice there must be consideration as to effect on others.
Perhaps it is because there are no real grounds to allow smoking and there is little evidence and factual comment supporting their views.
Thankfully the 'NO's' have it.
Not only is there a risk of passive smoking the smell that lingers on your clothes is disgusting.
I know 2 pubs and one hotel where the owners have confirmed that the costs associated with cleaning, decorating and damage done by cigarettes has diminished significantly.
Just look around the environment and see how many cigarette buts litter our streets, parks etc.
The tax on cigarettes should be increased significantly to cover the costs that are incurred by others.
In my opinion it is a disgusting anti social habit.
Each subject should be viewed and addressed on its own implications.
Oh really they don't steal then why did so many places have to secure them as too many were being stolen.
No harm when driving. So you think that a cigarette dropped by a driver is not a risk ??
There is no way that should ever be allowed to happen . People can take ages getting ready to go out for the evening , all dressed up , smelling really nice and then they step over the pub threshold and walk straight into the stink of smokers . Yes STINK and that includes those vaping things aswell . You wouldn't want to sit in a smelly toilet all evening would you ? ? ? . Well that's what it would be like for us non smokers sitting in a place where you smokers frequent . So take the hint YOU SMELL and we don't want to .
It was filthy smokers that were partly responsible for me avoiding pubs since the early 90's. A smoke filled atmosphere, overflowing ashtrays ugh! Iffy toilets, high prices (a glass of lemonade dearer than a beer!)
The industry has only itself to blame.
Perhaps your life in a smoke filled environment was the major cause !
So anyone who disagrees with you is a lunatic ?
Could people therefore wonder if it was your pub that was the asylum ?
As people who self harm, I also think smokers should pay each time they use the NHS with smoking related health problems.
Roy Castle was well loved, but was killed with Cancer by others selfish drug abuse. As Roy himself did not smoke.
Kill yourselves with Nicotine if you want, not other people.
You have every right not to want to be around smokers as some people don't want to be around drinkers. They deal with it by not going to places where people drink you can deal with it by going to a non smoking pub and I should have the right to decide to use a smoking pub If I want
Compromise is what is needed not nanny state blanket bans
There is nothing more obnoxious to none smokers than the stench of smoke tainting the air they breath and food and drink they consume in public bars and cafe's.
Smoking is a disgusting mindless habit that damages the health of everyone from babies, children, toddlers, teenagers right up to seniors and also animals too.
I say ban it altogether, never mind just in public places.
The cost of soft drinks on many occasions cost more than alcohol.
We are living in a changing world and unless you address constant change you will fail.
Why not blame the EU, perhaps that leads to another argument to whether we should leave.
I loathe drunks in pubs. Letching, foul mouthed, touchy feely drunks who reek of stale beer. I also loathe live bands in pub bars - far too loud for conversation so to be avoided like the plague. They should be in the village hall. I don't go there anymore.
Seems like the only sensible answer is to restrict alcohol to 2 drinks per person, then the above won't offend.
You see...............2 sides to every story.
Live and let live I say.
I apologise if there was no punctuation, I have dementia and quite often put wrong words also . I am doing well if it was legible.
I dislike all the things you mention also, plus a whole lot more.
You would think I wouldn't as I was a trouble shooting public house manager for over 35 years but there was no, no smoking pubs then.
Enjoy your day
Sonya
Live and let live by totalling banning smoking!
I hate the anger here. It is so negative.
Of course smokers can be accommodated. A room can be put aside for them but, so staff aren't affected, they should order drinks from the main bar - once they've put their ciggy out.
Years ago children weren't allowed in pubs and, instead, sat in the car, or outside, with a bottle of pop and bag of crisps.
What outcry there'd be if that was reinstated!
I strongly believe that everyone should be considered.
So, having given you a picture of my addiction, you may be surprised when I say NO to having all areas open for smoking; I do however think if there were Smoking Lounges available, I might socialise again, and some licensed premises would win back clientele.
A recent professional conversation about the amount of lonely elders raised the point that (retired men in particular) would socialise over a pint and a cig - and/or have a bar lunch to save them cooking, but many chose not to go out now hence their isolation, which in part is attributable to the smoking ban.
We are so used to clean air in public establishments now that allowing smoking again would be an entirely retrograde step in my opinion.
Went for a drink ' you would return home
Smelling like a woodbine ! or any other of the crappy weeds
That people would smoke,
Stopping smoking in pubs has been one of
Best New laws we have had ,
I believe that people in future
Will look back and have a good laugh at the
Ways our parents behaved
Especially when I think of all the stinking
Passive smoking that we were forced to
Endure as 60s kids from our post-war baby booming society
Though at the time it was just the norm
As most of the other brainless fads
Brought on by mans empty desires
Smokers trying to kick the habit are now relieved of some of the temptation to start again....the big tobacco companies will campaign against the ban, but the hospital cancer wards and Macmillan nurses may welcome the lower caseloads!
You didn't have to do it did you?
Yes I was paid, except when playing on charity benefit occasions.
The money didn't do more than cover my expenses.
I played because I enjoyed doing so, and every venue allowed smoking, so there was nowhere else to play.
I really do not understand how playing for nothing would have saved me from the stink of smokers.
I would like to have a designated and ventilated room, but not in a restaurant area or other place where children and non smokers are.
I don't (and never have) smoked in non smokers homes - but the ban has not restricted my smoking, if anything I smoke more now and I go out less, so drink and socialise more at home. I have private health insurance cover and don't expect NHS to pick up the tab for smoking related ill health should it affect me in future.
His wife then got up and insisted they leave. One up to me but it could have turned nasty.
on your clothes, in your hair.
I am sure the landlord's are happy that general business in the bar or restaurant has picked up
after getting rid of that disgusting habit!
Sadly tobacco companies are still in existence and also strongly peddling their toxic wares to 3rd world countries despite it being well known that smoking causes cancer and often kills
You clearly don't let facts get in the way of your views.
I got on a 'smoke free' bus yesterday and a guy was stubbing out his cigarette on the pavement (for someone else to have to pick up) and sat next to me.
The smell was disgusting and had I not been getting off at the next but one stop I would have moved.
I have never smoked in my life apart from 1 fag when I was three which nearly choked me to death, so luckily I never bothered after that. However, I am a firm believer in freedom of choice and this is something we have lost and are all paying the EU heavily for while we remain in the EU. I do believe that smoking should be banned in public places where smokers and non-smokers have to mix. That is a law which our useless politicians in Westminster are fully capable of implementing without having to rely on the EU imposing it.
I gave up and the benefits have improved my life incredibly. I can drive my car again, I use my electric mobility scooter less and can walk more .
Any exposure to cigarette smoke especially for bar staff
Yes, I am an addict - but not a selfish anti-social person as many people present anyone who smokes. The Income Tax, NI, and Tax on cigarettes I have paid over 46 years will not be expected to pay for NHS treatment should I need it - I have personal health insurance for this
Furthermore, I wouldn't thank Mr Farage for any of his 'dreamland' proposed policies
I definitely wouldn't want this particularly nasty pastime to return to public places.
How many more Pub's etc. are going to close.
All we want is a smoking only bar.
Why should we have to stand out in the Cold and Rain to enjoy our pleasure?
your mouth then setting fire to it a pleasure???
At the time of the debate in 2006, Messrs Pell, Hewitt and Flint stated that 11,000 people were dying every year from inhaling Secondary smoke and 160,000 from FHS.
We have no official record of anyone dying from SHS. ( Mr Castle smoked cigars). ONS states 37,135 (yearly average over ten years) lung cancer deaths per annum but does not say how many were smokers, miners, drug addicts, worked with Asbestos, hereditary related, used Fluoride toothpaste etc etc.. So no clear evidence released by successive governments. Why?
In 2011 major study showed no ill effects from SHS. Study conducted by anti-smoking people!!
Lets show the world. Have smoking and non-smoking venues. Everyone is happy, including me who has seen an incredible amount of Pubs, Clubs and Bingo halls close.
Ask this question of yourself. How many people did you know that died of SHS? Can you name them? What is written of their Death Certificate?
UK is the only place where laws are made of somebodies 'Anti' feeling, rather than fact. Now that's a FACT!!
Can't see them stepping outside to the awaiting paps to have a quick ciggie.
Seriously though, very soon smoking will inevitably be banned outside and in cars so all smokers will be forced to smoke in their garden sheds I suppose, as most won't smoke indoors.
That's ironic, of course, but I strongly believe we are becoming a dictatorial society, very judgemental, selfish and mean spirited.
So.....Let's find a solution which keeps all parties happy.
And never forget the old adage....They shoot horses don't they!
One thing that is never mentioned in this debate is the most simple and fundamental common sense solution, and that is: some establishments, whether office or eatery allow smoking and some do not. Let the business owner choose. Is it too much to ask that non-smokers patronize non-smoking establishments? The part I have never understood (and the mentality that scares the you-know-what out of me) is why the extreme anti's insist - DEMAND - on controlling everything and everyone - even places they will never go. What kind of pathology is that? All I know is that it is very scary - the pathology of zealots. How can you not relate to the concept of living your own life as you wish and allowing others to live their lives as they wish? Live and let live?
It is not common sense to establish an environment that others have to enter and keep clean.
What about the bar staff (who need a job) you clearly don't care about their health.
Hopefully you also agree that the prices charged in smoking areas should be higher due to the increased maintenance costs.
changed to deal with the smoke.
now the filters don't get cleaned as often
so air born diseases are allowed to travel
around the plane infecting all.
I for one would rather smell of cigarette smoke
than become very ill or even die from a air born illness.
If you do that you won't die from an airborne illness Or have to sit in a stinking cloud for hours on end either!
at the inquest the coroner stated the cause of his death was silica and coal dust in his lungs,the first from his job in the potteries,the second from the pit.
if this government told the truth about the air we breath and the food we eat we would know what caused cancer.i wish he had known before he died,
and then blow it out into a room with other people,
The only air you need in your lungs is fresh air,
Hospitals are full of people dying with lung cancer caused by smoking,
The only way to gradually eliminate smoking for our young.
As for smoking in pubs, why not smoking and non smoking pubs? Democracy in action!
inhale dangerous by-products of your disgusting smelly habit
I already suffer bronchil problems after years in the mining industry And don't want them aggrievating by inconsiderate
nicotine addicts that cant wait til they get home to light up
Internal extractors and fans blowing the air away from the bar (to protect bar staff) would be useful.
A separate room if available (like the old snug) could also be designated if the pub was big enough.
The same sign should be posted outside restaurants.
The public would then have a choice, to enter or go somewhere else, leaving the Publican/Restaurant to measure and respond to customer demand.
Just a thought
these 'antisocial' behaviors aswell!! But I don't see anyone giving them a hard time, which, in my humble opinion is very very wrong.
Scattered and desultary applause doesn't worry these 'artists'.....who see their £120.00 plus payout at the end of the night as their just reward for shouting their way through a few songs.
Agents demanding higher and higher fees are also basically inherent to the problem.
From long personal experience on the live side of the microphone, I reckon that most bands and other entertainers would be happier and healthier in a smoke free atmosphere.
However, I realise that smoking is a powerful addiction( harder to kick than heroin, I'm told!) so it's unrealistic to expect the habit to disappear for many more decades.
A reasonable compromise, given that poor smokers now have to stand at the pub door, like rain-lashed, wind-blown victims of cruel government legislation, might be to install glass screens between smoking and non smoking rooms in some pubs. That way the addicts could communicate with their more sensible non smoker friends through the use of some sort of sign language.
Seems reasonable to me, what do you think?
When I travel to south Africa, all bars have smoking areas so people can choose where to sit according to their preference. The bar still benefits and non smokers have peace of mind too. The government can help by offering grants to existing businesses to install these areas at a low cost or even take vat off to reduce the costs. Smoking areas are the norm in other countries and it works really well in terms of keeping customers.
1) In terms of your concerns about arsenic, are you aware that even if you sat in a smoking pub for 165,000 hours you'd only be getting the same amount of arsenic as you'd get from drinking a government-approved-as-safe pint of tapwater? Seriously. Do the math on it and you'll find I'm correct. You've been frightened over nothing,
2) In terms of the "foul smelling haze" you encounter when you walk out from shops onto the public sidewalk where people are smoking, you'd have to walk out of such shops and directly through a classic "doorway cloud of smokers" roughly 250 *million* times to get, on average, one single case of lung cancer (figures derived from the EPA Report with corrections for dilution and durations of exposure.) Again, you've been frightened over nothing.
3) You say you want smokers to smoke in their homes, yet I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear that you'd support bans in those homes if they happened to be in apartment buildings. Or are you against such bans?
4) You speak practically from a script you should realize when you spout images of hate about smokers' "filthy, disgusting habit." Check out the 3'x4' Wall Poster that people are welcome to freely download and reproduce as a mind-opener: See my bitly link to it at http://bit.ly/WallOfHate
5) As far as the "poisons" from manufactured cigarettes, perhaps you'd like to buttress your efforts to guarantee smokers' freedoms to smoke in their own homes and apartments with a further effort to reduce the 1,000% or so tax rate upon pure, loose, tobacco in the UK? It would certainly help your effort to appear consistent in your thinking, even if we still might disagree on some things.
Check out that poster... and see just how you'd fit in.
- MJM
As far as "walking behind smokers" if the smoke annoys you, why would you do that? If I'm walking along and two people walking in front of me start having a loud argument, I'll simply slow down or speed up for a few seconds to put some space between us. I wouldn't want there to be a law saying that people had to talk in whispers out on the street just so I never have to hear any saying anything that might upset me.
And actually we might agree on something else: Government-mandated smoking bans should be eliminated for the most part so that smokers will tend to go to places indoors where other people smoke or hang out happily with smokers, and there'd be a lot fewer people out on the sidewalks bothering you! What state/city are you located in? Maybe you could help get rid of a ban in your area and reduce your exposure to the "foul smelling stuff."
Sound like a good idea?
😕
MJM
Thanks for putting a structured, sensible argument to this topic, rather than trying to make personal, ill thought out comments as others have tried. As previously said, I believe we will have to agree to disagree. My main point is that I shouldn't have to breath in cigarette smoke if I do not choose to do so. I have nothing against anyone who chooses to smoke but why should I as a non-smoker have to breath the stuff in? As stated, whatever anyone wants to do in the privacy of their own home I have no problem with at all.
You wrote, "As previously said, I believe we will have to agree to disagree. My main point is that I shouldn't have to breath in cigarette smoke if I do not choose to do so. I have nothing against anyone who chooses to smoke but why should I as a non-smoker have to breath the stuff in?"
I don't think we have to agree to disagree. It sounds like we might agree in some areas. We've already agreed that people should not be banned from smoking in their own homes, right?
I would also fully agree that you should not be forced to breathe in things you do not want to. No one has the right to force you to enter a business that allows smoking. If they try to physically force you to do so, then you should have them arrested.
In terms of public thoroughfares and enormous dilutions and easily avoidable exposures, you're barking up a different tree though. What about heavy perfume? If you don't like it you shouldn't be forced to walk closely behind the blue-haired lady who's reeking of it. Should she be banned from sidewalks until she takes a shower? Should she be ticketed or hauled off to jail for violating the "smell-free" public space? Or should you be expected to just mumble to yourself, "Ick. Another perfume lady. I'll stop walking for about three seconds so she gets 8 feet in front of me instead of 2 feet, or maybe I'll walk a couple of feet closer to the curb or the shops depending on how the wind is blowing." Which do you think would be the better solution? The law? Or you changing your walking patterns when you encountered the problem.
OH! Also: you seem to have missed it: Did you agree with this? :
"Government-mandated smoking bans should be eliminated for the most part so that smokers will tend to go to places indoors where other people smoke or hang out happily with smokers, and there'd be a lot fewer people out on the sidewalks bothering you! What state/city are you located in? Maybe you could help get rid of a ban in your area and reduce your exposure to the "foul smelling stuff." "
It would certainly help you out!
😕
MJM
I have been a smoker and the smell and expense made me stop.
My wife and I used to smoke pre-kids and when they were very young and we never realised what the smell was like. You just don't - that's quite a sad thing. I gave up a few weeks before her and recall the bitter stench of stale tobacco on clothes as she came in from outside. God knows what it must have been like for our baby son to smell that.
No, most people have no wish to go back to the "good old days" when non-smokers had to just put up and shut up.
"most businesses know that allowing something that less than a fifth of people now do would be an economic death wish for many establishments."
If so, then clearly you should have no objection at all to the gvt-imposed ban being lifted. After all, "most businesses" would keep the ban on their own since businesses don't usually have "an economic death wish" -- and those that do.... well, they'd die and be gone!
So can we count you as a good solid opponent of the smoking bans then?
- MJM
How can that be a silly statement????
When I was suffering cancer and the treatment, I was staying in the same place as these people I spoke about, there is nothing silly about that!!! You wouldn't want to go through what I went through either.
I agree that narrow minded people like you will make others freedom of opinion sound silly as you said, the only bigot must be you.
Of course people can choose to smoke if they want to but not deny others their freedom of choice as well. All some people are saying is that they are defending smokers and not non smokers, even the government realise and know the damage that smoking does, as they have adverts and campaigns now about it.
I only wanted to defend the rights of those of us who were forced to breathe in others smoke when babies or kids or where ever we travelled on public transport etc and in everyones house that smoked and would not let us open a window or door in a public place, thats what we suffered and told not to be so fussy!! Where was the freedom of choice there??
No going back!
I am also a retired nurse !
I prefer smoke-free pubs, but I'm not fascist about this. They don't ALL have to be smoke-free.
Not only do I believe that the anti-smoking laws were divisive and based on very questionable research, I am becoming more and more convinced that they had very little to do with Public Health - if that were the case then surely they would have welcomed the massively safer option of vaping with open arms. There are now something like 29 million e-cig users Euro-wide, 2 +million here in UK and. since the vast majority of us are those ex-smokers who were demonised over the last decades as evil-smelling lepers, we are quite determined to oppose any bans. Should anyone be in doubt about the advisability of switching to vaping I can only say that in all the years since e-cigs took off not one single fatality has resulted from the proper use. If you want to go on smoking, that is your right and your choice and there should be as much provision made for your comfort as for that of non-smokers - you are, after all, contributing £12billion per annum in revenue as against the £2-3 billion that smoking disease costs the NHS.
I never regretted stopping although I did really regret the stupid and witless way that I had stuck this filthy muck in my mouth so so many years. I swore that I would never be judgmental but after a while I only had to stand near someone smoking or a public smoking area to understand how awful it smells.
I do not want to go into a pub to come out again stinking of smoke, with ruined clothes and foul breath. Never again.
Please go ahead if you want but I just will never go anywhere again where is has been legal again.
I read someone say that is a matter of choice but it is not a choice for the poor sod being polluted.
power is the name of the game and not smelly ash trays or shirts .
whats wrong with free choice for all ? and not one faction imposing no choice on another think about the big picture
Just a few thoughts!
I can assure you most people are really pleased that you can't light up where you want to.
As for dog walkers, I myself own a dog but would happily cheer on wardens giving owners fines for letting their pets foul footpaths and pavements. In fact I've been known to march up to owners myself who've walked away from a steaming pile and ask them if they're happy for the next child to come along and step in in. They're usually deeply ashamed. Its a disgusting thing.
But would you want those groups to pass a universal ban against beer or cooked meat in pubs?
- MJM
Sounds nonsensical, right? But it's no more nonsensical than a total ban on smoking in all pubs!
- MJM
Not at all... unless you're being humorous? Smoking was banned on the basis of workers being unwillingly exposed to a carcinogen that was not an "inherent and necessary" part of the drinking and dining experience. That was the rationale for why the ban had to be universal rather than left up to the owners. To be consistent, then the *SAME* rationale should be used to ban serviced outdoor dining and drinking -- even more so since the majority of studies on secondary smoke exposure and lung cancer are unable to find even a basic statistically significant link between the two (See http://bit.ly/ETSTable ) while almost every study on sun exposure and malignant melanoma is significant.
Do I seriously think either one should be banned by government mandate? No. But the crazies would disagree.
- MJM
I ask what about the employees; many have forgotten about them? Why should they have to work in smokey public houses.
KEEP THE BAN
There are also 200 Volcano's that erupt every single day of every year pouring poisonous gasses into the atmosphere. One day of eruption from Iceland's volcano wiped out 20 years of the pollution caused my man alone and it erupted for 5 days. Volcanic ash causes cancer as volcanic carcinogens are almost 1000 times stronger than inhaled cigarette smoke or from vehicle exhaust systems. Government taxes on Cigarettes and cars spewing out carcinogens do not help in the decrease of the poison in the atmosphere cause by volcanic action.
I can remember having bronchial problems as a child with all the industrial and domestic pollution. The cleaner air has now put an end to my problem.
Freedom of choice is worth fighting for when it doesn't affect the health of those around us.
2. Ventilate them PROPERLY.
3. Give staff the CHOICE about whether or not they work in the smoking area.
4. Dont serve meals in the smoking area.
I, my partner & a lot of our friends used to participate in traditional music sessions on a regular basis - some of us smoked others didnt. When the smoking ban was implemented it destroyed the sessions (interestingly the musical giants in these get together were all smokers), the venue is closed now. We saw the writing on the wall for live traditonal music when the American tourists in Ireland drove a ban there. Yes you may still see one or two musicians "performing" for money, but those fluid dynamic & exciting to play in or listen to spontaneous sessions are a thing of the past... Sad.
Many of my friends still smoke so if we visit our local they end up standing outside in all weathers so they can still get their fix whilst we sit inside.We could stand outside with them but the thought of standing in a HUGE ashtray is repulsive....
Here is a compromise: Why not have a smoking and non smoking bar, most pubs etc have 2 bars, would that not be more customer friendly? All the bans in the World are NOT going to make people stop smoking until they wish too or have too. I actually find the smoking outside buildings etc far more offensive.
When will we stop being a nanny state, let people make their own decisions, If you don't like smoking go to a non smoking pub, If you don't like drunks go to the pictures. lol
We should vote for the Party who care about the people, not those who are only interested in lining their own pockets.
A small section could be cornered off, or the decision to be made by the landlord.
Windows have been taken out of the shelters outside work because of EU law saying 60% open space, IT'S OUTSIDE!!!!
People who smoke know its unhealthy; we are told everyday and the adverts and public money wasted on trying to get people to stop, to me, is a waste in itself. Yes ban smoking in public places where people like me do not wish to breathe in the abhorrent fumes that are exhaled from another person, but offer an area to the people who do enjoy a smoke and a drink and don't treat them like pariahs. You will not stop those people who choose to smoke, after all it's about freedom of choice.