Purpletigron

how do empties get removed?

This is a minor issue which the smokers should be able to solve for themselves.

Smaller pubs could have an old mini-bus parked outside :-)

From:

white_hart

I doubt that the issue will bother the smokers at all; they'll just pile empties on a free table, or push them to one side. If it gets really bad, I suppose someone might take a load of glasses up to the bar, but it's far more likely that they'll just stay in there until closing time. Meanwhile, the pub will run short of glasses and crockery. And my experience of dedicated smoking rooms in workplaces is that the smell wafts out whenever anyone goes in or out. And they (and smoking carriages on trains) were always filthy.

And the small pub my partner used to run was on a narrow street with no dedicated parking, so an old minibus would not have been popular with the neighbours!

From:

Smoking regulars will have the incentive to work this out.

From:

Smoking regulars will have the incentive to work this out

What incentive do you think they will have? No one else can see the "incentive" you keep referring to - so what is it? You must have something in mind.

From:

It will be illegal to have a cigarette with your pint of beer at the local unless a 'smoking carriage' can be made to work.

From:

It will be illegal to have a cigarette with your pint of beer at the
local unless a 'smoking carriage' can be made to work.

Smokers consider being allowed to smoke in pubs a right, not a privilege. See

frandowdsofa for a perfect example of the indignation of a smoker who thinks being allowed to spoil everyone else's environment is a right being infringed upon, not a privilege claimed and maintained by tradition.

If smokers are allowed to keep dirtying the air in the local pub, they'll have absolutely no incentive to "make it work", no more than they do now.

The people who will have the incentive to "make it work" will be the owner of the pub who has invested in setting up a smoking room, and who will put considerable pressure on the most vulnerable employees who will end up cleaning the room while smokers are puffing away in it, since otherwise it will be filthy, smelly, and full of dirty glasses, dishes, and cutlery, and the smokers will end up either smoking elsewhere in the pub or going outside. Or nipping into "the smoking carriage" for a cigarette, then going back into the clean part of the pub. The latter I suspect more likely - it's what happened with smoking carriages on trains - which means that a pub owner will effectively be maintaining an empty room that has to be cleaned thoroughly and often, which will waft filthy air into the rest of the pub.

As

hfnuala comments, the people who will actually do the cleaning are always invisible to the smokers' rights brigade.

From:

shreena.livejournal.com

I can see your point but, from a purely selfish point of view, I'm very glad they didn't go for it - I hate the smoke but enough of my friends smoke that I'd still end up in the 'smoking room' unless I wanted to sit outside it by myself..

From:

That's a point for you to negotiate with your friends, I'm afraid.

From:

Or you could find some new non-smoking friends!

From:

Like a gay man who wants to marry his partner could always dump him and find a woman to marry instead?

From: (Anonymous)

No - they could all be friends (or partners) together.

From:

It was a silly comment, but you seemed to be suggesting (no doubt tongue in cheek) that should ditch her smoking friends and make non-smoking friends. I was making a comment (also tongue in cheek) that suggested this was the equivalent of telling a same-sex couple that if they wanted to get married they should split up and find people of the opposite gender to marry.

From:

Yes - that was me, and curse LJ for logging me out that way!

Sorry!

From:

The staff still have to clean the smoking carriage, and they will have to go in there to collect plates and glasses.

The only real protection for small businesses is to apply this rule to everyone alike.

From:

These are minor logistic questions: During open hours, the smokers will have to manage the used equipment themselves - it's in their own interest to do so. Then, the smoking carriage should be thoroughly aired after closing time whilst the staff clean the rest of the establishment.

I do envisage this being a universal requirement, yes.

From:

These are minor logistic questions

No, they're major logistical questions.

During open hours, the smokers will have to manage the used equipment themselves - it's in their own interest to do so.

Ho ho. Yeah, right. A couple are spending an hour over lunch. They're both smokers. At the end of their lunch, how exactly is it in their "best interests" to pick up their dirty dishes and the overflowing ashtray and wipe off the table? What benefit do they gain by clearing the table for the next person to use it? Answer: They don't. And the next customer comes in, looks around, sees only dirty tables, and may either leave to go somewhere where the tables have been cleaned, or else ask one of the staff to clean the table for them. And you think it's going to be routine for the employee to say "I don't go in there, it's the smoking room, clear your own table" and the customer will do just that - instead of going elsewhere to find lunch? I've said lunch, but of course this applies to anywhere - bar or restaurant.

I do envisage this being a universal requirement, yes.

Your idea of a "smoking carriage" is going to discriminate against small businesses who can't provide one. Better far to simply have non-smoking in any public enclosed space as a universal requirement, with exceptions only for situations where people literally cannot leave the building. Hospitals, for example - having watched a friend of mine struggle out of bed to walk himself and his IV to an exit, I'd go for smoking lounges in hospitals, and private offices where people may receive bad news (as was observed by an acquaintance, "I've just told someone they're HIV+ and you expect me to tell them they can't have a cigarette?") : and of course prisons.

But all businesses - no exceptions whatsoever - should be non-smoking. Any exceptionalism will benefit large businesses at the expense of smaller ones.

From:

The smoking community can self-regulate.

The establishment should make their own commercial decision as to whether or not they provide smoking accommodation. Apparently, an old bus in the car park can work well.

From:

The smoking community can self-regulate.

That's the idea of a complete ban, yes. The smoking community can either go outside and smoke, or stay in and not smoke. Self-regulation.

The esablishment should make their own commercial decision as to whether or not they provide smoking accommodation.

Which would favour chains and better-off establishments over smaller establishments. A universal ban is the only way to be fair to all.

From:

'What's Brewing', Feb 2006

"The so-called 'smoking carriage' option has the support of most of the licensed trade ... . CAMRA believes that choice is paramount and that non-smokers should be guaranteed a smoke-free atmsphere. But we also believe that in multi-room pubs smokers can be catered for by setting aside enclosed smoking rooms.

Our fear is that smaller community pubs are already struggling with viabliity issues, and that many of them could be driven over the edge by an outright ban."

CAMRA (http://www.camra.org.uk/) is of course the CAMpaign for Real Ale, so they also want to be able to properly taste the subtle flavours in the beer.

From:

Our fear is that smaller community pubs are already struggling with viabliity issues, and that many of them could be driven over the edge by an outright ban."

Because they believe that smokers won't visit the pubs unless there's a filthy, smelly, dirty room specially provided for them to sit in and smoke? - and non-smokers don't visit pubs enough to make up for the short fall?

Well, I think they need to sit down and think a little bit harder about what they're basing their beliefs on.

"The so-called 'smoking carriage' option has the support of most of the licensed trade ... .

Indeed. I somehow doubt that What's Brewing polled the employees who would have to clean up the smoking rooms.

From:

Bars could give out disposable glasses/plates/cutlery to smokers if they persist in not returning the items. There are plenty of places that give skiffs if you're going outside already, for example, and this doesn't seem to be too great a problem.

From:

Bars could give out disposable glasses/plates/cutlery to smokers if they persist in not returning the items.

Right, so there's now an environmental problem.

And a table covered in dirty disposable plates/glasses/cutlery is no more pleasant for the next punter to have to clear off than a table covered in dirty reusable plates/glasses/cutlery. This is not a "minor logistical problem" - a table that's been used has to be cleaned. By someone. That someone will be an employee, not a customer. If it's illegal to ask an employee to do it, the employee who's told to do it will be the one who's least in a position to complain about it.

From:

vicarage.livejournal.com

Not very practical, as you'd need collection points for food, which happens very few pubs and restaurants, special PA, and the room would rapidly become a tip without collection of glasses and plates. And how would waiters present the bill

I've no sympathy for smokers. I don't care if they are damaging their health, after all I do that with alcohol. And I don't worry that they are damaging mine with passive inhalation. What I hate is their insistence in burning smelly things in public. If BO is socially unacceptable, so is smoking.

I want smoking banned outdoors next, just leaving the right for smokers to light up at home.

From:

These are minor practical problems, which the smokers themselves can largely solve.

The smoking carriage balances our freedom to breathe smoke-free air, with their freedom of use for their own bodies.

Joe Jackson, representing Forest, presented on Today the opinion that the health risks of passive smoking are over-stated. My answer: whilst there is reasonable doubt, my freedom not to play that particular game of Russian roulette with my health is equal to the freedom of a smoker to indulge in it.

Smoking in the home as a form of child abuse?

What we need is smoking masks, which complete re-cycle the combustion products into the smoker.

From:

vicarage.livejournal.com

I wanted to move the debate from health to nuisance, see my singing post

From:

These are minor practical problems, which the smokers themselves can largely solve.

This is a major practical problem, which the business itself will have to solve.

From:

revdode.livejournal.com

The idea of a "smoking carriage" sounds fair but in practice there are a host of real issues. I've had to look into containing solvents and other similar substances to reduce worker exposure and it becomes hideously expensive when people need to move in and out of the containment area. I've also seen controlled smoking areas abroad, some enclosed fully, others partially and with various levels of extraction and filtering, I've not witnessed one I couldn't detect with my nose long before actually seeing it. I presume this has the advantage that smokers can easily find them in a strange place without having to face the delay of asking directions:)
Some of the other practical issues come from cleaning the areas, even external smoking shelters (we make them - but they don't yet comply with sottish law) pick up a layer of gunk from smoke that should be handled as a potential substance hazardous to health. After a few weeks of heavy use these start stinking unless they washed down.

From:

a fair balance between freedoms

Not at all. A smoker out of doors is not a public nuisance in the way a smoker indoors is. There's no "balance between freedoms" - that's FOREST-speak.

a properly isolated room, where customers can take their food and drinks, but the staff do not go during working hours. This also protects small businesses

This actually damages small businesses, since they'll be the ones least able to provide a "properly insulated room".

From: