Smoking areas in airports and other public buildings

147 posts in this topic

 

I couldn't care less if it's pleasant or not for you.

The smoking ban rightly prevents people smoking in front of other people and when did I suggest fighting "tooth-and-nail" against it?

 

Maybe if more smokers did care, they wouldn't need to have legislation shoved down their throats.

 

The phrase "give an inch" implies that the smoking lobby allowed the legislation to go ahead. From what I recall, the opposition to smoking legislation was quite vocally against any restrictions. Maybe you weren't one of those, although your first reply above might cast some doubt on that.

 

 

I don't smoke in MY OWN car when I have passengers, and always go away from other people when OUTSIDE if I choose to smoke. I don't even smoke in my own living room (an apartment I own) because I have a lodger and am courteous, there is no law that says I can't. It's people like you who are wholly unreasonable.

 

My clothes might smell of stale smoke occasionally, I couldn't care less what you or anyone else would think of that. I've already been more than considerate enough. Given 1 in 6 of the UK population smoke I won't be unique in this. I don't find it pleasant sitting near a crying baby, but I won't suggest banning them from flying either.

 

Like I said, Dubai airport I don't think pay anything as they open their booths up for sponsorship. It doesn't have to cost Heathrow anything. Istanbul has their area right next to a bar. A bar which I and am sure plenty others wouldn't have noticed if I hadn't gone for a cigarette. Schipol you have to walk THROUGH a bar to get to a smoking area.

 

I'll ask you again what exactly is it I've said (and not what you think I might have said) that is unreasonable? I've never said ban cigarettes. I've pointed out why legally you can't smoke in the airport, but that's not down to me. I've never said you or anyone shouldn't be allowed to smoke. My pointing out that smokers smell of smoke is hardly a revelation, surely? And I haven't suggested smokers should be banned from flying either, anymore than babies should be.

 

And once again, even if Heathrow wanted to open a smoking booth inside the premises and charge you 500 quid to smoke in it, they can't. It's against the law! It's ILLEGAL!

 

 

They also don't make money out of cleaning the toilets regularly, or as I said before, having suitable waiting areas for people to sit down. But I don't see people complaining about that.

 

But then again, it isn't AGAINST THE LAW for them to provide seats and toilets in the airport buildings.

 

 

No, because you are even complaining about intoxicated people flying. Heaven forbid a stag party being on the same flight as you. You sound like a total killjoy.

 

Again, read what I wrote - not what you think I wrote. "Rowdy, aggressive drunks" is not a stag party having a few sociable drinks. That phrase "aggressive" might give you a clue as to their behaviour.

 

 

It's completely impossible on some connections. Not just inconvenient.

 

Then knowing this beforehand, set up your connection so it is possible. Get a flight the next day and spend 24 hours smoking yourself sick. The hotels at Heathrow even have some smoking rooms so you don't even have to stand outside to do it.

 

 

Smokers are passengers too? Or do you want us to go in the hold or somewhere more fitting for 2nd class citizens like us? Like I say, it is presumably a comfort to 10 million people in the UK alone.

 

It's really hard trying to have a sociable argument when one party has a giant chip on their shoulder and keeps responding to statements that only exist in their head. I've never said in this forum to ban smokers from flying or ban them from smoking or ban cigarettes. Is it because I don't agree they should be given special or preferential treatment? So there are 10 million smokers in the UK? There are probably three times as many that enjoy masturbating, but you don't hear them demanding private wanking booths at the airport to help them relax before a flight.

 

 

Are you on drugs? A 10 a day smoker will smoke almost hourly while awake. How you can compare it to playing golf I don't know.

 

You said: "...whole point I was trying to make was that it is for passenger comfort and some people enjoy smoking?"

 

My point was that enjoying smoking is no reason for Heathrow to have to accommodate anymore than it should accommodate somebody who enjoys playing golf. That part of your argument was weak and the response was to show it's weakness in a humorous manner. Humour is when a phrase or experience evokes mirth or laughter or amusement.

 

 

So when I worked offshore in UK waters, were half the rig and I breaking the law smoking in a smoking room (4 walls, 1 ceiling, 1 door)?? Exceptions to the law are made in environments in which a reasonable alternative is not available. In my opinion, airports are the same. Smoking ban is in place in Paris, yet CDG has a booth.

 

Strangely enough, French laws are different from UK laws so that's really a straw man argument. There are exceptions made, like special room in the oil rig, but again, there is no law stating that smoking booths MUST be made available when no reasonable alternative exists. As private premises, Heathrow doesn't even have to allow you to smoke outside and the fact that they do allow you to go through security and have a cigarette, they would probably say is reasonable enough. Maybe not convenient if you're on a connecting flight and haven't factored in a fag break time between flights, but you'd have to argue that in the law courts - once you got them to amend the existing laws to make it compulsory for them to provide a reasonable alternative.

 

 

A security risk? Am I going to try and throw my <150ml bottle of water at a plane or something? It works at Istanbul, you're practically on the runway. In fact, we are allowed to smoke on actual runway of my nearest airport right now. An airport which requires you to put your own bags on the plane in an effort to increase bag accountability and security, and where up until recently, weapons were allowed in the building. In what I would care to bet is a more security risk region that you have ever been in your life.

 

Can't say I disagree with you here. But then I don't decide what constitutes a security risk. Heathrow T5 doesn't have any unenclosed public areas on the runway side.

 

 

You have zero basis for your argument for why T5 at Heathrow can't accommodate smokers without making it difficult and even impossible for them at present. You're entire argument is based on being a bitter anti-smoker. You probably even complain walking into a bar past people outside smoking, even though the bar is smoke free itself. Seriously, please come back with something with even a fraction of substance and I'll be interested in what you have to say. Otherwise you are talking shite.

 

You mean, zero argument that you like. Zero argument except for the fact that it's ILLEGAL for them to put up a smoking booth in the airport. Zero argument except for the fact that they do in fact allow you to smoke at the airport so it is not "impossible" just not convenient.

 

But please feel free to ignore the pesky fact of the law and continue to blame me for all your smoking-related woes. Seriously, it was me all by my lonesome that got the UK to enact those laws just to piss off smokers passing through Terminal 5.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe if more smokers did care, they wouldn't need to have legislation shoved down their throats.

 

The phrase "give an inch" implies that the smoking lobby allowed the legislation to go ahead. From what I recall, the opposition to smoking legislation was quite vocally against any restrictions.

 

I meant in regard to your constant bitching about smokers smelling of stale smoke, as if that constituents a valid point. There has been no legislation against that.

 

So what if it was vocal? It's a democracy isn't it? How vocal are same sex marriage campaigners and pro Scottish independence? Or the people who inflicted physical harm and damage because they disagreed with fox hunting? Is that somehow more acceptable? Generally if it is quite vocal, that's because a lot of people are against it. It doesn't mean smokers have louder voices.

 

 

I've pointed out why legally you can't smoke in the airport, but that's not down to me. I've never said you or anyone shouldn't be allowed to smoke. My pointing out that smokers smell of smoke is hardly a revelation, surely? And I haven't suggested smokers should be banned from flying either, anymore than babies should be.

 

No but you've made bitchy comments about stale smoke smell on OTHER people. I said that in comparison, screaming babies getting their nappies changed is also unpleasant. Why make the cheap shot in the first place about smokers smelling of stale smoke? Another pointless comment from you and adds nothing.

 

 

My pointing out that smokers smell of smoke is hardly a revelation, surely?

 

Again. Apart from a snide jibe, do tell me how this is relevant?

 

 

It's really hard trying to have a sociable argument when one party has a giant chip on their shoulder and keeps responding to statements that only exist in their head.

 

Haha!

Tell me about it. I did start asking something along the lines of what was the solution, and twice that I didn't want it to be another smoking v no smoking debate. Which you, with your pathetic childish "smokers smell of stale smoke boo hoo" jibes irritated me to the point I kept replying.

 

 

My point was that enjoying smoking is no reason for Heathrow to have to accommodate anymore than it should accommodate somebody who enjoys playing golf. That part of your argument was weak and the response was to show it's weakness in a humorous manner. Humour is when a phrase or experience evokes mirth or laughter or amusement.

 

No, you will find my point was to ask you how the fuck you can compare playing a game of golf to a 5 minute cigarette. Which millions of people do regularly throughout the day. I play golf once a week. You're comparison isn't even weak, it's non existant.

 

 

There are exceptions made, like special room in the oil rig, but again, there is no law stating that smoking booths MUST be made available when no reasonable alternative exists. As private premises, Heathrow doesn't even have to allow you to smoke outside and the fact that they do allow you to go through security and have a cigarette, they would probably say is reasonable enough. Maybe not convenient if you're on a connecting flight and haven't factored in a fag break time between flights, but you'd have to argue that in the law courts - once you got them to amend the existing laws to make it compulsory for them to provide a reasonable alternative.

 

When did I say a law MUST provide it??????/

No, I didn't. It's a customer satisfaction angle. Which lots of people enjoy. Which is why any popular bar or restaurant will have areas (outside) where people can smoke and is convenient.

 

 

Can't say I disagree with you here. But then I don't decide what constitutes a security risk. Heathrow T5 doesn't have any unenclosed public areas on the runway side.

 

Well done for catching up with the programme, Sherlock.

 

It's these quotes in this order where I confirm you really are a dribbling intolerant wreck:

 

 

And once again, even if Heathrow wanted to open a smoking booth inside the premises and charge you 500 quid to smoke in it, they can't. It's against the law! It's ILLEGAL!

 

 

 

The hotels at Heathrow even have some smoking rooms so you don't even have to stand outside to do it.

 

So the hotels have rooms where I can be inside...it was this point where I don't think you even realised just how much you are contradicting yourself.

 

 

You mean, zero argument that you like. Zero argument except for the fact that it's ILLEGAL for them to put up a smoking booth in the airport.

 

There are exceptions made, like special room in the oil rig

 

It is also not a LAW that smoking be allowed on a rig. It is to accommodate the wishes of those who enjoy it and can't legally smoke everywhere on board, nor easily walk to a suitable area.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But then again, it isn't AGAINST THE LAW for them to provide seats and toilets in the airport buildings.

 

Nor did I say that, but that it is a facility that adds to the comfort of passengers.

 

You seem to think anything on offer in an airport is to make money. How much money does the "Prayer Room" make?

 

And before you say "oh but I don't smell smoke when I walk past one of them", I've never noticed smoke outside any of the decent booths I've seen. They could easily be made in a distant corner you'd never have to walk past. You got your way with the no smoking in public places law, which most cigarette smokers find acceptable, don't start bitching that you now want it all.

 

Amusing that you found the pro smoking campaign so vocal, when it's usually the people who can't walk within half a mile of a designated smoking area and not start whining who are making all the noise.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prayer rooms are a good analogy.

 

You could ask why they should exist. Surely people can go 14 hours without praying, and anyway, god is supposed to be everywhere.

 

The sad thing is that people are all about themselves. If they don't need or want something, then it's a big fuck you to everyone else. If a smoking room can exist and it provides something that some people want to use without any detriment to anyone else, then why would anyone argue against having one?

 

It's a very selfish position to take.

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it's AGAINST THE LAW, Hazza, haven't you read anything?!

 

*Except on oil rigs and where other exceptions are made...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nor did I say that, but that it is a facility that adds to the comfort of passengers.

 

You seem to think anything on offer in an airport is to make money. How much money does the "Prayer Room" make?

 

And before you say "oh but I don't smell smoke when I walk past one of them", I've never noticed smoke outside any of the decent booths I've seen. They could easily be made in a distant corner you'd never have to walk past. You got your way with the no smoking in public places law, which most cigarette smokers find acceptable, don't start bitching that you now want it all.

 

Schotte, it really doesn't matter if I agree 100% with you and say that there should be smoking cabins in UK airports, even if I said I found the smell of smoke to be the most exotic perfume in the world, even if I said that smokers should be admired, nay worshipped for their devil-may-attitude to their and others' health, it still won't change the fact that there aren't smoking cabins in UK airports because they are illegal. Prayer rooms don't raise any money, but, and here's the tricky part once again, they are not against the law. If selling over-priced deigner goods was against the law, I'm sure you'd have the airports on the labels' side peitioning to be allowed to have their Lacoste shops etc. on the premises. But smoking cabins? Extra costs, no revenue so why fight against the law?

 

And no, I didn't get my way with a smoking ban in public places because I never got to vote on it or express any opinion on it. Nor have I made any comments on this thread as to whether I think the bans should be removed or go further. You're the one putting those words in my mouth.

 

 

Amusing that you found the pro smoking campaign so vocal, when it's usually the people who can't walk within half a mile of a designated smoking area and not start whining who are making all the noise.

 

The pro-smoking campaigners are and were vocal. That's not to say the anti-smokers weren't and aren't also. I was just amused by your suggestion (meant or not) that the smokers ceded their rights to smoke in public spaces when in fact they fought hard not to give up anything and had it forced on them.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But it's AGAINST THE LAW, Hazza, haven't you read anything?!

 

*Except on oil rigs and where other exceptions are made...

 

By jove, I think he's got it! A greenie for you! :)

 

Step 2: You want more convenient smoking areas at UK airports, don't whine about the airports, moan to the law makers! It probably won't do you any good, but at least you'll be annoying the guilty party...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Schotte, it really doesn't matter if I agree 100% with you and say that there should be smoking cabins in UK airports, even if I said I found the smell of smoke to be the most exotic perfume in the world, even if I said that smokers should be admired, nay worshipped for their devil-may-attitude to their and others' health, it still won't change the fact that there aren't smoking cabins in UK airports because they are illegal.

 

3rd time I've asked now. Why is it not illegal to smoke on UK oil rigs? (Which fall completely under UK law.)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's against the law to have smoking rooms anywhere in the UK except oilrigs???

What about schools. Teachers are stressed enough as it is. They probably do need their fags.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My ex girlfriend was a teacher, who liked the occasional cigarette. She told me it was purely in the interests of discouraging kids from taking up the habit that even if outside, you can't smoke in the grounds or be seen smoking. Much like not smoking in hospital grounds (again, even if outside), it's a promotion of clean living. Which is pretty obvious, even I remember primary school and walking past the staff room and smelling smoke. It's also not unknown for teachers to go for a "drive" at break time.

 

No, oil rigs are not the only exception. I know the answer to my question, just desperate to see if clickety click has bothered to find out anything about it or just enjoys parading the "IT'S AGAINST THE LAW!" line like a parrot!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it wouldn't be against the law to provide an outside balcony.

 

And surely, at the time that Terminal 5 was being built, there was already a big movement to not allowing smoking indoors that would have made sense to incorporate something like this into the planning.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No, oil rigs are not the only exception. I know the answer to my question, just desperate to see if clickety click has bothered to find out anything about it or just enjoys parading the "IT'S AGAINST THE LAW!" line like a parrot!

 

Not a parrot, more like somebody hammering against an seemingly impenetrable skull... but it did at least pay off in the end.

 

Anybody can google "uk smoking law exceptions" to see the list, so do your own bloody work, you lazy sods!

 

As for your original question of WHY oil rigs are an exception and are allowed to have special room put aside for smoking (and only smoking), I guess it's because smoking outside on an offshore installation isn't particularly practical or wise and they weren't cruel enough to suggest they put the smokers in a dinghy and float them 100 meters from the platform. Would be a bit hard to keep the fag lit in a force 10 gale for a start.

 

Prisons also have an exception. I guess they don't trust the inmates to pop outside for a short fag break.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Surely it wouldn't be against the law to provide an outside balcony.

 

And surely, at the time that Terminal 5 was being built, there was already a big movement to not allowing smoking indoors that would have made sense to incorporate something like this into the planning.

 

Not illegal, but BAA is all about profit and not comfort. The terraces they have are for high-paying card-carrying passengers who pay for the privelege and not for free-loading fag smokers (plus the terraces might well be enclosed anyway, so it doesn't help). If they were to put a terraced smoking area in, that's less space to flog stuff to customers.

 

Also they'll cite security issues of course, whether you think they're justified or not. I think it was one of the reasons there are no outside viewing platforms at Heathrow.

 

On the plus side, even the first class passengers don't have a place to smoke at Heathrow, so smokers aren't being discriminated against for being plebs at least ;)

 

[Don't you hate it when a moderator splits a topic mid-edit and you end up all alone! Hopefully somebody can move this orphaned response too]

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

[Don't you hate it when a moderator splits a topic mid-edit and you end up all alone! Hopefully somebody can move this orphaned response too]

 

You didn't say pretty please (but I saw you posting on the wrong topic and decided to deorphanize you).

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You didn't say pretty please (but I saw you posting on the wrong topic and decided to deorphanize you).

 

Thank you, pretty.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now