Smoking at The Open

First topic message reminder :

It was not a pretty sight seeing Darren Clarke desperately drawing on a fag to get his nicotine fix at The Open.
Not a good image for young golfers, can you imagine a cricketer or a boxer having a sly puff during a match.
He was smoking at his work place, how do the R&A [EPGA] get round that law?

Diggers wrote:Nope, they can smoke outside and that suits me fine. I don't want to accommodate smokers in a pub I might want to go to. Like I said I believe most people prefer the ban so again I'm happy with that.

Do you not see how that might be a touch unfair - "a pub that you might want to go in."

How about I said that i get annoyed by other people's kids running around a restaurant so I choose to go to the type of restaurant that does not attract families - does that then mean that all restaurants should discourage families in case I fancy going to them? Of course not, this would be ridiculous.

And as for most people preferring the ban, not sure where you got that from other than the fact that most people do not smoke and thus one would assume that they prefer it. Should the majority of people really stop a minority group from doing what they want to do though? - doesn't sound like that would apply too well as an example to the rest of society.

No I don't think it's unfair, what I think is unfair is having my clothes made to stink and breathing their disgusting smoke, that's unfair. I've been that inconsiderate person and I can see that now.
I also think that the ban in pubs has led to smokers being more aware they need to be considerate and possibly more importantly for non smokers to be less bothered about insisting that they are.
Anyway as I said if you are a smoker it's only going to get worse financially and socially , I'm certain of that.

Why should something which is a pointless pursuit get special treatment. Is smoking so dear to them that they feel so discriminated against. Why don't they just give up and live normally, then they wouldn't have an issue.
I smoked for a few years and enjoyed it most of the time, but it's not a pleasure thats really worth fighting for.

Diggers, you are right that it will only get worse for them socially and financially and SR I agree that they should not get special treatment.

This debate is getting very laborious now but I maintain my original opinion that smokers are victimised because what they do is no better or worse than what the drinkers and obese do to themselves. I think the opinions towards smoking on here might just enforce that...

No I think the comments on here show people believe smoking has a greater impact directly on them than the other things you list. I certainly do , people can smoke in their own space, just not around me I'm afraid.

SJ
Interesting facts.

When I moved to oor wee village 14 years ago it had two pubs. a restaraunt, and two shops [one also PO]
Last year we had nothing.
We opened a community shop/cafe which is doing quite well. We have been publess for 5 years we are now hoping to have one opened before Christmas. Some serious investment going into it.

Doon the Water wrote:It was not a pretty sight seeing Darren Clarke desperately drawing on a fag to get his nicotine fix at The Open.
Not a good image for young golfers, can you imagine a cricketer or a boxer having a sly puff during a match.
He was smoking at his work place, how do the R&A [EPGA] get round that law?

Actually, I thought it was pretty funny. Good for him. I'm fed up with the anti-smoking Nazis and their holier-than-thou position. As is usual, reformed smokers are the worst. And no, I don't smoke.

Smoking is legal and until it isn't, tough luck. Perhaps some of the anti-smoking Nazis might like to suggest where the money will come from if it isn't coming from the taxation of smoking? Hmm?

navyblueshorts wrote:

Doon the Water wrote:It was not a pretty sight seeing Darren Clarke desperately drawing on a fag to get his nicotine fix at The Open.
Not a good image for young golfers, can you imagine a cricketer or a boxer having a sly puff during a match.
He was smoking at his work place, how do the R&A [EPGA] get round that law?

Actually, I thought it was pretty funny. Good for him. I'm fed up with the anti-smoking Nazis and their holier-than-thou position. As is usual, reformed smokers are the worst. And no, I don't smoke.

Smoking is legal and until it isn't, tough luck. Perhaps some of the anti-smoking Nazis might like to suggest where the money will come from if it isn't coming from the taxation of smoking? Hmm?

I'm delighted people are smoking for the good of the Treasury. That's the bulldog spirit. Good for them.

One minute a left winger...one minute a Nazi. I wouldn't worry about the govt finding a way to tax people, I really doubt they'll find that very hard.

super_realist wrote:I'm delighted people are smoking for the good of the Treasury. That's the bulldog spirit. Good for them.

Try not to be willfully silly too often. The fact still remains that if it doesn't come out of tobacco it'll come out of the rest of us somehow and it's a lot of money.

I was joking Navy.

I am however surprised that people, especially given the proportion of poorer people who smoke can actually afford to maintain a habit.

I'd hazard a guess that the money used to treat a smoker with a smoking related disease is more than the money they've paid in taxes for cigarettes in their lifetime.

Doon the Water wrote:Davie
If you do not smoke in your car with young children as passengers I can only assume that you must be aware of the risks of passive smoking.

Clever Doon. Very clever. Such a nice trap to lay

Fortunately I saw it coming as I've heard that argument before. What I neglected to say was that I don't smoke in the car at all, regardless of the presence of small children.

I was curious to see if you'd take the bait after laying it so carefully for me

Have you got an early tee time this morning as well Davie?

I agree that smokers are a very selfish breed. My dad now lives on his own and I visit him often. When I get home I have to put all my clothes out to be washed and have a shower. I grew up living in a permanent haze of smoke. When my mum was alive they looked after my son sometimes who then suffered badly from Asthma. He was returned to us stinking of smoke so we were then reluctant to let them look after him.

Having said that the above has nothing to do with Clarke and his fantastic victory in the open. He's doing something that is legal, it's outside so he is not troubling anyone else and it's his decision whether he smokes or not.

Diggers wrote:No I think the comments on here show people believe smoking has a greater impact directly on them than the other things you list. I certainly do , people can smoke in their own space, just not around me I'm afraid.

And by their own space, that refers back to Darren Clarke who chose to smoke in his own space. Keeping it on the original thread, I still do not see how there can be an issue for Darren Clarke to be seen on camera smoking when he is almost praised for having a poor diet by being seen as a man of the people and seen as a good bloke because he likes a drink. None of them should be treated with any less disgust then the next but there is very little questioning of anything but his smoking which I find puzzling.

On the point with the smoking ban, I would fully accept and agree with an argument that it protects bar staff, which is a large sector of UK employment and I personally prefer pubs without smoke. However, although Smithers made this point, the general consensus is that smoking should be banned anywhere and everywhere because people do not like it personally. There are things that all of us do not like but if there is ample choice to avoid these then those that choose to partake in them should not be dictated to by those that do not.

Rangiora wrote:I'd hazard a guess that the money used to treat a smoker with a smoking related disease is more than the money they've paid in taxes for cigarettes in their lifetime.

It's a very difficult one to quantify because a lot of smokers also drink and eat poorly so smoking related cancers aside, the big dangers are to do with the heart and all three of these contribute to this. Also, there are a ridiculous amount of alcohol related injuries that occur each year, so again, this would have to be considered with the cost of an unhealthy lifestyle.

Lucky Clarke can avoid private health care being a fat, boozy smoker. I suppose if he represents the Everyman it's a slightly sad state of affairs health wise.

You just need to walk down any high street Diggers to see he does.

You are sadly both right. Everywoman is no better on the high street...

sharrison01 wrote:

Diggers wrote:No I think the comments on here show people believe smoking has a greater impact directly on them than the other things you list. I certainly do , people can smoke in their own space, just not around me I'm afraid.

And by their own space, that refers back to Darren Clarke who chose to smoke in his own space. Keeping it on the original thread, I still do not see how there can be an issue for Darren Clarke to be seen on camera smoking when he is almost praised for having a poor diet by being seen as a man of the people and seen as a good bloke because he likes a drink. None of them should be treated with any less disgust then the next but there is very little questioning of anything but his smoking which I find puzzling.

On the point with the smoking ban, I would fully accept and agree with an argument that it protects bar staff, which is a large sector of UK employment and I personally prefer pubs without smoke. However, although Smithers made this point, the general consensus is that smoking should be banned anywhere and everywhere because people do not like it personally. There are things that all of us do not like but if there is ample choice to avoid these then those that choose to partake in them should not be dictated to by those that do not.

I find myself pretty much in total agreement here. Worrying...

Diggers wrote:Lucky Clarke can avoid private health care being a fat, boozy smoker. I suppose if he represents the Everyman it's a slightly sad state of affairs health wise.

super_realist wrote:You just need to walk down any high street Diggers to see he does.

sharrison01 wrote:You are sadly both right. Everywoman is no better on the high street...

Where's the worry Navy?

Id like to make it clear that I certainly dont feel any joy for Clarke winning the Open just because he happens to be a fat bloke people can relate to.
He's been through some tough times and a lot of people relate to that so he's a popular winner.
But if you want the harsh facts, he's 42 and looks 52, is morbidly obese, smokes and drinks. If his kids carry on having a Dad for the next 20 years it will be by luck not judgement on his part.

Have joined this one a little late so in honesty not bothered to read all the comments from top to bottom so to speak.

But the sight of Darren Clarke puffing away on a cigarette so what. Kids can see that everyday in any high street and as for it being a bad influence to kids any decent parent can bring a child up to know whats good and bad for them and that just because DC smokes doesn't mean they will. What would worry me more is the bad example of cheating and feigning injury footballers give to young kids.

Likewise saying you wouldn't see a boxer or a cricketer of footballer stopping to take a drag on a fag! Nope you wouldn't but would you say seeing the Flintoff or KP drunk as a skink for days on end in the tabloids and on TV after an Ashes win a good example nope! Or David haye running off at the mouth wearing a T-Shirt with one of the Klitschko's head disembodied a good example no you wouldn't. The simple matter is in all sports there are good and bad influences of what kids should and shouldn't do. What is important is they see how sportsman and women conduct themselves with their manner and sportsmanship.

Something which DC is more than a good example of, he doesn't complain when things go against him, he shows character and grit to recover some hard times and puts his family first and so what he likes he beer and a cigarette so does MAJ yet no-one slates him for that..... Better to see DC as a role model with flaws showing he is human than trying to give kids the impression our sporting heroes are some sort of demigod only to find later in life their a cheat or worse..

As for the smoking ban you could equally say non smokers are just as slefish as smokers.. Smokers want the freedom to smoke in a pub or restaurant whereas non smokers despise it and hope it continues to remain as is now the bans in effect. For the record i'm a non smoler and love the fact I don't stink of smoke after a night out but I can see that more can be done to accomodate smokers from litterally being left out in the cold,

I've always been a bit confused about why people think it's necessary for sports stars to set an example.

Raising children in the proper way is the responsibility of the parent, not sports stars, teachers or anybody else.
Kids shouldn't have to look to anyone else for examples of how to behave. It should be already established through their development by their parents.

I was pulling for him because he comes across as a genuine nice guy. I would have done that if he was short,thin,had a moustache, looked 10 years younger than he is or was bald. The fact he smokes,drinks and likes his food isn't really a consideration for me as a golf follower. It's more of a concern for him,his family and his doctor.

super_realist wrote:I've always been a bit confused about why people think it's necessary for sports stars to set an example.

Raising children in the proper way is the responsibility of the parent, not sports stars, teachers or anybody else.
Kids shouldn't have to look to anyone else for examples of how to behave. It should be already established through their development by their parents.

I think you're right SR and I think that by and large all kids do follow their parents' examples more than people in the public eye. The blame given to public figures is usually from parents and I think that it might be something to do with their insecurities when in reality their kids will probably follow them and their example will be just fine.

There is also a lot of evidence to support this around us - drinking/smoking/eating habits are more often than not learnt from parents in the same way that good academia and exercise are. Obviously the occasional exception but most people I know follow this...

"As for the smoking ban you could equally say non smokers are just as slefish as smokers.. Smokers want the freedom to smoke in a pub or restaurant whereas non smokers despise it and hope it continues to remain as is now the bans in effect."

Other than the fact that smoking has a detrimental effect on the people around a smoker and not smoking doesnt. Yes non smokers are clearly equally selfish by not making over people smell of smoke. What a shocking attitude.

super_realist wrote:I've always been a bit confused about why people think it's necessary for sports stars to set an example.

Raising children in the proper way is the responsibility of the parent, not sports stars, teachers or anybody else.
Kids shouldn't have to look to anyone else for examples of how to behave. It should be already established through their development by their parents.

Couldn't agree with this more, likewise with what SH has just added. I believe anyone can blame the press, tv, sportsman any outside influence you can think of for their kid not turning out right. When simply the only role models these kids need is their parents. Parents set the standard a child learns from, they teach a child what a healthy lifestyle choice and diet is and how they should lead their life and treat others. I spend as much time with my kids as I can, and have recently done something about this to get even more time with them. I don't belive anyone can use the excuse of having no time with their kids as a parent you will find the time and if you don't then your not trying hard enough. My kids age range from 11years to 11months old. My 11 year old knows whats right and wrong she conducts herself in a good way, she has sporting heroes but she also knows she will be judged on her actions and behaviour not on what she see's n everyday life as do all my kids, my 5year old boy and 4 year old daughter to learn these lessons and know unhealthy food etc is a one off treat not a common diet plan, that exercise will keep them fit and healthy and that just because someone on TV does something doesn't mean they can get away with it. I even got into an argument in the high street the other day with a woman because she felt I was harsh telling an 11month old baby off for for trying to bite his sister, "her argument was he's a baby he doesn't know better" My argument is "teach them from a young age means not dealing with the fall out of bad parenting on the long run"

We can argue all day that these people are in the public eye and should set a good example I would argue set a good example at home and your kids don't need pin their hopes of learning to be a good human being from someone outside the family unit

Diggers wrote:"As for the smoking ban you could equally say non smokers are just as slefish as smokers.. Smokers want the freedom to smoke in a pub or restaurant whereas non smokers despise it and hope it continues to remain as is now the bans in effect."

Other than the fact that smoking has a detrimental effect on the people around a smoker and not smoking doesnt. Yes non smokers are clearly equally selfish by not making over people smell of smoke. What a shocking attitude.

Freedom of choice is just that if someone chooses to smoke you can choose not to stand near them to whats so shocking about not conforming so the standard attitude... Yes passive smoking is bad hence why I don't surround myself or my kids with smokers but if someone chooses to light up equally I have a pair of legs and can choose to move away from that smoke!

Mav, I don't necessarily think that it's the parents' fault in that they consciously blame public figures but I think it's their insecurities and guilt that come across as blaming other people than themselves. Most parents do a fine job but they will still feel guilty at times and question their own parenting and sadly this is honed towards public figures as oppose to feeling comfortable in their own skills.

Back onto the smoking ban, your point earlier is what I was trying to get cross in that the situation before the ban was as equally incorrect as it is with the ban. There are better solutions that can suit everybody but it would need everyone to work together to find a solution rather than sticking to their own groups and thinking about oneself.

So in a busy bar where a third of the people are smoking your choice is then just to leave ?
Well the good news is that I dont have to and the common sense attitude has prevailed and the snmoker has to leave to have his fix.

Diggers wrote:So in a busy bar where a third of the people are smoking your choice is then just to leave ?
Well the good news is that I dont have to and the common sense attitude has prevailed and the snmoker has to leave to have his fix.

Do you not see how the attitude of just thinking about yourself and what you want rather than others could apply to other parts of society in a very detrimental way?

SH agree totally yes most parents will do a good job of bringing up their kids, but my point was more aimed at the ones we see in society where they let their kids run riot and then blame society and the culture around them.

As for the ban thing you understand my point entirely, I am a non smoker and choose not to be around people when they smoke, I have friends and family that smoke but do not go out to the cigarette area with them, it's east to argue the point that because smoking harms that there should be a ban and smokers should effectively be left out in the cold in some sort of naughty schoolboy way, but these are still human beings just because they smoke doesnt mean they are willingly trying to kill us with their second hand smoke. Most smokers I know even before the ban would ask "do you mind if i smoke" I just think there needs be a more benificial way for everyone as when I go out now for a night out I see a society divided smokers tend to stick outdoors and hardly talk to non smokers as they are all inside...

No I wouldn't choose to leave because I have made the coice to be in that bar. It appears to me diggers that you are thinking purely of yourself and not the effect this has on society that people no longer have a choice of whether to smoke or not, amongst a group of friends alone you can see divisons occuring as the smokers will stay outside the group because they haven't got freedom of choice

No because Im intelligent enough to differentiate that smoking has an immediate direct effect on me when Im near it and other vices/faults in society do not. So its not difficult for me look at various scenarios for different situations and make a decision for each one. Hence in this case I believe the ban to be perfectly fair.
You think your compromise options are good ideas, I think they are bad ideas. Compromise is not always the best course of action and Im very glad it wasnt taken in the case of smoking.
I notice nobody has addressed the fact that smokers are also amongst the worst litterers in the country. Walk up any street and you will see hundreds of cigarette butts, I suppose this is acceptable as well? I mean sure its not pleasant but Ive got eyes, I can just close them and not see the cigarette butts.

Diggers wrote:No because Im intelligent enough to differentiate that smoking has an immediate direct effect on me when Im near it and other vices/faults in society do not. So its not difficult for me look at various scenarios for different situations and make a decision for each one. Hence in this case I believe the ban to be perfectly fair.
You think your compromise options are good ideas, I think they are bad ideas. Compromise is not always the best course of action and Im very glad it wasnt taken in the case of smoking.
I notice nobody has addressed the fact that smokers are also amongst the worst litterers in the country. Walk up any street and you will see hundreds of cigarette butts, I suppose this is acceptable as well? I mean sure its not pleasant but Ive got eyes, I can just close them and not see the cigarette butts.

Diggers, it doesn't really have a detrimental effect to you though does it? A couple of hours in a pub once a week will make little difference to your health but what you do not like is the other things from smoking like the stink on your clothes and the litter in the street. These are personal annoyances with smoking, which I am sure a lot of people have, but are not enough to single out a group of people and treat them differently.

OK, so smokers littering is OK as well.
Personally Id rather go for my own passive smoking beliefs than yours, I also believe that littering and having my clothes made to stink are not annoyances, they are detrimental to me.
Id fine every smoker £50 for putting a fag butt out on the street, littering is littering and if anything its a worse habit than smoking.

Diggers wrote:OK, so smokers littering is OK as well.
Personally Id rather go for my own passive smoking beliefs than yours, I also believe that littering and having my clothes made to stink are not annoyances, they are detrimental to me.
Id fine every smoker £50 for putting a fag butt out on the street, littering is littering and if anything its a worse habit than smoking.

Spot on.

I would love to see the NY system where smokers can get fined for smoking in open spaces works.

Diggers, I agree with you regarding fining smokers for dropping cigarette butts and the law is already there that covers this. How strongly upheld this is is down to the police. How about if there was a conservatory built on the back of the pub or a shed in the pub garden that people were allowed to smoke in? You would never have to go near it so regardless of the effects of passive smoking there would be none for you, your clothes would not smell and you wouldn't even have to see people smoke. Where would this be unreasonable?

A lot of pubs have smoking shelters, how good they are is down to the pub and how much they want to spend.

Diggers wrote:A lot of pubs have smoking shelters, how good they are is down to the pub and how much they want to spend.

There are laws restricting these shelters though to not being enclosed so that is hardly accommodating...

It is as far as Im concerned.

sharrison01 wrote: How about if there was a .. shed in the pub garden that people were allowed to smoke in?

So let me get this straight, you want to put people who are drinking into a wooden shed so they can set fire to their cigarettes in comfort?

SmithersJones wrote:

sharrison01 wrote: How about if there was a .. shed in the pub garden that people were allowed to smoke in?

So let me get this straight, you want to put people who are drinking into a wooden shed so they can set fire to their cigarettes in comfort?

I was theoretically testing how selfish people can be as oppose to offering a practical solution. I'm just amazed that if offered a way that something that a group of people want to do can de done there are people that still say no, even if it makes no difference to them. I think that it's a very bad way for people in a society to think and it's sad that there are people out there that would let a group of people be treated differently when their choices affect nobody.

sharrison01 wrote:

SmithersJones wrote:

sharrison01 wrote: How about if there was a .. shed in the pub garden that people were allowed to smoke in?

So let me get this straight, you want to put people who are drinking into a wooden shed so they can set fire to their cigarettes in comfort?

I was theoretically testing how selfish people can be as oppose to offering a practical solution. I'm just amazed that if offered a way that something that a group of people want to do can de done there are people that still say no, even if it makes no difference to them. I think that it's a very bad way for people in a society to think and it's sad that there are people out there that would let a group of people be treated differently when their choices affect nobody.

C'est la vie.

Unfortunately...

There is absolutely no reason to accomodate an anti social activity. Now I might like to have a bit of a tam shank over the lovely ladies in the pub. Should i have a nice little shelter in the corner built with a small peep hole so I can indulge myself?


























Please, I am not being serious before the insults come flying in.

Mac sounds like your talking about a Glory hole there and those so I'm told are for very different purposes

McLaren wrote:There is absolutely no reason to accomodate an anti social activity.

Like drinking as well I assume? What you personally don't like and what is anti social are very different things...

Like it or not kids do ape thier sporting heros.
When I was young all my golfing pals had thier glove tucked into thier hip pocket like the great Arnie.
More modern juniors started aping Tiger by spitting thier way round the course.

I am a great Darren Clarke fan and did not mean to put a negative spin on his great win. It was so unusual for me to see someone smoking on the course, it was a bit like reacting to a BBC newsreader drawing on his/her fag whilst presenting the news.
I have learned by this thread that the cameras do not show golfers smoking. If that is the case the sponsors should make notes before paying big bucks to have thier name above or below thw fag line.