The Smoking Ban

[Jayne]

Well I am still a none smoker, one and a half years now

I must admit, I did really enjoy it and it was the hardest thing I ever had to do was to stop. I love the new ban, as it makes it easier for me to stay stopped. And I must admit, I feel tones better and food tastes so good now, hence my expanding belly.

The pub my husband goes to now and again is having a smoking room built around the back, which I think is a great idea for those that do want to smoke.

Jayne

 

[Stephen Berry]

a completely different point to the thread ..... the commercial advantages.
I had the misfortune to travel by South West Trains today. They are reminding customers that no smoking will be allowed on any of the South West Trains network - specifically including railway platforms - many of which are not enclosed and therefore technically outside the perameters of the ban.

What a stunning co-incidence that they will save hundreds of thousands of pounds not employing people to pick up the smokers litter (a habit which, incidentally I find disgusting - people who would not throw a coke can on the floor think it is acceptable to throw cigarette butt on the floor).

This is reminiscent of London undergorund after the Kings Cross disaster. On the pretext that there was the remote possibility that discarded smokers litter caused the fire and the deaths, they banned smoking on all of the London underground network and saved thousands on cleaning bills.

Am I just an old cynic or am I right to think that the commercial aspects of the ban, such as the decrease in overhead costs of South West trains are the paramount issue?

 

[JustOneUK]

What a stunning co-incidence that they will save hundreds of thousands of pounds not employing people to pick up the smokers litter (a habit which, incidentally I find disgusting - people who would not throw a coke can on the floor think it is acceptable to throw cigarette butt on the floor).

This is reminiscent of London undergorund after the Kings Cross disaster. On the pretext that there was the remote possibility that discarded smokers litter caused the fire and the deaths, they banned smoking on all of the London underground network and saved thousands on cleaning bills.

Am I just an old cynic or am I right to think that the commercial aspects of the ban, such as the decrease in overhead costs of South West trains are the paramount issue?

You never heard of sweet wrappers or nicotine chewing gum?
It will be stuck everywhere, I am going to make a point of sticking chewing gum in every single place that stopped me smoking.


(just kidding of course)
James.

 

Smokers must get the idea out of their head that this ban is to infringe on their life - it is to allow those who choose NOT to smoke, not to have to smoke.

Now I am a smoker, and I still stand by the above statement.

I know people will ask about private members clubs, etc - but to have a ban and make it workable, the current one is what they came up with. It will work and you will all learn to adhere to it. I have had lots of discussions about our ban since it came in at the start of April - we all got used to it and it now doesn't affect our lives. We sometimes have to go outside to smoke, but I can live with that.

One thing you may not be aware of - when the ban came into N Ireland, the first few days saw numerous 'inspectors' going out and about and checking that people were adhering to it. Anyone who thinks they can ignore the law will get a rude awakening - be warned !

 

[Stephen Berry]

You never heard of sweet wrappers or nicotine chewing gum?

I am (completely unreliably) informed that smokers litter accounts for almost 70% of total litter by number of items. Apparently the number of cigarette butts (thus excluding cellophane wrapping and packets) thrown on the streets of London each day is sufficient to fill an average London suburb 1930's semi detached house.

Not sure who would live in a house filled with cigarette butts though?
Also - who was 'sad' enough to make such a calculation?

So, presumably South West Trains will save only 70% of their litter clean up costs - I bet that is still a number followed by a gigantic number of zeros.

 

[Rhyl Lightworks]

I have seen it reported somewhere (I can't remember where) that one unforeseen consequence of the smoking ban in Wales was the increased amount of cigarette butts littering outside areas.
Barrie

 

[itchy]

We're quite small so it'll make a big difference to the atmosphere, no more stinking of smoke when you get home. I honestly don't think it'll affect us that much, the drinking we get is very sociable and that'll not change, the customers will still be crude, loud and have drinks, they just won't smoke is all.
On a personal non smoker note, we've ordered an awning to cover the smokers in the bad weather but it won't be fitted til end of july. I so can't wait to see the smokers standing out in the rain and cold...obviously from a business point of view i hope it's blazing sunshine.

 

[ValidSeal]

I do wonder how small restaurants will be affected.

 

[DotNetWebs]

I do wonder how small restaurants will be affected.

Horsham restaurants have all been non smoking for 2 years already. You struggle to get a table on a Saturday Night in Horsham.

Strada recently opened a branch here and they have been so busy they are turning people away mid week.

As I have said on this forum before the smoking ban will bring more people into bars and restaurants than its drives away. This makes sense really if you think about it since non-smokers now outnumber smokers by a large majority.

Regards

Dotty

 

[Philip Hoyle]

I do wonder how small restaurants will be affected.

Well, the small restaurant and three pubs within walking distance of my office will see more trade from me, that's for sure. At the moment, if I am having a lunchtime meeting with a client, I order in sandwiches as there is no way I'm going into a pub or restaurant for a pub-lunch or meal to inhale second hand smoke and end up with my clothes smelling for the rest of the day. When the no-smoking ban comes in, then I'll be frequenting our local venues, probably 2/3 times a week rather than never at the moment. Bring it on. I could never understand the mentality of having to walk through a smoking area to get to the non-smoking areas, typically at the back of the pub/restaurant. Neither could I ever understand the restaurants that didn't have a non-smoking area - you can quickly tell the venues owned by smokers who clearly don't appreciate other peoples' opinions. It's a shame it has come to an outright ban - I am sure with a bit more consideration and more real "smoke free" areas, a compromise could have been achieved without having to go to law.

 

[chas]

Lets just see how many people complain when the government has to icrease other taxes to compensate for the tax they lose through this smoking ban.

I do not agree with the ban at all. Fine I can understand those who want to eat or drink in a smoke free area - in that case smoking only areas could be created. This IS an infringement of an individuals right no matter what anyone says.

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR SMOKERS

 

[miketombs]

I don't think the Government is making an economic case for the ban - it's a health issue. It's an infringement of rights in the same way as seat-belt legislation is, although that may well have economic benefits too. The role of the government is to provide for the health and safety of the citizens, and sometimes that means legislating against things people enjoy, because they can't see the benefits themselves.

 

[Smudge]

Surly I have the wright to breath air that hasn't been poisoned by someone else. Is this not an infringement on my rights?

I think the government has been losing tax on tobacco for at least a decade already. Due to the fact it's more unsocial to smoke and the smuggling of tobacco.

And in the long term when smokers stop smoking is going to be a less strain to the NHS.

 

[DotNetWebs]

Smudge is right. Nobody's 'rights' have been infringed here. Smokers are now a minority in the population. The non-smoking majority have decided that it is no longer acceptable to smoke in public enclosed spaces and backed legislation to ban it. That's democracy for you. That's also progress and thankfully from Sunday this will no longer be an issue.

Regards

Dotty

ps It's funny how two new people have just registered just to make a single post opposing the ban

 

[chas]

Of course if you are a non smoker you have the right to breath clean air - as a smoker I, and others who smoke. have the right to smoke and to expect provisions to be made to allow us to do that.

As far as the NHS is concerned it wont make that much of a difference - they could save more money by getting ride of some of the chiefs for a start. All the other dos and donts going on with regard to what we should and should not eat and what is or is not good for us is going to cause more problems in the long run.

Anyway smokers deserve just as many rights and non smokers and OUR rights are being taken away.

Charles

 

[Dawg]

Mike T:

The role of the government is to provide for the health and safety of the citizens

I think Mike, that is your perception of the role of government. There are other ways to see the role of government, some a little less invasive perhaps. The cradle to grave paternalism of the state, might, to some, seem to be a 20th century idealism which didn't work.

 

[Gillie]

Of course if you are a non smoker you have the right to breath clean air - as a smoker I, and others who smoke. have the right to smoke and to expect provisions to be made to allow us to do that.

As far as the NHS is concerned it wont make that much of a difference - they could save more money by getting ride of some of the chiefs for a start. All the other dos and donts going on with regard to what we should and should not eat and what is or is not good for us is going to cause more problems in the long run.

Anyway smokers deserve just as many rights and non smokers and OUR rights are being taken away.

Charles

No they aint ... you are for once being made to feel as we have felt for a long long time .... go smoke outside, we the majority dont want you .. simple as!

 

[KM-Tiger]

we the majority dont want you .. simple as!

Now where did I hear that before? Wasn't that Hitler chap talking about minorities was it?

 

[chas]

Exactly - just because smokers are becoming a minority does not mean they have any less rights than anyone else. If you want clean air completely then its time cars, lorries, planes etc were banned - I dont like the pollution they create - and they cause more damage to the air we all breath than any smoking.

Chas

 

[DotNetWebs]

The last two replies are typical smokers arguments in the face of a losing battle:

Hitler - He was a dictator imposing his will on the population through fear of death if they did not comply. We live in a democracy and this legislation is the will of the majority of voters in this country who are exercising their democratic vote.

Planes, trains and automobiles - Of course efforts should be made to reduce their pollution but they do not operate in ENCLOSED PUBLIC SPACES which is what this legislation is all about.

Regards

Dotty

 

[Gillie]

Exactly - just because smokers are becoming a minority does not mean they have any less rights than anyone else. If you want clean air completely then its time cars, lorries, planes etc were banned - I dont like the pollution they create - and they cause more damage to the air we all breath than any smoking.

Chas

You have the right to kill me do you?? I do believe thats called manslaughter??

 

[New Age London]

It is not an infringement on anyone's rights not to smoke, as smokers can still take nicotine in a form that does not harm others. This drug does not have to be smoked.

I personally postponed going out with the gang from work till after the ban so that I can have a really good time and breathe freely. I can't wait!

 

[Cornish Steve]

What is sad to me in this discussion are the arguments used by both sides.

Smoker: I demand my rights, even though my habit affects you.

Non-smoker: A majority agrees with me, so stuff your rights.

Neither of these arguments is good. The first is what got smokers in trouble in the first place. The second is why Britain needs some type of Bill of Rights, to protect minorities against the majority.

For me, the danger is the precedent that's set. The government steps in, believing its knows best, and enforces restrictions. They demand that every company etc. put up signs and cover the expense of doing that. The pretence is that it's health-related, but it's not. It's all about control: government over people.

The right way to do this is to let the free market run its course. As others have said, restaurants that ban smoking will do well with non-smokers. Restaurants that allow smoking will do well with smokers. Trains that ban smoking will fill more quickly that those that allow smokers. Hotels that ban smoking will attract more business travellers than those that offer smelly rooms.

We don't need government prying into our personal lives with the attitude of "nanny knows best" because there's no end to it. Neither do we want to encourage a culture in which the majority believes it should always get its way.

 

[DotNetWebs]

...Non-smoker: A majority agrees with me, so stuff your rights...

Steve you are over-dramatising things again.

"I did not say stuff you rights". What I said was that a democratic process has been followed. In a democracy you are never going to please everybody all of the time but by definition a democracy is the will of the majority.

SMOKERS HAVE NOT LOST THE RIGHT TO SMOKE. They have just been stopped from doing it in enclosed public spaces.

This is the will of the public majority in this country. As I keep saying' society moves on, things that where once acceptable become unacceptable. We have now reached that stage with public smoking in enclosed spaces.

Regards

Dotty

 

[Matt1959]

as I understand it, Bristol has banned smoking in one its parks around the childrens play area.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Now for the really controversial statement.

Democracy is NOT a good form of government. Without individual rights enshrined into law, the majority will always impose its will on the minority. Democracy won't protect against another holocaust.

OK, a smoking ban is not on a par with the holocaust, but the thinking behind this ban is unfortunate. The majority is not always right, regardless of this particular issue.

 

[Gillie]

One bartender, waitress or club worker dies in the UK every week because of breathing in second-hand cigarette smoke, new research has revealed.

The shocking figures also show that passive smoking causes around 5,000 deaths a year in the UK and that the number of people dying from passive smoking at home and in workplace is significantly higher than previously thought.

 

[Matt1959]

Trust you Gill. I was bought up by two smoking parents and my memories of home are smog filled rooms. I've also worked full time in a pub for 2 years. Feel ok at the moment though

 

[Gillie]

Early days for you then Matt ... I to worked in a pub, well ran one for 4 years. Anyone hear the radio earlier this evening when they were all chatting about what the pubs will smell like without the covering smoke smell??

 

[Matt1959]

Early days for you then Matt quote]

great, it gets better

 

OK, a smoking ban is not on a par with the holocaust, but the thinking behind this ban is unfortunate. The majority is not always right, regardless of this particular issue.

Why should I have to suffer because of smokers and have an unpleasant time while out inhaling disgusting, dirty, and bad for my health smoke? Why should my clothes and hair have to stink of it too?

Smokers don’t just cost in terms of health care either, they cost in

- Absence from work due to smoking related sickness

- Smoking breaks while at work

- Treatment for smoking related ailments

- Litter from dropped packets/cigarette ends

- Re-decoration of public places stained with nicotene

- Benefit payments while on sick or incapacitated due to smoking ailments

- Cost of smoking abstinence programmes, literature etc

- Treatment, absence and benefits paid to those suffering through passive smoking - particularly relevant to family members of the smoker (children for example)

The smoking ban has to be one of the best things the government has done for us!

Roll on July 1st.

 

[adam]

as a smoker I, and others who smoke. have the right to smoke and to expect provisions to be made to allow us to do that.

A rapist likes to force people to have sex should we proivde little rape rooms on street corners for them to use?

No.

No one argues againts rape being wrong and in time you will see why most people don't see anything wrong in you not smoking in a public place. You can't smoke in a library even now.

It wasn't getting through to private commercial establishments that the non smoker wanted somewhere to go an not be harmed by others.

You have the right to do almost anything you want so long as it does impact on other's free rights.

Your smoking does.

I don't like heavy handed government, I would like to have seen a licencing system for smoking or rules that allowed enclosed rooms with 2 doors (like an air lock) to be set aside to allow smokers in in pubs, restaurants etc.

 

[chas]

Cars etc operate within the enclosed space we live in the earth - that has an effect on us all so if smoking goes they do

 

[Dawg]

Chas:

Cars etc operate within the enclosed space we live in the earth - that has an effect on us all so if smoking goes they do

It's great to see a smoker/smoking advocate use a fatuous hippy-dippy argument. A real last gasp effort. Game over.

(It's the smokers' equivalent of Godwin's Law)

 

[Cornish Steve]

Why should I have to suffer because of smokers and have an unpleasant time while out inhaling disgusting, dirty, and bad for my health smoke? Why should my clothes and hair have to stink of it too?

Carl, let me reiterate that I'm not a smoker and I hate smoking. I enjoy newly smoke-free places more than most. I'm not arguing the case because I disagree with people not smoking; I prefer that no one smoked. More important, in the long run, though, is protecting individual rights and not allowing the government to impose regulation simply because a majority agrees with it.

I agree completely with the comments you make, but I could apply them to heavy drinking: disgusting behaviour, lost productivity, increased violence, more traffic deaths, etc. So why shouldn't the government ban all drinking so that the effects will no longer affect me? Restrict drinking to private homes and forbid drunks from leaving home. Put up signs on all the streets informing residents that they'll be fined if found drunk on a public pavement. What about loud music? Why should my right to peace and quiet be taken away by neighbours or car drivers with music blaring? Why doesn't the government introduce regulation that ensures no radio or TV can produce unduly loud noises? Why not force car-makers to ensure vehicles cannot physically travel more than 70mph since it's illegal anyway?

The arguments used against smokers are valid, but the answer is to allow businesses to respond voluntarily, and not for the government to decide it knows best and dictate what must and must not be done.

 

[Smudge]

Of course if you are a non smoker you have the right to breath clean air - as a smoker I, and others who smoke. have the right to smoke and to expect provisions to be made to allow us to do that.

As far as the NHS is concerned it wont make that much of a difference - they could save more money by getting ride of some of the chiefs for a start. All the other dos and donts going on with regard to what we should and should not eat and what is or is not good for us is going to cause more problems in the long run.

Anyway smokers deserve just as many rights and non smokers and OUR rights are being taken away.

Charles

Of course its going to make a difference to the NHS. Less smoking related disease, less pain and suffering. Its got to save NHS money.

 

[DotNetWebs]

Chas:

It's great to see a smoker/smoking advocate use a fatuous hippy-dippy argument. A real last gasp effort. Game over.

(It's the smokers' equivalent of Godwin's Law)

Exactly. I think Chas has been smoking something a bit stronger than tobacco.

Regards

Dotty

ps Chas. This is a business forum not the Forest forum. You have made 4 posts and they are all opposing the smoking ban. Why don't you tell us more about yourself and your business.

 

[Smudge]

Or who you are Chas, hope you've not signed in under another name!

 

[Mr. Mu]

I used to smoke until I realised that smoking was a form of self-medication against feelings. I quit because I realised that it - and other addictions - just kept me in a state of arrested emotional and spiritual development.

The danger of quitting things without a personal understanding of what you were using them for is that it's likely that you will shift your self-medication onto something else: Food. Alcohol. Work. Sport. Porn. Gambling. Relationships... etc. etc. you name it, it can be used that way.

If that rings a bell for anyone - or if you're planning to give up self-medicating, read Terrence Real's 'I don't want to talk about it'. A great insight, in my opinion.

 

[DotNetWebs]

...I agree completely with the comments you make, but I could apply them to heavy drinking: disgusting behaviour, lost productivity, increased violence, more traffic deaths, etc. So why shouldn't the government ban all drinking so that the effects will no longer affect me? Restrict drinking to private homes and forbid drunks from leaving home. Put up signs on all the streets informing residents that they'll be fined if found drunk on a public pavement. What about loud music? Why should my right to peace and quiet be taken away by neighbours or car drivers with music blaring? Why doesn't the government introduce regulation that ensures no radio or TV can produce unduly loud noises? Why not force car-makers to ensure vehicles cannot physically travel more than 70mph since it's illegal anyway?....

Why not ban alcohol as well? This is another of the flawed arguments that keep coming up.

Remember again we are just talking about ENCLOSED PUBLIC SPACES. You cannot compare alcohol with tobacco.

If I am sat it a small room with somebody having a drink the actual act of drinking the drink will not cause me any harm. Of course occasionally that person might get drunk and rowdy but that is a problem with the individual rather than the drink itself.

In contrast EVERY cigarette smoked in that small room will effect me no matter how responsible the individual is.

Many of the other issues raised are important social problems that need to be tackled but many of these already have there own legislation in place. For instance there are already laws preventing drinking on the streets and action can be taken against persistent noise offenders.

The smoking ban is an answer to a unique public health problem. It is not comparable to the other issues that keep coming up. It often sounds like a childish argument where smokers have had their toys taken away so they want non-smokers to have their toys taken away too.

Regards

Dotty