The Smoking Ban

[RedEvo]

As a general comment - note the word GENERAL - smokers are usually inconsiderate. It's taken legislation to protect others from being poisoned. Sorry to polarise the situation but I think it's as black and white as that and nothing in this thread has changed my mind.

I think we will see more legislation like this. It's sad. I blame the "It's all about me" society. if people genuinely did consider the implications of their actions we could get rid of many laws. It's not going to happen.

I'd like to see fog lights banned next, banned as is in not allowed on cars unless you have a license to show you've passed the 'when to use fog lights' test!!



d

 

[Eagle]

I can't wait to see alcohol banned from pubs.

Think it can't happen?...

 

[RedEvo]

Yeah, it really bugs me when I can smell other people's beer when I'm having a pint. And getting home with my clothes smelling of beer and lager is horrible. As for all that passive drinking......don't get me started!

d

 

[Eagle]

I know what you mean. All those thousands of people in casualty wards all over the country every single day. Nasty, vicious crimes such as 'smoke-driving', 'smashing someone's face-in whilst under the influence of nicotine' and the infamous "you starin' at my lighter?" type incidents.

"Bar tender!" - a pack of 20 wife-beater, please...

 

[Gillie]

Now why do I get the impression this debate has fallen between the lines and is getting silly??

 

[RedEvo]

We are talking about smoking, specifically in environments where non smokers are forced to inhale other peoples smoke.

If you want to get into a discussion about the social challenges facing 21st century Britain (alcohol, drugs, social inequity etc) then that's fine but let's not go off topic on this specific subject.

 

[Eagle]

I don't think it's going off-topic. Just pointing out the incredible irony.

 

[Roark]

I smoke and I am all for the ban.

No more nicotine chambers at my coffee pub- it was enough to make a person sick - you could cut the smoke with a knife.

I've smoked outdoors for the better part of 8 years, as others shouldn't have to ingest this pollution.

Next I think fat people, ugly people, and others will become subjects of societies new wave approach toward the common good. We should be sensible and somewhat careful with the judgements that society- erm goverment is starting to make.

 

I don't smoke and am happy I never took it up.

However, a lot of factors come in to play when trying to quit and although it is easy for some people to quit, I can fully appreciate that for others it can prove immensely difficult, if not impossible, to give up. I like to think I can appreciate both sides of the argument.

Good luck to anyone trying to give up - I wish you success. That's all I wanted to say really.

 

[DotNetWebs]

...Dotty, I'm afraid you've gone potty! (sorry, couldn't resist that pun ). Your example, although very clever and well put, seems to be the reverse of the smoking ban. People now toilet indoors, indeed the legislation dictates how many facilities there should be to keep the mess from the streets. The smoking ban forces people from indoor facilities onto the streets or their own homes. The analogy gets better: there are Male and Female toilets in the majority of non-residential buildings, just as smoking and non-smoking areas can cater for each orientation without detriment to the other.

Thank you for welcoming me to UKBF. I look forward to taking an active part in other discussions in due course (stop groaning! ).

Hi Dantiunpro

I am sorry you don't understand my analogy. Don't try and look into it so deep.

My example was in direct response to your claim that people should have the "right" or "freedom of choice" to do whatever they want where they want, especially if they have been doing it for years.

I have said throughout this thread that society moves on and things that were once acceptable practices in public become unacceptable. When these things are outlawed those affected will protest that their "rights" or "freedom of choice" have been withdrawn. I chose public urination and defecation as an example but I could equally have chosen other practices that occurred for centuries such as the keeping of slaves. when slavery was abolished there was much opposition, in fact it led to civil war in the USA. People had "owned" slaves for years and thought their "rights" were being withdrawn when they were asked to set them free.

I know my example may seem a little extreme but can you not see that nobody has the "right" to do what they please. If society progresses to the point where an a activity becomes offensive to the majority of the population and they choose to legislate against it then I am afraid those "rights" no longer exist.

Let's not forget smoker's have not been told they can no longer smoke. They have only been told they cannot do it where it could have an adverse health effect on others, What is so different to the 'toilet' analogy?

You mentioned the legislation in place to ensure that 'adequate toilet facilities" were provided for. Before you make this comparison you should remember that going to the toilet is a basic human need whereas smoking is a luxury. You cannot seriously expect legislation to require facilities to provide for a minority 'luxury' activity in every establishment.

Regards

Dotty

 

[Cornish Steve]

I chose public urination and defecation as an example

But you don't choose to urinate or defecate for pleasure; they are bodily necessities. Do you think the government should mandate the use of anti-perspirants because of the new awareness of BO? We all sweat, but let's make it more tolerant for everyone else.

On the other hand, we choose to drink or smoke or watch sports because it's fun, enjoyable, and social. OK, there are adverse health issues, but that's true of most things that are fun. Imagine how dull life would be if the government forced us to live the most healthy lives possible.

when slavery was abolished there was much opposition, in fact it led to civil war in the USA.

Actually, the US civil war was really a clash between industrial and agricultural societies. Abraham Lincoln was just clever enough to claim a moral issue (no matter how unjustified) because it made his cause more 'right'.

Let's not forget smoker's have not been told they can no longer smoke.

Would you like to bet me on this one? Once you give the government an inch, it will take a mile. Let's give it 20 years before smoking is made illegal. In the meantime, smokers will be discriminated against more and more, losing government services, health coverage, and so on.

 

[Elfin]

I can see why they've banned it but there are some hidden bonuses that will be lost. Going out for a fag at work turned out to be a fantastic way of networking with other staff in different departments. The amount of brainstorming, information exchange and technical issue resolution that went on during fag breaks was astounding. I'm self-employed these days, but I would certainly miss it if I were still working for big IT companies.

I think they've backed the wrong horse though - I'd have gone for an general alcohol ban long before considering a smoking ban. More benefits to be had for all.

Ellie

 

[DotNetWebs]

We are talking about smoking, specifically in environments where non smokers are forced to inhale other peoples smoke.

If you want to get into a discussion about the social challenges facing 21st century Britain (alcohol, drugs, social inequity etc) then that's fine but let's not go off topic on this specific subject.

Agreed

People keep bringing up comparisons with alcohol but fail to see that that the legislation that has just been brought in was to solve a problem that is unique to smoking.

As you say alcohol brings it's own problems but that's not the issue here.

Regards

Dotty

 

[Dawg]

Hate to say this, but it is Sunday evening: Elfin; smoking stunts yer growth...

 

The smoking ban is here to stay - we all have to learn to go along with it.

There will never be a drinking ban - the Yanks taught us that it does not work. It just would be impossible to deal with.

The comparison between the smoking ban and any potential drinking ban is wrong anyway. The smoking ban is in place to protect the 'innocent' who do not want to smoke from having to. There is no law stopping people smoking - just stopping them from poisoning others around them in the workplace.

Dawg - you got that one first

 

[Gillie]

Yes but we are to believe Mark, that the no smoking in public places is either not as bad as drinking, or the first step to being told what to eat/drink/wear ... I mean can't you see it??

We are told by Steve (who by the way lives in a country ruled by a man who is more in favour of controlling his populas than over here) that we should stand up to government and not let our civil liberties be destroyed ... can anyone else see the irony here??

 

[RedEvo]

Sorry Gillie not quite following that. Are you saying the smoking ban is the thin end of the wedge?

d

 

[Cornish Steve]

Lead by example, I was told as a child ... so if government etc don't ... who does??

So members of the government are the paragons of virtue we should strive to emulate? Are they all non-smokers? Do MPs themselves believe they must refrain from smoking on trains, etc.?

 

[Gillie]

Sorry Gillie not quite following that. Are you saying the smoking ban is the thin end of the wedge?

d

I was merely pointing out the irony of Steve and his statement that the British Government is trying to tell us what to do and we should stand up to them, and yes he lives in a country that is more controlled by its powers that be, than we are!

 

[Cornish Steve]

I was merely pointing out the irony of Steve and his statement that the British Government is trying to tell us what to do and we should stand up to them, and yes he lives in a country that is more controlled by its powers that be, than we are!

I think you've been listening to too many so-called commentators! Having visited over 70 countries around the world, I have first-hand experience of some very controlling environments. Where I am right now is definitely not one of them and, on the whole, neither is Britain. This is one reason I have voiced concerns in this thread, because once the government starts to meddle with our personal lives - especially in areas of morality, beliefs, and behaviour - it's rather difficult to stop it.

 

[Gillie]

Steve, think I listen to as many about where you live, as you do about where we live now ...

So, not smoking in enclosed public areas comes under morality and beliefs does it?? I rather think you are looking too deeply into this ... several factors influenced this decision ... Europe, that place some think we don't belong to is pushing for it generally, the lobbyists are pushing for it on behalf of the various cancer charities etc and also economics are now coming in to it.

So, then, we shouldnt listen to government and save some lives, JUST IN CASE, they might try and influence everything we do ... shouldn't we therefore be wary of everything ??

You will be coming up with a conspiracy theory next!

 

[Cornish Steve]

You will be coming up with a conspiracy theory next!

Didn't you hear that the prime minister's bit on the side has purchased the exclusive rights to sell government-authorised nicotine patches?

 

I think this subject has run out of Puff

 

[DotNetWebs]

I think this subject has run out of Puff

Perhaps it's time to stub it out.

Regards

Dotty

 

[Cornish Steve]

Too many people are becoming the butt of these awful jokes. It's time to smoke out the perpetrators.

 

[RedEvo]

I'd like to try and re light it though.......

d

 

Didn't you hear that the prime minister's bit on the side has purchased the exclusive rights to sell government-authorised nicotine patches?

your getting confused Steve .

you put the patches on your side.

all of them not a bit :|


P.S which prime minister?

 

Could you be my personal cigarette giver upper tutor please?!

And yes, I dread to think what I am doing to my health. I want to see my kids grow up but it is not easy! I also dread putting on weight, being irritable...etc....all bad excuses!

I will give you some information which you probably already know but I'm happy to remind you exists... I'm good like that.

Smoking suppresses the taste buds and so when people give up smoking their taste buds get a new lease of life and people tend to eat more because they enjoy food much more (and food is also a substitute for a cigarette, which is where the extra snacking comes in). All this helps explain the weight gain.


I suggest before you attempt to give up, you keep a food diary and note EVERYTHING you eat for a few weeks. When you give up smoking, adhere to this food diary and the calorie count for as long as it takes and this should help prevent, or minimise, the weight gain. This should help solve one of the problems you face in your attempt to give up (of course all this will involve additional willpower).

You can of course chew on your fingernails in frustration, if you so wish. However, be warned, I'm not sure how much that will help the hunger pangs! Some sugar free chewing gum and one of those fake cigarettes might also help (would explain further why but fear you'll have dosed off by now), as might ranting and raving at your husband (but this I wouldn't recommend). A trip to the Gym might be better - by giving a punch bag a good leathering you could work off some of that frustration and help prevent that possible weight gain at the same time!

Now what's that motto? Being cruel to be kind...

Always happy to help.

 

[Clementine]

I was thinking about the comments made before in this thread about the lost revenue the government would have to consider if a large number of people give up smoking.

I also thought it was an interesting point about the fact that people tend to eat more when they have given up - for the reasons Gill has stated above.

I then saw on the news about the government's plan to levy a tax on food (did anyone else see that).

The government was never really going to take a hit for the common good where they? They just tax something else to keep the money coming in. They must think we are all fools. (Are we?)

Steve - it's happening already. This government is really starting to 'extract the urine' so to speak.

Clem.

 

[Dawg]

Clem:

I then saw on the news about the government's plan to levy a tax on food (did anyone else see that).

Where was this? I saw a report that some half arzed bunch of reject polytechnic lecturers in a self appointed 'fink tank' thought that this might be a good idea, but I haven't seen a green paper, or official statement.
(Although it might be the 've is the meisters now' Eurocrats.)

Just asking. I trust this shower in power as much as I trust some of the Snakeoil Ecommerce Optimizers..

 

[Gillie]

Yep nothing formal about it, just some yadder this morning on the radio about how they should charge a tax on certain things such chocolate ... horrible stuff anyhow!

 

I also thought it was an interesting point about the fact that people tend to eat more when they have given up - for the reasons Gill has stated above.

Apologies, it's been a while since I read the thread and I skipped some posts and didn't realise Gill had made these points.

 

[Clementine]

Sorry Dawn I meant you.

It shows how the government will try to ban everything and tax everything if we give them the chance.

It was mentioned on GMTV I think (I was concentrating more on my cornflakes) but as far as I am concerned stories will get leaked before publication to get a 'feel' for the reception. If there isn't much apparent objection then procedures will begin.

Not that I am paranoid - but I would prefer to 'nip it in the bud' rather than let this government get a stranglehold on our daily lives.

Clem.

 

[Gillie]

Hey if this government are seriously going to put some money into the obesity problem ... brilliant ... but I think this one is just a few murmurings in the corridors!

 

[Cornish Steve]

Lifestyle mandated by law. Is that really what you want?

A majority don't like chocolate, so let's tax chocolate for being unhealthy. A a majority don't like Formula One racing, so let's tax those events for being dangerous. A majority don't like chewing gum, so let's tax it because it's a disgusting habit.

Everything's just hunkydory until the government chooses to tax a habit you happen to enjoy.

 

[Dawg]

Lifestyle mandated by law. Is that really what you want?

Can we answer yes or no, or do we have to refer to Hegel, Berlin et al?

On a lighter note..
The sun is shining, I've just walked the tasters, and outside the pubs are people smoking away. And gawd do they look awful; grubby, unshaven, rheumy eyed..you really wouldn't want to go into an establishment with them as customers. Previously they were in the dark corners and less noticable. This, I think, will damage the pub trade more than just the ban: the visibly 'orrible meatware that are the clients.

 

[Gillie]

Steve, as usual, you take everything to extremes .. think you should change your name ...

Did I say that I wanted government to mandate anything to do with eating ... merely stated that I wish they would put some money into it, so we don't get as bad as that wonderful USA place that you live in Steve!

 

I still cannot see how the smoking ban has lead to all these discussions about taxing chocolate, or other such things.

The smoking ban is put in place to protect the health of workers and nothing more. If it causes a few people to sit up and take notice, maybe even stop, then this is an added bonus.

The thought that the government are now going to go crazy and start trying to control every aspect of our life has no real substance to it at all.

I agree with Gill (and not just because I'm afraid not to ) in that the government should put some money into promoting healthier eating, etc. This is not 'controlling' us - but gently reminding us of what needs to be done in this mad, fast-paced world we all now live in.

If the government took a demented stance and tried to ban achohol - I and most other people would ignore them. If they told me they were rationing the chocolate I can eat - then I would be buying it on the black market.

The smoking ban is completely different because it is not designed to inhibit me in any way - it is just a method of ensuring that I do not kill other people with my smoke (and rightly so).

Laws are designed to get us all to behave in an acceptable manner. If there comes a time when laws are created which make no sense to me - then I will not be abiding by them, period.

 

[Gillie]

Bloody hell Mark ... nicely phrased! And you ain't scared of me so don't lie!

 

See how a couple of days off sharpens the mind?