The Smoking Ban

[DotNetWebs]

...how naive

I am not naïve. I just live in the real world.

Regards

Dotty

 

[JoyDivision]

Funny how people seem to miss that the government introduced a partial ban first due to growing public concern about passive smoking. This was deeply unpopular with the public who saw the loop holes and wanted a complete ban.

So a new law was passed which was one of the most highly supported laws passed under new labour with 80% of people supporting it.

It was put to the democratic vote and the smokers lost.

Personally I cannot wait till going out next Saturday, I will able to go home without stinking like I have just come back from a German night club and without my eyes stiinging like I have a major allergy.

 

When I return to the uk in September am i likely to experience a large difference from the last time I went in April?

Yes, it is definitely going to be much more pleasant to go out for a meal or a pint. Any firms you visit are also going to smell a lot nicer. I am assuming you are a non-smoker Gary, but even if not you will definitely notice the difference.

Clem

I am a smoker, but I can see both sides of the argument. I am happy to go outside for a smoke, it is almost normal for homes, etc now anyway. I don't want to have people dying as a result of my smoking - I do not have that right, even if that interferes with my own rights.

It matters not a jot who imposed the ban, or how democratic it is - the fact remains that people will live longer as a result and the country will be healthier on a whole. This is good for us in every way, even economically, so how can we argue with it? We elect politicians and they make the decisions on our behalf. If we have to have a referendum every time they want to change anything, then we will never progress.

The fact that you personally did not vote for Brown does not matter - you were involved in the last election the same as all of us were. In fact, if you look at it - we in Northern Ireland do not have any say over who is in government. Our country is becoming self-governing slightly now, but up until that we were ruled from Westminster, yet we cannot vote for anyone there unless they are a local NI party rep.

The smoking ban is here, we have to get on with it. It neither makes me any money, nor loses me any.

 

[Dawg]

Comspec:

Our country is becoming self-governing slightly now, but up until that we were ruled from Westminster

Sorry. Must have missed the bit when it became "your country". As in whose and which bit?
Clem:
update on definitions:
Capitalism
1. (n archaic) A now-defunct economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
2. n. modern economic system in which the government blames the poor.

Antonym: Socialism

Socialism
1. (n. archaic) now-defunct economic system in which the means of production and distribution are publicly or state-owned and development is, well, stragnant. Or made up.
2. n. modern economic system in which the poor blame the government


There is a nice essay on how we allow governments to diminish our freedoms, the smoking ban being one small example, here.
And yes it is a limitation, and yes the limitation itself is more important than a basically sensible health measure.

 

Sorry. Must have missed the bit when it became "your country". As in whose and which bit?

Care to elaborate a little on that ?? I think you will find that NI is a country on its own rights, and since I am born/bred here I class it as mine. Not all of it mind

 

[Gillie]

Mark, dear Dawg aint from round here either ...

 

[Dawg]

Sorry Comspec, my mistake. Confused between country, state, nation etc. You are absolutely correct.
(Although it can be a bit confusing when NI is sometimes also referred to as a province..)

 

It has always been a little confusing over here too. We are lucky in that we get the best of both worlds and can have dual nationality if we request it. The new local government will be keen to stamp some sort of authority and seem to have been given a pot of cash - all good for our economy and everything attached to it.

As for the smoking ban - you will all get used to it. We have already and it definitely seems to have improved the restaurant trade.

 

[cmcp]

We've had the ban up here for over a year, and it's a joy.

Except the fact you can actually smell people when you go clubbing.

 

[Cornish Steve]

the fact remains that people will live longer as a result and the country will be healthier on a whole.

Is that the goal of life: to live for as long as possible?

We elect politicians and they make the decisions on our behalf. If we have to have a referendum every time they want to change anything, then we will never progress.

Interesting point. In Britain, we elect representatives and we're governed by those people. In constitutions around the world, elected representatives respect and uphold constitutional rights. Big difference! Should we be ruled by individuals or by laws that guarantee us certain rights and privileges?

This is a fundamental point. Without individual freedoms enshrined in law, government depends on strength of personality and what the majority happens to believe at a particular moment in time. Minorities begin to quake at the knees because they are protected only by the good nature of individuals and not by force of law.

 

[cmcp]

The Libertarian break down is slightly unrealistic. As much as I appreciate the philosophy, smoke infringes on my right to go about my daily business smoke free.

 

[Clementine]

You say that smoke infringes on YOUR right to go about your daily business smoke free. Someone else might say the smoking ban infringes THEIR right to go about their daily business smoking.

Who is to say who is right? The government have elected to make that choice on our behalf.

Again, you are focusing on detail here. Steve, and I guess me, are trying to raise a point based on THE BIGGER PICTURE about choices being removed and freedom of choice being reduced.

It is this sort of ME ME ME attitude that is really frustrating with this certain portion of society - almost like a 'non-smoking hezbullah'. And remember I am a non-smoker too so am looking at this from as neutral a viewpoint as I can.

Clem.

(Don't take the hezbullah quote too seriously - trying to inject humour).

 

[Dan Matthews]

I don't see how anyone can argue that smoking around other people in an enclosed space is a 'right' - that's a bit silly. I was a smoker until last saturday night, when I toasted the ban in my local with a final snout, at about 1am (technically breaking the law - oooh).

I always felt a bit guilty smoking around other people, knowing deep down that I was affecting their health as well as mine.

Think this was the only solution, people can still smoke in many open areas and in their own homes. That's fair, as long as it stays that way - there are plenty of things already banned in public that you can do in the privacy of your own home remember

 

[Clementine]

My comment was simply 'Someone else might say the smoking ban infringes THEIR right to go about their daily business smoking'. I never mentioned enclosed spaces. I myself do not like being in an enclosed space with a smoker. I am a non-smoker. However I am proud that I have the choice to leave that enclosed space and if not I would politely ask the person to not smoke. They would have the choice to comply. Neither of us would have a 'right' to either smoke or expect them not to.

I could say it is my right to go about my business without having to deal with drunks - but then would that mean we would have to ban alcohol? People have a choice to get drunk or not. I have a choice to go where people get drunk or not. I happen to like getting drunk.

But I will say it again - it is the bigger picture about freedom of choice being reduced that concerns me. Not about who smokes where and whether you like it or not. I do not deny that the smoking ban may well be a good thing health-wise. This is not the point of my post at all.

(And the ban came into force at 6.00am on 1st July and so you are clear of any wrong-doing)!

Clem.

 

[Gillie]

This whole argument is silly ... smokers are merely being told that they may not endanger the health of others around them who have no choice in the matter, after all lets not forget those who have to work in the places who yes, might be able to get a job elsewhere but on the whole most who work in pubs, do so because of need not choice!

The whole thing about the underlying causes of a government trying to impose and thin end of the wedge etc ... can I just point out, that Scotland went non smoking 18 months ago, and Wales and Northern Ireland earlier this year, and in those countries there was not the outcry that has been received in this one ... why one wonders??

 

[Cornish Steve]

This whole argument is silly ... smokers are merely being told that they may not endanger the health of others around them

Believe me: I agree with the rationale behind your statement. As a young child, I was part of a travelling troupe of entertainers, and the smoke in the theatre back-rooms was unbearable. As much as anyone, I will enjoy less smoke in public places. Also, travelling in some European countries (Switzerland in particular, although they are better today) used to be awful because of the amount of smoke on trains and in airports.

The point still remains, though, that we are in desperate need of constitutional rights to protect the individual from government encroachment on daily life. If such a statement of rights existed, maybe the government could prevent smoking in truly public places (such as in government buildings or facilities owned by local authorities) but not in places owned by private individuals or companies. Maybe the government would have the right to ban smoking in the workplace, but even that must be done carefully. In general, though, company owners should decide whether to ban smoking in their restaurants, pubs, etc., based on the preferences of their patrons. As others have said, non-smokers would choose non-smoking pubs while smokers would choose smoking pubs (just as today there are sports bars, singles bars, gay bars, and so on).

The problem I still have is that the government is imposing its ideology on everyone. The only argument I'm hearing in support of such overbearing behaviour is that the majority believes in it. A majority in Germany once believed in oppressing the Jews, but such democracy in action is shameful (which is why a constitutional form of government with guaranteed rights to the individual is actually more important than the principle of democracy). The majority must never be allowed to impose its way if it infringes on guaranteed rights of the individual.

With respect, the argument you give - "it's silly because they may endanger the health of others around them" - can be used against many habits and behaviours (again, as stated before). Wouldn't life be boring if the government regulated every aspect of our lives to ensure minimal risk? How far do you want to take it?

- No cars that can travel over 70mph because it impacts my safety.
- No visiting a Grand Prix race because it's risking the safety of drivers and spectators.
- No alcohol consumption or drunkenness outside the home because it impacts others.
- No drunkenness ever when children are around because it affects their emotional safety.
- No Grand National because it risks the lives of horses and riders.
- No sex unless you have a certificate of health from the government because of STDs.

The fact that a majority of people don't like the Grand National, for example, shouldn't be a reason for the government to ban it.

 

- No cars that can travel over 70mph because it impacts my safety.
- No visiting a Grand Prix race because it's risking the safety of drivers and spectators.
- No alcohol consumption or drunkenness outside the home because it impacts others.
- No drunkenness ever when children are around because it affects their emotional safety.
- No Grand National because it risks the lives of horses and riders.
- No sex unless you have a certificate of health from the government because of STDs.

quote]

you been away to long Steve

1 is already the law
3 is already law as is no 4

6 whats sex got to do with telephones

Earl

 

[davefromcas]

I cant believe what i'm hearing. People on here seriously need to grow up. Its everyones human right to do what they wish with there own body. This ban is causing discrimination against smokers they could make it where they can have a room for smoking or something like that but of course this country is run by idiots. I dont smoke personally but if i did it would be my choice not another decision taken away from me. They wanted to make take away doors thinner so overwieght people cant go in is that fair. NO people can eat what they want. They should be allowed to smoke if they want. walking behind a car exhaust is equivelent of 100 cigerettes. So lets ban cars then. This is stupid our rights are one by one being taken away untill it becomes a dictatorship. But you on here are too stupid or blind to see this and get i thrill out of petty im right your wrong arguements. everyone should be in the same mind and eventually we can do something about it. Please feel free to slag me off now

 

[Fedora]

I am a smoker and have read this thread with interest.

This may surprise, you, but I totally agree with a ban on smoking in the workplace. Most people do not have the choice of where they work and should not be subject to second hand smoke.

However, I ask why the ban in pubs/clubs etc, where people have the free-will as to whether or not they want to be there. After looking at the debate and spin surrounding this piece of legislation, I understand that it’s all about public health! The pubs in the areas where the ban is already in effect are boasting better numbers drinking in their establishments.

To be honest, I believe that public health is important, but I am more concerned about passive drinking

If you are walking through the city centre one evening and someone is being rude, aggressive and obnoxious, is it because a) they have smoked a cigarette or b) because they have been drinking??

80% of all assaults in this country are alcohol linked!

If you are driving late at night and the car in front of you is swerving, and endangering your life, is it likely that a) they have smoked a cigarette or b) they have been drinking.

How many lives are lost/destroyed because some drunkard decided that they were fit to drive??

If I were going to ban an activity in pubs, it wouldn’t have been smoking!

 

[Gillie]

Somehow think I am banging my head on a brick wall, as smokers seem to see this new law as their civil liberties being withdrawn ... it works both ways guys ... you can have civil liberties but non smokers can't?????

Erm pot kettle etc ....

 

[KM-Tiger]

... smokers are merely being told that they may not endanger the health of others around them who have no choice in the matter

If that was true, then this new legislation would have my wholehearted support.

But that isn't what it says, it actually forbids smoking in an enclosed place, even private places, where everyone present has made the choice to smoke.

It is the erosion of this freedom that is so dangerous.

 

[DotNetWebs]

I cant believe what i'm hearing. People on here seriously need to grow up. Its everyones human right to do what they wish with there own body. This ban is causing discrimination against smokers they could make it where they can have a room for smoking or something like that but of course this country is run by idiots. I dont smoke personally but if i did it would be my choice not another decision taken away from me. They wanted to make take away doors thinner so overwieght people cant go in is that fair. NO people can eat what they want. They should be allowed to smoke if they want. walking behind a car exhaust is equivelent of 100 cigerettes. So lets ban cars then. This is stupid our rights are one by one being taken away untill it becomes a dictatorship. But you on here are too stupid or blind to see this and get i thrill out of petty im right your wrong arguements. everyone should be in the same mind and eventually we can do something about it. Please feel free to slag me off now

Another intelligent argument from somebody registering on a business forum to make a single post objecting to the ban.

Welcome to UKBF

Regards

Dotty

 

Now how the hell can you argue against the smoking ban.unless you are an utter selfish b**tard and have no consideration for your fellow mankind.

you are not being told to stop smoking ,you are being told not to puff smoke in the faces of prople who don't want you to.

human rights, civil right don't come into it.common sense might.

I hear there considering a ban in Iraq could help save a few lives to make up for the 7000,000 we and our glorious allies have snuffed out,for the sake of procuring a drop of the black stuff for our 4 x 4's

Earl

 

[adam]

Most people do not have the choice of where they work and should not be subject to second hand smoke.

However, I ask why the ban in pubs/clubs etc, where people have the free-will as to whether or not they want to be there

It is banned not because it is a pub but because it is the place of work for the people who work there.

That is just it, WORKPLACE smoking is out. Find a bar with no workers then we can continue the argument.

 

[davefromcas]

Ok then lets treat this as a public health rule as so many of you are saying.

I personally do drive a car therefore i do not wish to breathe in harmfull fumes from a car exhaust. So people who are driving cars are now pulluting my air. Causing me an intake ot toxic fumes. Should we ban cars, trains, buses, aeroplanes, etc as there are many people who dont drive. then there are power stations, Chemical Plants, the list goes on and on.

It's the businesses i feel sorry for due to the ban. Hard working people who are losing there livelyhood. 1 bingo hall and 3 Pubs are shutting within the next 2 week in my area. The official figueres show great numbers in areas like scotland and ireland. this is not true talk to the people from them area's who have lost their business as many pubs have closed. I was told yesterday from a customer she went to a bingo hall and during the interval is was dead inside that 50% of the halls profits lost due to people not playing table games or amusements.

In the end this is a divided argument i think they should allow the businesses to choose if they want to ban smoking or allow all smoking places where non smokers cant go in. then its fair on all

 

[Gillie]

Get the feeling that some smokers just want to kill us all?? No reasonable debate, such as denying someone the right to work without dying seems to work, so perhaps we should just leave them in their own world ... driving their cars whilst smoking with only one hand on the wheel ... heck another argument then for banning smoking in cars ... oh this gets better ...

 

[Dawg]

Snoutcasts, they're snoutcasts..

 

[stugster]

Ok then lets treat this as a public health rule as so many of you are saying.

I personally do drive a car therefore i do not wish to breathe in harmfull fumes from a car exhaust. So people who are driving cars are now pulluting my air. Causing me an intake ot toxic fumes. Should we ban cars, trains, buses, aeroplanes, etc as there are many people who dont drive. then there are power stations, Chemical Plants, the list goes on and on.

You're missing the point. I don't drive my car in your face at your work within a closed environment...how I wish I did though.

 

[davefromcas]

You're missing the point. I don't drive my car in your face at your work within a closed environment...how I wish I did though.

I'm not missing the point everytime i cross the road i get a lungfull of chemicals from exhaust fumes its everyone else thats missing the point

My argument is each to their own

people should have the freedom of choice ie if theres a pub thats wants smokers rather than non smokers it should be thier choice same as if a pub wants non smokers rather than smokers that thier choice. I agree the 2 shouldnt be mixed but it should be down to the people and the establishments.

thats my arguement

 

[stugster]

So the people who are employed by the pub that HAS smoking are now going to have to find a new job because of the health factors?

F*ck it, don't bother wearing a hard-hat when you're working on a building site. If you bump your head, hey, live with it.

Your argument is flawed in many ways. The Government didn't just wake up one day and decide to introduce the ban, there are reasons behind it. And the reasons are much much better than the con's.

You're failing to read the part about an enclosed space. If you are out in the open air, and someone is pumping carbon monoxide from a cannister in your direction, you wont be affected. If you're working behind a bar and some kind sod starts blowing carbon monoxide from a cannister into your face, you're going to have issues.

Anyway, like it or not, the death-bringing cancer-inducing waste-of-money products are no longer allowed by law to be smoked in a place of work. Now move on.

 

[davefromcas]

any contuctive arguement on here is spoiled by arses like the guy above he talks rubbish if you walk behine a car you breathe in fumes final whether in or out doors. what you should do it look at both perspective like i am but because your mind is fixed you wont understand both sides my argument is down to choice but obviouly my friend you are too dumb to except than and vote for people to controll you so you dont have to think. If you look at previous posts you will see i dont smoke i even run a business where the smoking ban is a good thing for me but i do understand both sides of the argument and sympathise with smokers and i know when we are being dictatored to and our freedoms slowly being removed

 

[stugster]

Now now, there's no need to be offensive in these debates - as much as I enjoy winding the next guy up, we'll try and keep it civilised.

The days are changing. It used to be that advertisers got away with saying smoking was a good thing. Passive smoking kills. FACT. And by the way, when these people are dying, it's not a sudden death in most cases. The 5 million people that died in 2000 from smoking related diseases would probably go along with what I say now. Cardiovascular disease is the number one, and probably the least painful. Take the third killer though, lung cancer.

I'm not going to go into great lengths of detail about how horrible the disease actually is, but it's just suffice to say that you end up coughing up parts of your own lungs. Over months.

The cost of a bed in a hospital, the cost of the morphine, et al. is enough to annoy any hard working tax payer.

Now, you keep saying cars are bad. Fair enough, yes they are. They emit fumes just like a cigarette. But give me one good reason for smoking. And I'll give you a hundred good reasons for modern transport.

An excerpt from the BBC news website:

"Passive smoking at work kills three people every day, according to research. The study found that around 900 office workers, 165 bar workers and 145 manufacturing workers die each year as a direct result of breathing in other people's tobacco smoke at work.
It also found that there are three times as many deaths a year from passive smoking at work as there are from workplace injuries."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2925633.stm


I fail to see how you can condone people being put into that environment to work for their hard earned cash, just so the idiot on the other side of the bar can have a drink and then in a few years time be lying on a bed soaking up the NHS's important resources on his (or her) cancer.

You may think that the Government have taken this to an extreme. I have to disagree. You are still entitled to smoke your cigarettes in your home, in your car, and anywhere at all in the world, except within a confined work-space on mainland UK.

You know, you actually inhale radioisotopes from radon when you smoke? How yummy! And across the world, almost 90% of lung cancer deaths are caused by smoking.

Of course, I'm still not happy that people want to smoke these carcinogens at all. What annoys me even more is that we as tax payers have to foot their bill when it comes to putting them into an NHS bed for the last 4 months of their lives, and then paying for their chest x-rays, CT scans, Surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, blood tests, morphine, and breakfast lunch and dinner.

You may call me a cynic. You may call me a fool. But I hate so much the people who smoke and that feel so happy as to waste their life in that way. For what I ask? For what?

P.S. the full stop key is two left from the Shift key. The carriage return is the big one at the end of the alpha-keyboard. Use them a bit more often so we can deduce what you're trying to say

 

[KM-Tiger]

What annoys me even more is that we as tax payers have to foot their bill when it comes to putting them into an NHS bed for the last 4 months of their lives

Not a convincing argument. It's equally true of people who risk their health in many ways other than smoking.

 

[An Oasis]

I smoke because it keeps my physical health down (to a little above mere mortals, like yourselves) and also it makes me chill so I can appear to normal like yourselves, rather than preach at you.

Yes I know I smell, but that's OK, I don't want to date any of you.

And yes I have given up in the past and probably will do so again in the near future. But I warn you, you will not like the real me, when I do.

 

[Gillie]

Oh dear Rich .. someone rattled your cage then? Go have another coffin stick!!

 

[Cornish Steve]

I fail to see how you can condone people being put into that environment to work for their hard earned cash, just so the idiot on the other side of the bar can have a drink and then in a few years time be lying on a bed soaking up the NHS's important resources on his (or her) cancer....I'm still not happy that people want to smoke these carcinogens at all. What annoys me even more is that we as tax payers have to foot their bill when it comes to putting them into an NHS bed for the last 4 months of their lives, and then paying for their chest x-rays, CT scans, Surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, blood tests, morphine, and breakfast lunch and dinner.

I'm told, but I can't verify, that the amount of money paid in taxes on cigarettes more than pays for the entire NHS. In other words, smokers are more than paying for the cost of additional healthcare in the form of taxes. Rather than burdening you, they may actually be subsidising your healthcare.

The only argument that holds some water against establishments being able to choose whether or not to be smoke-free is that employees will have no option but to breathe in second-hand smoke while carrying out their duties. I suspect, though, that many smokers would willingly choose a job where they themselves can smoke than not have any job at all.

Also, let's get this in perspective. Passive smoking, while it should never be forced on anyone, is hardly the most dangerous pastime. By banning alcohol, for example, we'd reduce the number of road deaths quite substantially (written tongue-in-cheek because I'm just waiting for the government to reveal its next ideological ban given the recent flush of success it's had dictating smoking habits).

 

[Jayne]

Ok then lets treat this as a public health rule as so many of you are saying.

I personally do drive a car therefore i do not wish to breathe in harmfull fumes from a car exhaust. So people who are driving cars are now pulluting my air. Causing me an intake ot toxic fumes. Should we ban cars, trains, buses, aeroplanes, etc as there are many people who dont drive. then there are power stations, Chemical Plants, the list goes on and on.

It's the businesses i feel sorry for due to the ban. Hard working people who are losing there livelyhood. 1 bingo hall and 3 Pubs are shutting within the next 2 week in my area. The official figueres show great numbers in areas like scotland and ireland. this is not true talk to the people from them area's who have lost their business as many pubs have closed. I was told yesterday from a customer she went to a bingo hall and during the interval is was dead inside that 50% of the halls profits lost due to people not playing table games or amusements.

In the end this is a divided argument i think they should allow the businesses to choose if they want to ban smoking or allow all smoking places where non smokers cant go in. then its fair on all

DavefromCas, is that Dave from Castleford? If so, which Bingo hall is shutting down and the 3 pubs? I've not heard about it?

 

[stugster]

Not a convincing argument. It's equally true of people who risk their health in many ways other than smoking.

I'm told, but I can't verify, that the amount of money paid in taxes on cigarettes more than pays for the entire NHS. In other words, smokers are more than paying for the cost of additional healthcare in the form of taxes. Rather than burdening you, they may actually be subsidising your healthcare.

Alas! Healthy debate resumes!

 

[Cornish Steve]

A little research confirms that smokers are subsidising the cost of healthcare for non-smokers. These numbers, valid for 2003, come straight from the pages of ASH (which, as an anti-smoking organisation, is unlikely to exaggerate the point):

"...tobacco taxation raises revenue of £9.5bn compared with the £1.7bn needed to treat smoking-related illness"

Let me put this another way: If all smokers kicked their habit today, a family of four in Britain would have to pay an additional £500/year in taxes to continue receiving the same level of medical treatment as today. Food for thought!

On the other hand, I was wrong to claim that cigarette taxes more than cover the cost of the NHS (although I heard this claim 25 years ago when tax revenues were higher and NHS costs were lower). In 2006, the cost of the NHS was £92 billion - about £1500/year for every man, woman, and child in the UK. Correcting for inflation over 3 years, cigarette taxes probably cover about 12% of the total cost of the NHS.

 

[Gillie]

Hardly a good argument though to carry on smoking is it?? Oh yes I just have to stand a good chance of an early and very painful death just so that everyone else doesnt pay as much in taxes for the health service!!