The Smoking Ban
- Thread starter lightload
- Start date
21 pages - this is the longest thread I've personally seen on UKBF (I'm sure that there have been longer ones..).
Seems to me there are two rights to be balanced here: the right of someone to kill themselves with cigarettes and the right of someone else not to be killed by the people killing themselves with cigarettes.
Those two rights are, obviously, at first glance equal (hence the degree of passion in the supporters on each side, and hence the degree of polarisation of this argument).
However, in practice - in the everyday ordered framework of our society - BOTH rights cannot simultaneously be honoured since they are oppositional.
So. Do we come down on the side of smokers (whose activity damages themselves AND others) or do we come down on the side of non-smokers (whose activity doesn't harm themselves OR others)?
Seems to me there are two rights to be balanced here: the right of someone to kill themselves with cigarettes and the right of someone else not to be killed by the people killing themselves with cigarettes.
Those two rights are, obviously, at first glance equal (hence the degree of passion in the supporters on each side, and hence the degree of polarisation of this argument).
However, in practice - in the everyday ordered framework of our society - BOTH rights cannot simultaneously be honoured since they are oppositional.
So. Do we come down on the side of smokers (whose activity damages themselves AND others) or do we come down on the side of non-smokers (whose activity doesn't harm themselves OR others)?
Upvote
0
D
Dawg
Steve
Treasury figures do indeed show that more is raised from the indirect taxation of tobacco than is spent on tobacco related conditions by the NHS. However these figures ignore the other costs involved, (the externalities); just the unreported costs of days off because of ill health due to smoking will be a significant tax burden in a country where 40% of the workforce is employed by the government. Are the costs of fires in the home caused by smokers included, the cost to the fire service? The enviromental costs of clearing cigarette ends, etc etc.
If these other costs were measured and included I'm sure that yet more "actual" figures would show tobacco and alcohol users/abusers as a net cost to the UK treasury, let alone to the nation as a whole.
"Actual" figures are what statistics are made of. And I presume you know the old adage about statistics, statistics and bloody lies.
Treasury figures do indeed show that more is raised from the indirect taxation of tobacco than is spent on tobacco related conditions by the NHS. However these figures ignore the other costs involved, (the externalities); just the unreported costs of days off because of ill health due to smoking will be a significant tax burden in a country where 40% of the workforce is employed by the government. Are the costs of fires in the home caused by smokers included, the cost to the fire service? The enviromental costs of clearing cigarette ends, etc etc.
If these other costs were measured and included I'm sure that yet more "actual" figures would show tobacco and alcohol users/abusers as a net cost to the UK treasury, let alone to the nation as a whole.
Upvote
0
D
DotNetWebs
You obviously haven't read this one then:
http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=27105 (and this was a spin off from another long thread that was closed by the moderators for going around in circles).
But seriously a great post with a logical conclusion (in stark contrast to some of the barely comprehendible rants from those that have just joined this forum in order to make abusive posts opposing the ban)
Regards
Dotty
Upvote
0
This seems pretty cut and dried to me. If people want to smoke, then fine, but not at the expense of other people's time or health. In a business context I have no patience with people disappearing every half hour for fag breaks. But if they want to puff away in the privacy of their own homes that's fine by me.
Upvote
0
When I worked in central London, no work was ever done on Friday afternoons because everyone went out drinking. As always, there are two sides to the story:
1) Employees should honour their contractual commitment to work a minimum number of productive hours.
2) Employers must allow employees to "have a life" and not impose their morals on everyone else.
The same points apply to your argument.
1) Employees should honour their contractual commitment to work a minimum number of productive hours.
2) Employers must allow employees to "have a life" and not impose their morals on everyone else.
The same points apply to your argument.
Upvote
0
Oh but they are. Maybe not directly towards the smoker. But what about his or her family when he or she is lying on the death bed due to smoking? These people who love the smoker are hurt and perhaps left traumatised by losing a loved one.
What a selfish way to go. It's suicide. Long Term Suicide.
Upvote
0
Stuart, the reason I claim not to say they are a burden as from experience, I know all about cancer and other life threatening things that happen, and this can happen to anyone for any number of unknown reasons, therefore I don't wish ill on anyone, family or smokers or non smokers.
And to smoke doesn't mean you will get cancer ... just your chances are a dammed sight higher than if you don't. As I am sure we all know someone who died of old age that smoked 20+ a day etc. Everyone has a story like that they can relate to.
Mind, thats not an excuse to smoke around others or even to smoke at all!
And to smoke doesn't mean you will get cancer ... just your chances are a dammed sight higher than if you don't. As I am sure we all know someone who died of old age that smoked 20+ a day etc. Everyone has a story like that they can relate to.
Mind, thats not an excuse to smoke around others or even to smoke at all!
Upvote
0
C
Clementine
This argument is becoming un-balanced as there seem to be 2 levels of opinion. Namely about the detail and the bigger picture. ie:
Argument #1 = I don't smoke. I don't want to breathe your smoke. Therefore you should not smoke. The ban is right.
Argument #2 = I should have freedom of choice and my choices are being removed without my consent. The ban is wrong.
Argument 2 is not necessarily in direct competition with argument 2 as the arguments are on different levels. They are arguing about different principles - argument 1 specifically about the ban - argument 2 about the bigger picture of choices (a more valid argument in my opinion).
These two arguments are never going to resolve in an agreement until those people who are passionately blind about the correctness of the smoking ban learn to appreciate their fellow humans and the right to make a choice about how you go about your daily business.
As a non-smoker myself I am not saying the fact that you cannot smoke in a confined public space is a bad thing. What I am saying is the choice to go to a place where you can smoke or not has been removed - and that is a bad thing.
Somw points need clarifications as follows:
Point #1 - 'Smokers costs the NHS millions of pounds'. Wrong. The taxation on cigarettes, etc make the NHS millions despite the health costs associated with it.
Point #2 - 'I have never had the choice NOT to breathe in passive smoke'. Wrong. You have always had the choice to go to a smoking destination or not. Landlords have always had the choice to run non-smoking establishment or not.
Point #3 - 'Smoking and therefore killing yourself is not fair on your friends or family'. Invalid point. This is not your call to make. It is my life and I make my choices. It is not for someone else to force me to live a certain way.
Mr Mu. It never had to be a case of which side of the argument is right and which is wrong. It should always be a case of choice and you choose the way you want to go. The government have now made it a 'right and wrong' situation which I think is why there is so much flak flying about regarding the ban.
Clem.
Argument #1 = I don't smoke. I don't want to breathe your smoke. Therefore you should not smoke. The ban is right.
Argument #2 = I should have freedom of choice and my choices are being removed without my consent. The ban is wrong.
Argument 2 is not necessarily in direct competition with argument 2 as the arguments are on different levels. They are arguing about different principles - argument 1 specifically about the ban - argument 2 about the bigger picture of choices (a more valid argument in my opinion).
These two arguments are never going to resolve in an agreement until those people who are passionately blind about the correctness of the smoking ban learn to appreciate their fellow humans and the right to make a choice about how you go about your daily business.
As a non-smoker myself I am not saying the fact that you cannot smoke in a confined public space is a bad thing. What I am saying is the choice to go to a place where you can smoke or not has been removed - and that is a bad thing.
Somw points need clarifications as follows:
Point #1 - 'Smokers costs the NHS millions of pounds'. Wrong. The taxation on cigarettes, etc make the NHS millions despite the health costs associated with it.
Point #2 - 'I have never had the choice NOT to breathe in passive smoke'. Wrong. You have always had the choice to go to a smoking destination or not. Landlords have always had the choice to run non-smoking establishment or not.
Point #3 - 'Smoking and therefore killing yourself is not fair on your friends or family'. Invalid point. This is not your call to make. It is my life and I make my choices. It is not for someone else to force me to live a certain way.
Mr Mu. It never had to be a case of which side of the argument is right and which is wrong. It should always be a case of choice and you choose the way you want to go. The government have now made it a 'right and wrong' situation which I think is why there is so much flak flying about regarding the ban.
Clem.
Upvote
0
Slightly wrong there Clem .. argument 1 is that we don't want to breath in the smoke in a confined area ... by all means go smoke elsewhere!
The smokers seem to think that most of non smokers wish to ban it all together .. no, if some want to play with fire, their choice ...
Smokers also seem to think they are the only ones whose freedom of rights ie being abused .. but fail to realise that is works both ways ... non smokers have not had the choice that they now have. And don't forget non smokers are now in the majority.
I say good luck to anyone that smokes ... may they never get cancer or anything related to their habit.
The smokers seem to think that most of non smokers wish to ban it all together .. no, if some want to play with fire, their choice ...
Smokers also seem to think they are the only ones whose freedom of rights ie being abused .. but fail to realise that is works both ways ... non smokers have not had the choice that they now have. And don't forget non smokers are now in the majority.
I say good luck to anyone that smokes ... may they never get cancer or anything related to their habit.
Upvote
0
D
DotNetWebs
I wonder how many pages this will run to?
People opposing the ban keep coming back to "its my choice" or "its my rights" that have been removed but fail to realise that NONE of us have "the right" or "choice" to do what we want. We live within a framework of society that decides what are and what are not acceptable practices. Society moves on and things that were once acceptable become unacceptable.
Anyway its all irrelevant now. Common sense has prevailed and the ban is here to stay. I don't want a full ban either and have smoking friends that seem to be coping with it just fine (some have used it to their advantage and have successfully taken up 'smirting' )
Regards
Dotty
People opposing the ban keep coming back to "its my choice" or "its my rights" that have been removed but fail to realise that NONE of us have "the right" or "choice" to do what we want. We live within a framework of society that decides what are and what are not acceptable practices. Society moves on and things that were once acceptable become unacceptable.
Anyway its all irrelevant now. Common sense has prevailed and the ban is here to stay. I don't want a full ban either and have smoking friends that seem to be coping with it just fine (some have used it to their advantage and have successfully taken up 'smirting' )
Regards
Dotty
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Possibly for ever. The struggle between the freedom fighters and the PC neo-fascists will run for years, whether they are smokers or not.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
We should have a choice Dotty, and in fact we do.
It's not about doing what you want at the expense of others; banning smoking in enclosed public places is fine by me, and fair. The problem is now the government has banned smoking in enclosed private places which the public are allowed to frequent.
It should be for the businessman to decide whether their private concern is pro-smoking, pro-choice or bans smoking completely. Their decision will determine what kind of customers and indeed what kind of employees will choose to do business with them. The present law takes away this choice.
What can we do about it?
I propose a union, the National Union of Working Smokers (NUWS, and I'm sure you can figure how it's pronounced!). About 27% of the adult population smoke whereas only 35-40% have voted in the last few General Elections. If just half of the smoking population joined NUWS, that would be a powerful lobby group. Votes for smokes, anyone?
Also, although not usually in favour of unionism and the strikes that go with it, I forsee such a movement being a strong deterent to employers who would like to dishonestly push smokers out of their organisation completely. These are the employers who argue that 'the current trend' means that they can prohibit workers from using comfort breaks to smoke, even in designated areas, and even where the time would made up at the end of the day. This is unreasonable as the same workers have met the business requirements and made up the time pre-ban, yet are now branded as less productive than their non-smoking counterparts.
Finally, unions are legally entitled to negotiate on benefits and contractual obligations, rather than the consultation that employers may or may not otherwise engage in. This would allow for a fair discussion and a balance between productivity and respect for staff - no more could smoking employees be treated as lazy work-shy miscreants without at least a right to reply.
I look forward to all your replies, especially from Clem, Dotty and Steve who I feel have been particularly insightful (even though I don't agree with you Dotty!). Here's to uncommon sense!
It's not about doing what you want at the expense of others; banning smoking in enclosed public places is fine by me, and fair. The problem is now the government has banned smoking in enclosed private places which the public are allowed to frequent.
It should be for the businessman to decide whether their private concern is pro-smoking, pro-choice or bans smoking completely. Their decision will determine what kind of customers and indeed what kind of employees will choose to do business with them. The present law takes away this choice.
What can we do about it?
I propose a union, the National Union of Working Smokers (NUWS, and I'm sure you can figure how it's pronounced!
). About 27% of the adult population smoke whereas only 35-40% have voted in the last few General Elections. If just half of the smoking population joined NUWS, that would be a powerful lobby group. Votes for smokes, anyone?Also, although not usually in favour of unionism and the strikes that go with it, I forsee such a movement being a strong deterent to employers who would like to dishonestly push smokers out of their organisation completely. These are the employers who argue that 'the current trend' means that they can prohibit workers from using comfort breaks to smoke, even in designated areas, and even where the time would made up at the end of the day. This is unreasonable as the same workers have met the business requirements and made up the time pre-ban, yet are now branded as less productive than their non-smoking counterparts.
Finally, unions are legally entitled to negotiate on benefits and contractual obligations, rather than the consultation that employers may or may not otherwise engage in. This would allow for a fair discussion and a balance between productivity and respect for staff - no more could smoking employees be treated as lazy work-shy miscreants without at least a right to reply.
I look forward to all your replies, especially from Clem, Dotty and Steve who I feel have been particularly insightful (even though I don't agree with you Dotty!). Here's to uncommon sense!
Upvote
0
You do have a choice Danti ... smoke or not smoke ... I like to drink, but don't go it when looking after children or about to drive a car ... choice!
So then you have ten people working for you, 9 smoke and one doesn't ... and the one that doesn't suffers or moves on ... but they can't get another job .. so what happens then??
No choice again ... so surely to make it the other way round, ie let the smokers not do it in front of the other person ... they get to smoke, the non smokers earns a wage to live off ...
There are many flaws in your argument ... as you are looking at this from a pure smokers point of view instead of standing outside the box and doing what is right for all!
So then you have ten people working for you, 9 smoke and one doesn't ... and the one that doesn't suffers or moves on ... but they can't get another job .. so what happens then??
No choice again ... so surely to make it the other way round, ie let the smokers not do it in front of the other person ... they get to smoke, the non smokers earns a wage to live off ...
There are many flaws in your argument ... as you are looking at this from a pure smokers point of view instead of standing outside the box and doing what is right for all!
Upvote
0
I respect your sense in choosing not to drink in those instances Gillie; all I ask is that I am given enough credit to recognise when smoking is inappropriate, such as in a lift with a non-smoker who doesn't want to share my risk. "Is it okay if I smoke? No? Fine."
Firstly, as an employer, I would ask a potential or existing non-smoking employee if they minded a smoking environment. If they did, then I would nominate a smoking area & make their place of work a smoke free zone. There would be a smoking area though. Any harassment of said worker on the basis of these changes would be dealt with fairly, firmly and swiftly - although I suspect the 9 smokers would respect their decision.
This is unless my business was providing a place for smokers to meet each other publicly (in my private venue). In which case the environment is dictated by the business. If this is the case:
- Why did the employee take the job when they knew the environment?
- Why am I employing someone who you are saying is not very employable?
- Could a firefighter insist that they don't fight fire as there is a risk of burning to death? They only took the job because there was nothing else on the market you see...
I respectfully suggest you misread my arguement Gillie. I am looking at it from a point of view of mutual respect and only legislating where the existing provisions are inadequate, and then only as far as necessary.
The law, I am suggesting, should allow the businessman to choose. For example, a non-smoking publican could run a non-smoking pub (or not) and similarly for a smoker. Each place should display this decision on the door and if this status changed then provision would be made, by law, for either an area to cater for the non-/smoker, or a mandatory redundancy payment in compensation.
Customers could make the decision of whether to enter or not based on the mandatory signage before entering - choice!
Employees would be financially compensated for changes in working environment. they could either continue to work there or be compensated and leave - choice!
Currently there is no such choice. My NUWS Union suggestion provides the leverage to change this.
Upvote
0
Nope no misreading of any of your arguments .... you forget one thing in all your points you put across ... not all smokers are considerate, not all smokers even consider anyone apart from themselves ... if that were the case, this legislation would not have arisen.
Some pubs introduced many years ago, no smoking at bars, in an attempt to keep their staff away from un neccessary smoke and in fact many years ago too, legislation was introduced to increase the ventilation in these clubs and pubs, which did improve slightly the atmosphere, but you will always get one, who pushes it, then encourages others to join in, then suddenly you have it back the way it was, or do if you don't have a strong person to stand up to them ... so yes, educate smokers who like to kill me how not to and get them to sort it out and agree to it, and I will be more than happy ...
Go enjoy your smirting ... just put your fag ends in the bed at the end!
Some pubs introduced many years ago, no smoking at bars, in an attempt to keep their staff away from un neccessary smoke and in fact many years ago too, legislation was introduced to increase the ventilation in these clubs and pubs, which did improve slightly the atmosphere, but you will always get one, who pushes it, then encourages others to join in, then suddenly you have it back the way it was, or do if you don't have a strong person to stand up to them ... so yes, educate smokers who like to kill me how not to and get them to sort it out and agree to it, and I will be more than happy ...
Go enjoy your smirting ... just put your fag ends in the bed at the end!
Upvote
0
D
DotNetWebs
Hi Dantiummpro
I will give you a simple example of "choice" being removed when society progresses:
Here is a link to the history of the chamber pot:
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=chamber pot
For thousands of years humans had urinated and defecated where the liked, usually wherever they happened to be standing at the time. When we lived in caves it wasn't always safe to go out at night so they would usually just go on the floor at the back of the cave. Things progressed a little bit when humans moved into more sophisticated dwellings and it became unacceptable to do your business inside. This led to the invention of the chamber pot. At night you would pull your chamber pot out from under the bed, fill it up, and keep it in the bedroom until the morning. At this time public urination and defecation in the street was still normal practice so in the morning people would simply empty their chamber pots by tipping them out of the window onto the street below. This was accepted practice for hundreds of years.
Towards the end of the 19th century we began to realise that these practices were a major public health hazard and flushing toilets and modern sewer systems were invented. Not long after it became unacceptable to urinate or defecate in public. People had been "doing their business" where they liked for hundreds of years but were now expected to "do it" in designated areas away from other members of the public. For some people this was a great inconvenience (pun intended) and they were outraged that they could no longer do what they had previously done all their lives.
Now do you have the "right" to take a dump in the street today?...
NO...
There are byelaws against it and the vast majority of people nearby would find it offensive. Society has moved on. You still have the "right" to go to the toilet, just not where it will cause a health hazard or discomfort to the people around you.
Regards
Dotty
ps I notice you are another person who has joined UKBF to expressly make an "anti smoking ban" post. Welcome to UKBF
Upvote
0
But history shows you can't legislate morality. You can't force unreasonable people to act reasonably by passing laws. There are inconsiderate drunks, inconsiderate drivers, inconsiderate cellphone users, and so on. The answer is not to impose legal restrictions on these practices. Instead, as fellow citizens of this world, maybe we can demonstrate the benefits of reasonableness through our own behaviour.
Upvote
0
By passing this legislation hasn't it made people stop and think though??
And yes you will never get everyone abiding by the law otherwise you would not have overcrowded prisons, however, to not pass legislation, would be pandering to a minority and would also carrying your reasonableness argument through Steve, would those in power not be showing their morals etc if they stood by and watched people die??
Lead by example, I was told as a child ... so if government etc don't ... who does??
And yes you will never get everyone abiding by the law otherwise you would not have overcrowded prisons, however, to not pass legislation, would be pandering to a minority and would also carrying your reasonableness argument through Steve, would those in power not be showing their morals etc if they stood by and watched people die??
Lead by example, I was told as a child ... so if government etc don't ... who does??
Upvote
0
Ah yes, and everybody who smokes fits into that caring considerate category. No. There are people who smoke whilst their very own children are in the car with them! Do you really think they give a damn about people they don't know? Nah.
Upvote
0
Well said Steve - I recognise a reasonable non-smoker when I hear one
.Mutual respect is certainly my ethic and I'm thankful that there are still people around who can cater for a minority rather than feeling they would be 'pandering' to them. We are all in a minority in one respect or another and I can see you recognise that from your earlier posts.
In the absence of such respect and trust from the government and many pressure groups, I maintain the best way to approach this is by forming a union to protect this minority from being disenfranchised. Any takers for the National Union of Working Smokers?
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!
).
Upvote
0
You see ... I really don't care if smokers smoke themselves to death ... it their issue not mine ... so I am tolerant to a degree ... tell you what, someone who smokes, come stand next to me and see what happens at the moment when you do ... oh I promise you it won't hurt ... just be very unpleasant, and icky!
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Another facet of this debate:-
If we accept that a smoking ban in *public* places is a good idea (and I think it is), was it really necessary to deface cathedrals, churches and other historic buildings with 'No Smoking' signs?
As a member of the public I resent being taken as a fool who doesn't know that smoking is not allowed in these places.
If we accept that a smoking ban in *public* places is a good idea (and I think it is), was it really necessary to deface cathedrals, churches and other historic buildings with 'No Smoking' signs?
As a member of the public I resent being taken as a fool who doesn't know that smoking is not allowed in these places.
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
MTD for Income Tax: your first quarterly update is due 7 August.If you are a sole trader or landlord and your gross income from...- maka
- Updated:
-
Andy Burnham's Manifesto for Small Business, and How It Stacks Up Against Count BinfaceIf all goes to plan (or rather, to Labour's timetable), Andy Burnham...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
SEO in the Age of AI: What UK Small Businesses Actually Need to KnowTL;DR Search has shifted from "ten blue links" to answer engines, and...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
What Carphone Warehouse, Microsoft and Uber Have in Common: They Started in a DownturnThere's a comforting myth that you need a booming economy to start...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
What Makes a Small Business Actually Sellable?There's a question that a lot of small business owners never think to...
- Ozzy
- Updated: