The Smoking Ban

[Rusty]

It is not quite true to say the government has done nothing about alcohol consumption. It is now illegal to consume alcohol in most town centres. There is an age limit on selling alcohol and they have started putting health warnings on bottles, very small writing I know, but it is a start.

It is illegal to board an aircraft whilst drunk or to get drunk on an aircraft. Maybe if that law was to be extended to football grounds we might see an improvement there as well.

While I am on a roll, that law should be extended to concerts, recent experience at the MEN on a bank holiday Monday where a long anticipated concert was ruined by hordes of middle aged men, lurching about spilling beer on us.

 

[DotNetWebs]

I think a few point have been missed here.

Smoking has not been banned. Smokers have not be told they can no longer smoke. They have simply been told they can no longer do it in enclosed public spaces.

You cannot compare smoking with eating junk food and alcohol etc. If somebody sits down next to me and eats a burger or has a drink it does not effect my health. Every cigarette that is smoked next to me can potentially affect my health.

The vast majority of people in this country do not smoke and are in favour of the ban because they do not like to be in the presence of second-hand smoke. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask smokers to restrict their habit to outdoor areas or the privacy of their own home.

Regards

Dotty

 

[Rhyl Lightworks]

I agree that smoking in non-smoker's presence is unacceptable for many people, but can I also make these observations about the consumption of junk food and alcohol.

I like everyone else have to pay through taxation, for the health effects of these. Junk food, and, to a lesser extent alcohol, are not so heavily taxed as to make their effects self financing. I find the smell of alcohol on people's breath repulsive, and on the rare occasions I do go out at night, I find the alcohol fuelled behaviour of many people obnoxious; not to mention the cost to society of broken homes, dysfunctional children, and general damage. Is this not on a par with passive smoking? I am offended by the blatant advertising of alcohol, and its promotion on supermarket shelves within easy access, and obviously aimed at, younger people. I even criticise my life long passion of Liverpool FC for allowing sponsorship by an alcohol company. Yes, some small concessions have been made to misuse of alcohol, but they seem like a drop in the ocean.

Yes let us ban smoking, but let's not be hypocritical and allow the unfettered abuse of alcohol at the same time.
Barrie

 

[DotNetWebs]

I...Is this not on a par with passive smoking? ...

It is not the same. If somebody has a drink near you it will not normally effect you. Every single cigarette smoked near you has the potential to affect you.

I agree entirely with the other problems you mention about alcohol but these problems are caused by the drinkers NOT the drink itself.

Here lies the difference. People can drink responsibly and it will not affect other people sharing the same enclosed space. It is not possible to smoke in an enclosed space without effecting others.

The binge drinking culture in this country needs to be tackled but it is a different situation entirely.

Regards

Dotty

 

The smoking ban has been in since the start of April in N Ireland. Now, it has caused a few problems for some pubs who cannot provide an outdoor smoking area and their business has suffered as a result. Tough - they had long enough to know it was coming.

I am sitting in my office at the moment, and I am the only person who actually works here. Yet I choose to go outside to have a smoke and that is the way it should be. Why should anyone who visits my premises have to put up with my smoke? Similarly, when someone goes to a pub/restaurant, why should they have to put up with other people smoking? The clubs/pubs/restaurants are far nicer places to visit since the smoking ban has come into place (not that I get to visit them often anymore).

I choose to smoke - it stimulates and calms me down. Anyone who knows me well will admit this is a good thing. I enjoy a smoke, but I can easily go without a day or two if necessary (ie if I am somewhere that I cannot get a smoke). When I worked full-time, I smoked 1 in the morning, 1 at lunchtime, 1 one the way home and a few in the evenings (usually a 20-pack does me 2-3 days). With this ban now in place, this keeps my smoking level from creeping up, which can very easily happen when you work for yourself.

Restaurants should always have had a ban - why would anyone want to smoke around food? Smoking temporarily kills your tastebuds and if you smoke before food, or between courses, they might as well serve you pigswill.

Get over it, nobody will be changing this new law and you will have to put up with it. I agree, there are some places that the ban probably should not cover, but to apply a law like this somethings will have to give and compromises have to be made. It will discourage young people from smoking, because they do not see the rest of us smoking in public so much. When they hit pub-age, they will not think that all their cooler elders are smoking and will not start. This is a good thing and nobody can argue with that.

The fact that I choose to smoke does not make me sick, or addicted, or anything else. I CHOOSE to smoke because I like it. I know it is bad for me, but so are the pints I cannot wait to down on a saturday evening. Something will kill me, lets face it, so why not this? I dislike the argument that we should have to pay to be treated on the NHS because we smoke. If you have a look at it, smokers put a heck of a lot more into the pot with a massive tax on every packet we buy. This covers our extra treatment if we need it. Having said that, anyone who is smoking heavily, might as well just jump off a tall building, because you are certainly going to die of a terrible smoking-related disease.

I know the risks and I accept them - but I totally agree a ban in public places is needed to cut this whole thing down a little and to allow those who choose not to smoke to have a healthier working life.

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.

 

Just to make a very important point, smoking stunts your growth. Strangely, all my siblings smoke and I don't (and never have) and I'm the titch!

Dawn

 

[stewartsetter]

I am looking forward to this ban, particularly from restaurants and the work place. The last thing I want to smell when I am eating or sitting at my desk working is someone else's fag fumes.

I do feel for those whom do smoke though as nicotine is an addiction and must feel like your rights are being suppressed particularly when you have not had a smoke for sometime.

The one thing that does play on my mind though, if people are put off smoking because of this ban and give up, what is the government going to do about the lost revenue? A large % of tax charge on cigarettes goes back to the government to fund other things. Will they increase tax elsewhere to bridge this revenue gap?

Stewart

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Redevo wrote:

We are well into the ban here in Scotland. IT ROCKS!!

It's been a good thing for our country and, strangely, was introduced with only a fraction of the stooshie that the English ban seems to have created.

(probably because the BBC news didn't notice it - it wasn't happening in London, only Scotland - so they didn't talk about it on the 6 o'clock news every night)

Rest assured, my English friends, your society will survive the smoking ban and, within a couple of months, it'll seem normal.

Steve

 

[RedEvo]

However....

The smoking ban is a worrying trend. There's a balance between the rights of the individual and the role of government imposing its views on society. Communist governments, for example, dictate not only what behaviour is acceptable but also what views are. Clearly, that oversteps the bounds.

I believe this to be a flawed argument. I agree we should resist a government imposing it's wishes on us but where smoking is concerned it's required because smoking in close proximity to others damages their health. Also, people who work in environments such as clubs/pubs etc shouldn't be forced to choose between their livelihood and their health.

This is my view. I wouldn't want to impose it on others

d

 

[DotNetWebs]

Excellent post Comspec

We are lucky here in Horsham that ALL the restaurants and a substantial number of pubs have been non-smoking now for a couple of years. It would be commercial suicide to open a smoking restaurant now in Horsham.

Here is an interesting thread on the Horsham forum:

http://www.horshamforum.com/Topic1747-6-1.aspx

I reviewed a new 'modern' pub that opened in Southwater and was amazed at the way it quickly became THE pub to go to in Southwater. I was critised in the thread for not supporting the existing pubs (by someone I think connected with the other pub in question). As I pointed out one of the pubs has had a major refit that involved closing down for a considerable time. They are surprised that on reopening all the villages are using the 'new' pub. The overwhelming reason given for people avoiding the 'old' pubs is that they want to avoid the smoke. Had the existing pub reopened as non-smoking pub I think the outcome would have been different.

Regards

Dotty

 

[vengavenga]

I'm a non-smoker, but people smoking near me really doesn't bother me.
Here in Spain the no-smoking in (some) public places law has been operating for 18 months or so. Although bars and restaurants over a certain size are meant to be completely non-smoking, smaller premises can allow smoking so long as they display a "you can smoke here" sign on the door - that to me seems like a good compromise.

Ali.

 

[DotNetWebs]

I believe this to be a flawed argument. I agree we should resist a government imposing it's wishes on us but where smoking is concerned it's required because smoking in close proximity to others damages their health. Also, people who work in environments such as clubs/pubs etc shouldn't be forced to choose between their livelihood and their health.

This is my view. I wouldn't want to impose it on others

d

I agree.

I have the greatest respect for Steve and think he has some excellent points but I am afraid he is wrong on this one.

Regards

Dotty

 

Just to make a very important point, smoking stunts your growth. Strangely, all my siblings smoke and I don't (and never have) and I'm the titch!

Dawn

Well I am 6'4" approx, so it is maybe as well I started

 

I was talking to my Mum the other day and we discussed someone's height and in the context of the conversation my height was mentioned and my Mum said, "sure you're about 5 foot" and I said, "you're being optimistic."

Gives you some idea...

Dawn

 

[Deleted member 3454]

I was talking to my Mum the other day and we discussed someone's height and in the context of the conversation my height was mentioned and my Mum said, "sure you're about 5 foot" and I said, "you're being optimistic."

Gives you some idea...

Dawn

Dawn, don't be disheartened - my mum is only 4ft 8 inches tall - I'm 5ft tall and my sister is somewhere between the two of us.

 

Oh I'm not. It's just my dry humour, it doesn't convey well by email!

 

Shorties

Imagine how bad it would be if you did smoke.....

No offence meant to my vertically-challenged pals

 

[Arhiann]

It's a luxury and dirty habit, smoking should be banned full stop, and made illegal...

Oh come on! Think it through.

Are you going to cover the budget deficit created by the loss of tobacco revenue out of your pocket? It's actually quite a useful method of population control and of egenrating revenue. I think it was the Czech government that did research into the economics, and discovered it was a net benefit to the nation financially. They don't tax it as much as we do either.

It is a luxury (but who are you to dicate which luxuries are allowed), and it is bit of a dirty smelly habit, but it's personal choice.

I don't disagree with the ban though; that's a different ssue altogether.

 

[Clementine]

Interesting discussion...

Firstly I am a non-smoker. Never have smoked, probably never will. However I disagree with the ban.

For me it is a matter of principal - and that principal is choice. Everyone has a choice and the freedom to make their choice. When the government banned smoking in enclosed public places they took away that choice.

People have always had the choice to go to a pub where people smoke or not. Pubs have always had the choice to be non-smoking or not. Who says it is right for the government to make it a law that you MUST be one thing or another? The phrase 'nanny-state' comes to mind.

Is it just me or are we turning into a communist state? (With a soon-new leader that we never ellected)?

Clem.

 

[DotNetWebs]

...This is an infringement on human rights and freedom from the same country with other screwed up laws which enforce me to wear a crash helmet when riding my motorbike - it should be my choice.

I am an ex biker and must admit I would have occasionally loved to go out riding in the country and feel the wind in my hair without the restriction of a crash helmet. But...

I fully support the enforcement of crash helmets. I started biking at 16 on mopeds gradually moving up to more powerful machines. During this time I new of several people of my age who were killed in motorcycle accidents. More often than not these where accidents where a group of lads had gone out riding together. Usually the person killed was taking a risk to keep up with the 'pack' and not wanting to be left out and look 'slow' in front of his friends. I myself had several such near misses at the time.

The peer pressure amongst such groups is immense. If you removed the helmet enforcement law you would get many young riders going without helmets so as not to look 'uncool' in front of their peers. Removing the enforcement would result in unnecessary deaths amongst young people who, if left to their own devices, may well have otherwise chosen to wear a crash helmet.

Regards

Dotty

 

[DotNetWebs]

Interesting discussion...

Firstly I am a non-smoker. Never have smoked, probably never will. However I disagree with the ban.

For me it is a matter of principal - and that principal is choice. Everyone has a choice and the freedom to make their choice. When the government banned smoking in enclosed public places they took away that choice.

People have always had the choice to go to a pub where people smoke or not. Pubs have always had the choice to be non-smoking or not. Who says it is right for the government to make it a law that you MUST be one thing or another? The phrase 'nanny-state' comes to mind.

Is it just me or are we turning into a communist state? (With a soon-new leader that we never ellected)?

Clem.

This is a classic argument.

The rights of the smoker to smoke versus the rights of the non-smoker NOT to breath in second hand smoke.

Thirty years ago when smokers were in the majority it would be right to put smokers 'rights' before the 'rights' of the non-smokers. In 21st century Britain non-smokers are by far the majority so it makes sense to put the 'rights' of the non-smoker first.

The world moves on, some practices become less acceptable than they were previously. It is not about a 'nanny state' it is about society as a whole moving the boundaries of was are, and what are not, considered acceptable practises.

Inflicting unwanted second hand smoke on the majority of the population who are non-smokers is no longer considered acceptable by society.

Regards

Dotty

 

[Gillie]

Sorry, had to laugh at that one ... we are a long long long way from a communist state, hence you are on here with a business under your belt!!

 

I have smoked, after a year quit. I believe in some factors of the smoking ban but I disagree with the people who have strong beliefs in stopping smoking. As an ex-smoker I have the oppertunity to see both sides. I'm not suggesting for anyone to go smoke thereselves silly, its just my point against the people who are so biost against smoking.

If you don't like smoking and complain about it when someone smokes simply don't stand near them. Yes it's your choice where you stand but, it's also a smokers choice to smoke where they wish.

Once the smoking ban begins then I believe you will have a good argument to support this point, until then you have to appreciate people's rights aswell as yourselfs, smoking is bad for your health but if people want to smoke then let them smoke, afterall it won't be effecting you in the long run?

I have come to terms with second hand smoke is generally worse for you, but back to my first point, if you don't like it don't stand near them.

 

[toystoyou]

I went to Spain last year where the smoking ban was already in place. Over there pubs and restaurants can apply for a licence or permit that enables them to allow smoking in their premises. Pubs and restaurants then must clearly advertise whether you can or cannot smoke in them.
That to me is the simple solution.
Provide every individual with the choice. A smoker can then go to a smoking place while a non-smoker can make the choice to go to a no-smoking pub/restaurant. While smokers can choose to go to non-smoking places and vice versa.
I disagree with the ban simply because it is a blanket ban that does not take into consideration the freedom of choice of the individual.
I am an individual and whether I'm a smoker or a non-smoker I should have the freedom to make informed choices about how I live my life. If I choose to smoke I should be able to do so in a smoking environment where non-smokers don't have to go if they choose not to. If I don't smoke I should have the choice to go to public places free of cigarette smoke.
To me it's all about freedom of choice and the government have removed that freedom of choice for a huge section of the population. And that is wrong.
Surely every single person should be entitled to choice, not just non-smokers.
Julie

 

Surely every single person should be entitled to choice, not just non-smokers.

Completely agree with you Julie, good points you've made.

 

[DotNetWebs]

..it's also a smokers choice to smoke where they wish...

But they don't really have that choice do they?

You cannot currently smoke in trains, aeroplanes, cinemas, library's, most modern coffee shops etc.... The list is endless.

Like I said society moves on. In the past it was acceptable to smoke in these places, today it is not. Given that the majority of people in this country do not smoke the (enclosed public spaces) smoking ban is just a logical extension of what is already in place.

Regards

Dotty

 

But they don't really have that choice do they?

You cannot currently smoke in trains, aeroplanes, cinemas, library's, most modern coffee shops etc.... The list is endless.

Exactly why I'm arguing against the point, should be freedom everywhere.

 

[DotNetWebs]

Exactly why I'm arguing against the point, should be freedom everywhere.

I used to work in aviation. All the air in an aeroplane cabin is recalculated several times before exiting a hole a few square inches in size. Before smoking was banned on aircraft the valves that control the air circulation used to regularly seize up due to the nicotine tar. It was absolutely disgusting to see what people were forced to breath in.

You 'freedom' would mean that a single smoker would be able to pollute the lungs of every other person on the aircraft.

Thankfully times have moved on and as I keep saying the majority of the population think it is wrong for smokers to inflict second hand smoke on non-smokers in enclosed public spaces. I for one am very grateful that we live in a democracy that has listened to the wishes of the majority and taken action on their opinons. (At least in this case - Iraq wars etc. aside)

Regards

Dotty

 

[DotNetWebs]

lol.

Hayden just seen your profile. You are only 16. If you smoked for a year you must have been smoking under age. Naughty!

Regards

Dotty

 

[Gillie]

Exactly why I'm arguing against the point, should be freedom everywhere.

Is that freedom for everyone? Or just smokers?

I am getting fed up of reading about smokers not having the freedom to do what they want ... hell I aint had that freedom until now ... welcome to the world of the non smoker!!

 

[asonda]

yep, us non smokers haven't had the freedom to go places without you people tar-ing up our lungs!

 

[Cornish Steve]

Given that the majority of people in this country do not smoke the (enclosed public spaces) smoking ban is just a logical extension

This is a dangerous principle. During the 1930s, a majority of people in Germany believed that Jews were the source of all evil. Because individual freedoms were not respected, we ended up with the holocaust. Once again, I challenge you: Would you say this if we were talking about chewing gum and you happened to be an avid chewer?

I do understand the point that smokers affect other people, and it's quite valid. No one should be forced to inhale tobacco smoke, but that's simple to achieve without government heavy-handedness: Have a smoking room at the airport and keep the rest smoke free; have one carriage on a train for smokers and the rest for non-smokers (or a smokers' train and a non-smoker train). Let's not just assume, though, that "government knows best" because they rarely do. Also, let's not assume that the majority is always right, because they can be mistaken or misled.

I'm thinking back decades when my grandad would take us occasionally to the park. He'd sit on a park bench and smoke his pipe while my brother and I played. He was hurting no one, and he thoroughly enjoyed his pipe. Why should such behaviour, which impacts no one else, be made illegal? Life would soon become dull if the government clamped down on every vice.

 

[DotNetWebs]

Sorry Steve but I think your are over dramatising the situation.

Years ago it was common practice to spit on the floor in pubs and empty chamber pots into streets etc. Society moves on. No one is being misled here. The majority think that smoking in enclosed public places is now unacceptable. It's a simple as that.

Regards

Dotty

 

[DotNetWebs]

PS Your grandad would still be allowed to enjoy his pipe on a park bench. That is not being made illegal (and rightly so).

 

[Cornish Steve]

Sorry Steve but I think your are over dramatising the situation.

I know, and the same point was made during the discussion about rubbish collection. The point is, though, that once the government believes it's on a roll and that limiting individual freedoms is acceptable, the sky's the limit. Do you think they'll ever quit? It will be regulation after regulation. That's the way governments are.

Chewing gum is a relevant one, by the way, because it's illegal in Singapore. So is dropping a match in the street. While it creates a well-ordered society, you begin to worry whether your latest habit is illegal, and that state of mind is oppressive.

As a matter of interest, because I don't know, does the European Constitution include a Bill of Rights to protect individual freedoms and to prevent overbearing governments from overstepping the mark?

 

[Gillie]

Steve, on this one, I think you will find that the government is responding to people pressure as its hardly in their interest to make people quit smoking as they do raise a lot of taxes from it!

 

[DotNetWebs]

Steve I would love to carry on discussing this but I am just off to my local for a few beers and a bit of passive smoking (while i still have the chance).

Have a good weekend.

Regards

Dotty

 

[Philip Hoyle]

It's a bit simplictic to say non-smokers have a choice - a great number previously had no choice whatsoever but to go into premises and be forced to inhale second hand smoke. The simple argument that a non-smoker could choose a non-smoking bar or restaurant for example misses a very big point indeed.

What about those who don't have a choice. It is not only the customers and staff who go into smokey places - and yes, they do have the choice to work/visit there. But what about other staff who don't directly work there but are required to attend their premises? For example, delivery and postal workers, inspectors, emergency service personnel, etc etc. Mostly they had no choice whatsoever but to go where their employer told them to go.

I speak from experience - my job used to require me to work at clients' premises for several days at a time, sometimes several weeks, and it is definitely no joke to be couped up in a tiny office for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week with a chain-smoker, when you have absolutely no choice.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Steve, on this one, I think you will find that the government is responding to people pressure as its hardly in their interest to make people quit smoking as they do raise a lot of taxes from it!

On that point, years ago I was an official parliamentary candidate for one of the major parties (I won't admit for which one!). I had the idea that taxes on goods should always be set to cover the impact of those goods (e.g., the tax on cigarettes should cover the added cost of healthcare associated with smoking). I was soon told that the tax on cigarettes generates many times more than the added medical costs. In fact, someone claimed that those taxes more than paid for the entire NHS (although I couldn't verify that). So, you're right: The government will lose revenue, but you can be sure they'll steal our money in other ways.

 

[KM-Tiger]

Given that the majority of people in this country do not smoke the (enclosed public spaces) smoking ban is just a logical extension of what is already in place.

If it is, then why does the legislation include private premises, eg members' clubs, and private business premises?

As a smoker, I have absolutely no wish to impose my smoke on others, and I would have supported an appropriate set of rules that did not destroy freedom of choice. At present we already have in place a good set of rules at my own business, so smokers and non-smokers can coexist happily. We didn't need further guidance.

Personally I will not be dictated to by a bunch of holier-than-thou freeloaders at Westminster and have every intention of ignoring this so-called ban at every opportunity.