The PINNACLE of disgusting [Smoking Ban]

[mendhak]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/13/britain.smoking.ban.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

Unfortunately, this frivolous ban won't be fought or resisted. To a non-smoker, this isn't an issue. But this is just like the pro-life/pro-choice abortion issue. You have a bunch of irrelevant individuals (such as men in the Supreme Court) voting on a matter they have little to do with.

[Valleysboy1978]

I take you haven't been to Dublin? They have handled the ban extremely well with outdoor (but sheltered areas) for smokers. If a non-smoker walks into that area it is their choice. Besides, it was pretty obvious a total ban was on the cards as Scotland, N. Ireland and Wales were all initiating a full ban so the pressure was on.

I'm all for it if it is handled properly, besides the clubs have 18 months to prepare for it!

[BodwadUK]

YAY I hate cig smoke

[Pino]

i have to agree. The smoke is pretty horrible after a night out. :(

[Valleysboy1978]

Yep, Dublin was great as you didn't come out smelling like an ashtray. Can't wait for this to be implemented. Just hope the House of Lords don't block it (although with the majority it was voted in I doubt they will)

[nemaroller]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/13/britain.smoking.ban.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

Unfortunately, this frivolous ban won't be fought or resisted. To a non-smoker, this isn't an issue. But this is just like the pro-life/pro-choice abortion issue. You have a bunch of irrelevant individuals (such as men in the Supreme Court) voting on a matter they have little to do with.

I'm surprised this is happening at such a high level of government... typically this is handled by municipal or at the very most county government (the one exception being California of course with their state-wide ban).

As a smoker it doesn't affect me... that's the thing about smokers - for the most part they WANT to stop... so you'll never see a pro smoker's coalition on these issues - so its an easy ban to pass so long as local tavern owners are all for it.

You could pass a law that all smoker's have to wear a hat that reads 'I'm stupid', and we'd all demoralizingly oblige without even a single protest to the proposed law.

[Merrion]

You could pass a law that all smoker's have to wear a hat that reads 'I'm stupid'

As a former smoker I can tell you that the hat would be superfluous. Walking a couple of miles to the all-night garage at 3 a.m. because you ran out of ciggies already proves to the world that you are stupid. :o

[Valleysboy1978]

I'm surprised this is happening at such a high level of government... typically this is handled by municipal or at the very most county government (the one exception being California of course with their state-wide ban)Why are you so surprised? Not all forms of government follow the way you do things.

Remember that the US is a republic
The UK is a democracy
and these two forms of government, although based on the power of the electorate, work very differently to each other.

Here each county in the four constituent countries of the UK (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) has an elected councillor who votes in the UK parliament on our behalf. In a democracy counties have NO power except to vote in parliament (although some powers have been devolved to the various countries).

It is also worth noting that the vote was only for England as the other countries had already voted for a country-wide ban

[FunkyDexter]

I'm a non-smoker but I'm still not sure a blanket ban was the way to go. I'm sure there could have been some sort of happy medium like licensing some pubs to allow smoking, having smoking rooms etc. I think assuming that smokers will now give up missunderstands the nature of addiction and I'm pretty sure most of my smoking freinds will simply stop going out which seems a shame.

I am grateful I won't have to come home smelling though.

[Valleysboy1978]

They won't stop going out. They will initially out of protest but they will end up going out again because they will miss the social life.

New York, Ireland and California all threw up a big fuss about this but they have all had no problems with it. Why should we not have a ban?

[nemaroller]

It surprises me because it usually never becomes an issue at higher levels - it is assumed they have more important issues to attend to - and so is left for small government bodies to address.

Mind you doing this at a higher level stops the side effect of destroying small privately held taverns.

If one municipality bans smoking in taverns, and the nearby municipality doesn't - guess which municipality a tavern owner would wish to operate in?

The real scenario is smokers (who represent a great majority of tavern patrons) bring their business to the city where smoking is allowed.

[BodwadUK]

Make exceptions and it becomes too complicated. The law was passed mainly in the interest of employees in the establishments.

I never expected it to get passed like it did but I think its a brilliant step forward, kids will no longer be subjected to smoke in public environments and hopefully (although unpredictable really) it will cut the number of children who take up smoking

[si_the_geek]

It's bad new for the government financially, and therefore for the whole population too.

People will smoke less on a night out (which is when we typically smoke more than usual), and therefore there will be less money going to the treasury due to duty etc (roughly £4 per 20 cigarettes).

As the income from cigarettes is several billion p.a. (more than enough to cover the cost of the NHS!), a noticeable reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked will cause problems, and thus a requirement to tax higher on other items - alcohol/fuel/income tax/VAT/...


From the point of view of the workers/non-smokers/children I can see the benefit of a partial ban, but I see no reason for members-clubs to be included too - which according to the governments manifesto was not meant to happen.

kids will no longer be subjected to smoke in public environmentsUnless they happen to be outside the pubs/clubs - in which case they'll get much more than before.

[Merrion]

members clubs have employees
If members smoke employees are exposed to the smoke
employees bring class action for lung cancer / emphesemia etc.
insurers run screaming

i.e. even if the government didn't make smoking illegal in members only clubs, there is no way they would get employers liability insurance given that smoking has been banned everywhere else.

[si_the_geek]

The point about members clubs tho is that the members make the rules - if they decide to allow smoking then it is up non-smokers if they go there or not.

Staff also have the right to choose if they work there or not - under the (original) proposed law you would have been able to refuse to work in a smoking environment.


Insurers are happy to insure against almost anything, as long as the premium is right. Smoking is certainly not an exception to this, but presumably the premiums would rise - even without an increase in risk.

[yrwyddfa]

Some of you might remember this (http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.php?p=1925726&highlight=post1925726)

[BodwadUK]

Smoking is smelly and sick. It damages the health of others and is very selfish. The NHS is only given enough funds to cure the smokers (From Cig tax) not those caught in smoke filled environments.

Sorry but I hate cigerette smoke

[Valleysboy1978]

Smokers never liked paying duty but now they are trying to justify smoking because of the duty on it? The whole point of adding so much duty was to stop people smoking, but it never worked.

So a non-smoking member should be penalised because they want to have a drag in the club? Isn't that also unfair?

Look, this is a case where the vast majority of the population have won. Only 25% of the population smoke, so based on that probably around 60% want a total ban (the other 15% probably don't care) but either way the majority of the population will support a ban.
A ban of this sort IS workable and if the clubs and bars spend enough cash they can build ventilated smoking rooms. Can't see a problem with that

[nemaroller]

And here again is another example that begs the question of why Government does not just out-right make the consumption of manufacturered cigarettes illegal.

All the lawsuits against big tobacco were supposed to help pay for the health care costs of smokers that States were burdened with. So what do they do?

Instead of outright making the product illegal, they impose taxes on it to help balance their budgets. The worst crime being only a small part of those tax revenues actually go to the health care of smokers.

If they made cigarettes illegal, ALOT of people would quit - or at least cut back drastically. I imagine some black market may appear, but a few high profile arrests and then silent aquittals would make an early impact on that.

[FishGuy]

The point about members clubs tho is that the members make the rules - if they decide to allow smoking then it is up non-smokers if they go there or not.

Staff also have the right to choose if they work there or not - under the (original) proposed law you would have been able to refuse to work in a smoking environment.


I agree si. Im not too bothered about the workplace or public places in general but not too keen on the Pubs and Clubs ban. There should be Smoking and non smoking Bars if people wanted to choose and people could also choose which one they worked in, if either of them die out due to lack of business then tough but I say let the markets decide not the nanny state.

Sorry but on this level democracy doesnt work a few hundered people in Westminster voting on what is a personal preferance (Note Labour went against their own Manifesto). I dont want to open a Social divide debate but generally the politicians do not represent the publics views on day to day life and they are not Joe public who works all day and goes for a pint and a smoke after work. They are exactly the knid of people who dont frequent a Working Mens Club yet they have dictated what goes on in one. Valleys I know you say only 25% Of the population Smoke but what % of the population go into private members clubs and of that what % smoke?

Anther point to consider. A Public House is infact a "House" not a Public Place (Entrance to the Landlords House like yours and mine is at their discretion therefore thier rules), the new law says that the Landlord and his friends cannot smoke in his own house. It is a similar situation with the private members club.

[FishGuy]

members clubs have employees
If members smoke employees are exposed to the smoke
employees bring class action for lung cancer / emphesemia etc.
insurers run screaming

i.e. even if the government didn't make smoking illegal in members only clubs, there is no way they would get employers liability insurance given that smoking has been banned everywhere else.
A simple contract of employment would solve that.

[Valleysboy1978]

I agree si. Im not too bothered about the workplace or public places in general but not too keen on the Pubs and Clubs ban. There should be Smoking and non smoking Bars if people wanted to choose and people could also choose which one they worked in, if either of them die out due to lack of business then tough but I say let the markets decide not the nanny state. Oh come on, be reasonable. What clubs, pubs and such would be non-smoking if it was optional? None. This enforces the ban on smoking where other persons could be affected by second-hand smoke. Why shoud a non-smoker be pushed out of a pub just because of someone elses addiction?

Sorry but on this level democracy doesnt work a few hundered people in Westminster voting on what is a personal preferance (Note Labour went against their own Manifesto). I dont want to open a Social divide debate but generally the politicians do not represent the publics views on day to day life and they are not Joe public who works all day and goes for a pint and a smoke after work. They are exactly the knid of people who dont frequent a Working Mens Club yet they have dictated what goes on in one. Valleys I know you say only 25% Of the population Smoke but what % of the population go into private members clubs and of that what % smoke?They went against their own manifesto because they realised it was wrong in the first place and the majority of the population wanted a total ban. It doesn't matter what % go into private clubs. What matters that a democrac works by a majority vote and seeing as the majority of the population supported the ban the final vot represented the majority opinion rather well.

Besides, let's be honest here. This ban was bound to come into force sooner or later and having experienced it first hand in Dublin I welcome it and the sooner it comes the better (although it will make it harder to identify girls who are smokers (don't like smoking girlfriends))

[BodwadUK]

LOL I was saying about the girls thing yesterday :lol:

I cant stand women that smoke, Major turnoff

[penagate]

We've had this same law in Australia for years. Have had no problems. It's easy, you want to smoke, go outside, and the rest of us don't have to put up with it.

[FishGuy]

Smoking is smelly and sick. It damages the health of others and is very selfish. The NHS is only given enough funds to cure the smokers (From Cig tax) not those caught in smoke filled environments.

Sorry but I hate cigerette smoke

Where do you get this from?, si already said the revenue from cig tax alone could cover the entire NHS, the problem is that that money isnt going to the NHS it is put into the pot and helps pay for other government expenses not just health.

[FishGuy]

Its quite hard for other countries to comment(except Ireland). No other countries really have the same pub culture as the UK where going to the pub just about every night and all day weekends is the norm.

[BodwadUK]

Cancer costs thousands of pounds for the drugs let alone the service time. If you take into account the health of none smokers effected by passive smoking then the single smoker does not pay off the debt to the NHS. Appart from the fact why should non smokers suffer going through any treatment just because some selfish person cant light up outside.

The ban is in enclosed spaces because it causes damage to the health of those in the space. Smoking is permitted outside because it is ventilated. I cant really see the problem, its not like it illegal its just changing in the interest of the general public. If you want to kill yourselves in a nasty discusting way then go ahead just dont be responsible for my death. I am very efficient at causeing my own health problems thankyou

[FishGuy]

Cancer costs thousands of pounds for the drugs let alone the service time. If you take into account the health of none smokers effected by passive smoking then the single smoker does not pay off the debt to the NHS. Appart from the fact why should non smokers suffer going through any treatment just because some selfish person cant light up outside.

The ban is in enclosed spaces because it causes damage to the health of those in the space. Smoking is permitted outside because it is ventilated. I cant really see the problem, its not like it illegal its just changing in the interest of the general public. If you want to kill yourselves in a nasty discusting way then go ahead just dont be responsible for my death. I am very efficient at causeing my own health problems thankyou

Sorry Bodwad that wasnt a dig and I dont know any numbers myself. Like I said I do agree with the ban on smoking in public places i.e the office the airport etc but what im saying is what makes people think that a Pub or Private members club is a public place they automatically have a right to go into if they want - They do not, they are as private as your own home.

[si_the_geek]

Smoking is smelly and sick. It damages the health of others and is very selfish.
Sorry but I hate cigerette smoke
I disagree, but can understand your view (it depends on the smoker).

I do agree that you shouldn't be forced to inhale other peoples smoke. So what is wrong with having only certain rooms for smoking?

The NHS is only given enough funds to cure the smokers (From Cig tax) not those caught in smoke filled environments.About £15 billion a year (from just the duty/tax on cigarettes - let alone the rest of the tax etc from the industry) is enough to pay for much more than that, if the government chose to put it into the NHS.

Smokers never liked paying duty but now they are trying to justify smoking because of the duty on it? The whole point of adding so much duty was to stop people smoking, but it never worked.No, the point of duty was to create an income for the government (just like with alcohol), the excuse for increasing it in recent years (as they did before anyway) has been based on the theory of 'helping' people quit. I have known many people who tried to give up based on cost - not one of them managed it.

Look, this is a case where the vast majority of the population have won. Only 25% of the population smoke, so based on that probably around 60% want a total ban (the other 15% probably don't care) but either way the majority of the population will support a ban.

...the majority of the population wanted a total ban.What makes you think that many want a ban? I think you'd find that most people are ambivolent.

A ban of this sort IS workable and if the clubs and bars spend enough cash they can build ventilated smoking rooms. Can't see a problem with thatErm.. the problem with this statement is that the entire point of the ban (as it is now) is that you cannot have smoking rooms.

If that was allowed, we wouldn't have a problem with it - and it would help people give up better, as they would get an "overdose" of smoke.

Oh come on, be reasonable. What clubs, pubs and such would be non-smoking if it was optional? None. I know of about 20 in Bristol that have been non-smoking for over a year.

[BodwadUK]

ummm a pub is public hence its name. I know what you are trying to say but because it admits public people and you dont need to be a member it should not be null and void from the ban. Private clubs are a different topic but still need to be included due to workers and other members who may object to smoking.

Alot of this is to do with working environments for employees. It may sounds odd now but a country cannot cope if a whole generation suffers from a side effect illness e.g Smoking(cancer, heart disease) or Obessity (heart disease) etc....

[si_the_geek]

I can understand that, but what is wrong with having only certain rooms for smoking?
(note that under the original proposals it was valid for workers to refuse to enter them)

[BodwadUK]

One of the main reasons was probably because the government could be held responsible and sued by people who become ill due to excessive smoke. Its all a balancing act these days. There is also the loop around of saying the bar is the smoking room

[si_the_geek]

Nope, the bar owners would have been the ones liable.

Oh, and the bar could not have been a smoking room - there were very strict regulations on what would have been allowed.

[BodwadUK]

Yeah but it wouldnt be would it, the bar owners would say the government forced them to do it.

Yes but people find ways around these things, it human nature.

[FishGuy]

Oh yes everyones sueing everybody these days, another thing that annoys me. It really is getting to be a nanny state where people are not allowed to make their own decisions.

I find it hard to imagine what the atmosphere will be like in my local without the smoke, I suppose it will smell different and the paintwork will be gleaming which to most people will be nice but for me thats not how my local should be it just seems non tradtional, I suppose if I went into a trendy wine bar not smoking in there would seem different. Another thing that seems odd is that pubs have been smokey, dingey for centuries it was just the norm now suddenly it feels like outsiders are coming in and telling us what we cannot do, remember for many their own home. On a side note if I were a landlord of a Pub who like many lived in the pub as it just an open house does the ban mean I can no longer smoke in my own house. By this I mean even if im upstairs in my kitchen?

[big blue alien]

As the health seceratry (i think it was her :ehh: ) said this is like the law on seat belts.
very unpopular when it came out but very necesary for the safty of the majority. i'm sure in a years time no one will care.
there are too many deaths in Britain because of people doing stupid things like smokeing and only a few selfish people want it to cary on. This law dosent mean you cant smoke, it means you cant make other people smoke
its the only thing Labour has done right :thumb:

[big blue alien]

I find it hard to imagine what the atmosphere will be like in my local without the smoke
your not their for the aroma, your their to get a drink and meet your friends and i'd rather not risk my life for someone else's pleasure doing that

[si_the_geek]

there are too many deaths in Britain because of people doing stupid things like smokeingThere are more drinking related deaths. It is only the social stigma of smoking that allowed them to go after that rather than alcohol. I wouldn't be surprised if the same sort of thing occurs (to a lesser degree) with alcohol in a few years - the duty is already rising steadily.

This law dosent mean you cant smoke, it means you cant make other people smokeIt does mean you can't smoke in a pub, which many of us want to do. The middle ground (smoking rooms) would have covered all bases, but not have been so dictatorial, and offensive towards an estimated 25% of the population.

Yeah but it wouldnt be would it, the bar owners would say the government forced them to do it.That's irrelevant, they would still be the ones who were liable. ;)

The insurance costs would go up, thus persuading several landlords to stop smoking in their pubs (or increase prices to cover insurance costs).

I think it is unfair that smokers should not have an option of a smoking room. That would keep you non-smokers away from it, but not stop us from doing what we want to do to ourselves.

[big blue alien]

The middle ground (smoking rooms) would have covered all bases, but not have been so dictatorial, and offensive towards an estimated 25% of the population.
from what i've seen most smokers are trying to quit so for them this will make it easier. the rest are either naive and will soon be quiting or selfish so i dont care if they get offended. If smokers get offended then that will stop teenagers seeing it as cool and many lives will be saved in the long run

[si_the_geek]

From what I've seen, most smokers don't want to quit - but don't like the cost.

I am certianly not naive about smoking (I spent years working for specialised parts of a tobacco company, and have far more knowledge than almost anyone outside the industry), and am not selfish either - which is why I have always fully advocated the suggestion of a smoking room.


This move will actually mean that teenagers will see more people smoking (as the smokers will be outside the pubs instead of hidden away), so they will presumably see it as more "cool" than before - as they will associate it with pubs (which they want to go to) more than they do already.

[MasterBlaster]

Wow, washington state has everyone beat in ridiculous smoking ban laws. even california. Smoking is banned indoors at Cigar bars and Tobacco Shopes.

If the SOLE purpose of a busisness is to have patrons come in, spend $150 bucks on a cigar and a glass of brandy, sit in a relaxing chair and smoke and drink, WTH is a non smoker doing there? :confused:

[big blue alien]

If the SOLE purpose of a busisness is to have patrons come in, spend $150 bucks on a cigar and a glass of brandy, sit in a relaxing chair and smoke and drink, WTH is a non smoker doing there?
To sit in a relaxing chair and drink?

I agree a smokeing room would be a good compromise but the laws passed. I remember a restaurant i went to a couple of times, the stink from the smokers IN THE SMOKEING ROOM was way too much. but that was an extreame case and i expect a bit of a smell in a pub

[MasterBlaster]

To sit in a relaxing chair and drink?

I agree a smokeing room would be a good compromise but the laws passed. I remember a restaurant i went to a couple of times, the stink from the smokers IN THE SMOKEING ROOM was way too much. but that was an extreame case and i expect a bit of a smell in a pub

They are shops that only serve high end cigars and high end liquor. People go there for that purpose only. There is no stink from the smoking room. Actually the one I used to take my clients, who smoked, to had hardly any smoke in them at all. That is what a 500,000 air filtration system and a good cleaning a couple times a day will do for you. The smoke smell does not penetrate Glass ,Polished Marble, and Treated leather.

[FunkyDexter]

I can understand that, but what is wrong with having only certain rooms for smoking? The argument the governement made against it was that employees would still have to enter it to clean, collect glasses etc. Seems a bit of weak argument to me though, surely any pub would be able to find a smoking employee somewhere among it ranks to carry out this single duty.

As someone who has had my head stamped on for no greater crime than having long hair and being a bit of a hippy in Southampton City Centre on a Saturday night I'd like to say that other peoples drinking has had a greater effect on my health than other peoples smoking. That said, the first person who suggests we ban drinking will have to answer to me (where's a shaking fist smiley when you need one).

[BodwadUK]

Lets put it simply.

The law is coming into effect next summer and as it stands there isnt anything you can do about it.

So

NAH NAH NAH NAAAAH NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

:afrog: :afrog:

[sevenhalo]

This thread just makes me want to smoke in more public places.

This whole smoking thing about wether it's alright or not has gotten pass the point of ridiculous. Meth addicts are treated better then we are. I'll be sitting in my living room enjoying a tv show or something and I'll see a "We care, you need help. Let's all have a hug and stop meth."

Then comes the JEL antismoking commercial where kids are crying, babys are rolling around in gas masks and some guy is standing around yelling at buildings and pedestrians that "you're doing this, you're killing. People die every minute cause of you soley!"

This bothers me to high hell. I'm a working, functioning member of society. I pay my taxes, get my bills in on time and shovel my snow within a reasonable amount of time. I also smoke, and I enjoy it immensely (don't start kiddies). I don't light up infront of children... I think I'm a sensible smoker. I know when it's not welcome and so does 99% of all smokers. If a nightclub wants to say "no smoking," fine. That's up to them. I'll respect that like I was in my friends house.

Everything was fine. Our smoker to nonsmoker arangement was working great. Sure you nonsmokers got upset when someone lit up at a restaraunt, but it was the smoking section. They allowed us to smoke there. This is when I think things got ugly. People started asking for first avaliable tables (cause usually, the smoking section is the last section to fill up) and sometimes they sat in smoking. Instead of realizing we were allowing you into our territory (and taking a table away from a smoker who might now have to sit in nonsmking); you thought that eliminating our section completely might get you a nonsmoking table in time for happy hour. That makes you the evil ones...

Smokers are some of the nicest, most social people in the world. There is no other circle where you can walk up to any complete stranger, bum a cigarette (assuming it's not the last one, smokers totally understand and share) and then engage in a 15 minute conversation without even knowing their name. And we all feel bad when we bum, there's a huge guilt involved. Not to mention, we NEVER tried to get our smoking section expanded or moved. We were content sharing the 4 tables next to the bathroom.

So congratulations, you nonsmokers have now aquired the bathroom tables. Now that you can't complain about the smoke, you'll complain about the smell and traffic of the bathrooms. I look forward to your next crusade where you force restaraunts to have outhouses instead.

[Valleysboy1978]

Smoking sections in restaurants is simply ridiculous. The smoke does actually travel across a room and it puts me off my food almost insantly. I'm sure that if a nightclub was non-smoking all patrons would abide by that...IF they were not already drunk. When you are drunk your judgement capabilities are severly diminished so you'd likely light up regardless.

Besides, if the club was non-smoking that is by the clubs choice and so there would be no enforcement or punishment for lighting up in the club. With this new law they will have to enforce the non-smoking policy because it will be law and the club faces a £2,500 fine for each offence (and you face £50).


Let me ask all of you smokers here (and it's obvious here who is and isn't), have any of you been to a country that already has this law? I have been to Dublin and have to be honest I was very impressed with it. The social life was not any different (and most of my friends are smokers) and was frankly more enjoyable.

[sevenhalo]

So it's our fault that a restaraunt doesn't provide proper venhilation (sp?) in their smoking sections? Alot of them around here have seperate rooms. It's not even in the same area as you nonsmokers. The only reason why that wasn't working is because of your impatience to wait for a nonsmoking table to open up.

I have not been to an area where it's enforced. I have seen alot of our restaraunts giving up their smoking sections because of your demands, but we don't have police officers enforcing a ban yet.

And I'm glad life's more enjoyable for you. After all, that's all that matters.

[Valleysboy1978]

Indeed it is. For once the majority opinion wins

[si_the_geek]

I haven't been to a country with a ban, but as all the smokers here will already understand I am in the same situation regularly (at houses of non-smoking friends etc), but that doesn't mean I can completely relax and enjoy it.

I don't expect you to believe/understand this, but it's like going to a club and being told that you (and only you) aren't allowed to drink. You get to spend the time watching everyone else enjoy themselves, whilst trying to stay on the same level as your friends. It's ok occasionally, but is not something that I should be forced into every time I go out.


I don't understand why anti-smokers seem to forget that we are people too, why should we be forced into this, rather than a decent compromise - which a large proportion of smokers have advocated for a long time.

You also seem to ignore the fact that the majority of the population don't actually care that much - you hate it yourself and therefore the happiness of many others doesn't matter.


By the way, the pub industry in the southern part of Northern Ireland is currently booming - and the industry in the northern part of Ireland is having problems.
The smoke does actually travel across a room and it puts me off my food almost insantly.Then that is poor design of those restaurants; They should have adequate ventilation/spacing/walls/etc. I admit that many places dont have the space/funds to do it properly, so a ban in those places would be fine. A ban everywhere is OTT.

[conipto]

I'm a smoker, living in California.. I moved here from chicago and at first I was screaming bloody murder about having to go outside to smoke. After some time, I don't really mind it - but I'm in california. It's February and 65 degrees outside. Now, Chicago recently adopted the same policy, and that I won't like at all.

I would really like to see some hard core research and facts about employees getting cancer from second hand smoke. Even still - your place of employment is a choice. As is your choice of restaraunt/bar/club.

Bill

[Valleysboy1978]

By the way, the pub industry in the southern part of Northern Ireland is currently booming - and the industry in the northern part of Ireland is having problems.:ehh:

Whoah, deja vu!
Anyway, if someone drinks a pint next to me I'm not breathing in toxic fumes fron that pint am I? Look, this law was inevitable and I could not see any difference of social life in Dublin compared to Bristol or Cardiff.

Why should you be forced into it? Because you force second hand smoke down into someones lungs. The question is who should be forced outside the smoker or non-smoker to create a safe environment? Considering the smoker is the cause of the smoke it would be him. Because the smoke would still linger in the pub it would have to be the smoker to go outside. Like it or not the current healthly lifestyle being promoted required something be done about smoking in public areas.

If a pub or club have customised smoking rooms or beer gardens (which most places in Dublin had) then I have no problem with that and it's probably likely that most places will have such rooms

[sevenhalo]

That's just it, there is no facts about second hand smoke and cancer. It's all based on "well, common sense would tell you it's probably bad."

"Common sense" would also tell you that driving with your windows down during rushhour traffic is probably bad for you too. Or opening a window when there's a smog alert. Or not wearing sunscreen if you're going to be outside all day. Or eating too much McDonald's.

Do we need laws and regulations to keep us from doing this? No, we can figure all of this out ourselves. I'm going to start a new crusade, right now.

I hate sitting next to fat people on airplanes and buses. Honestly, it is the worst thing. It makes me horribly uncomfortable and I have no way to avoid it. Because of that, I want people to register with the government so they can regulate how often we eat fast food each week. We can have ID cards that we have to scan and our financial records can be auditted and searched to make sure we're not cheating.

I like this idea, I don't particularly care for fast food so it won't bother me. But it'll make my life more enjoyable.

[Valleysboy1978]

...driving with your windows down during rushhour traffic is probably bad for you too. Or opening a window when there's a smog alert. Or not wearing sunscreen if you're going to be outside all day. Or eating too much McDonald's...Yet all of these things you point out are personal lifestyle choices you have made. Smoking is a personal lifestyle choice that also affects the health of those around you.

Would you open your car window during a smog alert if there was a young child in the back? No because doing so would also affect the childs health

My wearing no sunscreen outside does not affect your health if I stand next to you, yet smoking next to someone would.

[si_the_geek]

Look, this law was inevitable and I could not see any difference of social life in Dublin compared to Bristol or Cardiff.That is as a non-smoker tho, for you it wouldn't be different would it? ;)

As I said, think of how you would feel being stuck not drinking - on every night out.

Like it or not the current healthly lifestyle being promoted required something be done about smoking in public areas.Like it or not, alcohol is worse for you. Believe it or not, coffee is quite bad too.

The cost of drinking isn't purely long-term health related either, there is the increased violence and policing costs, increased vanadalism, all of the accidents involving drunk people, etc.

Why should you be forced into it? Because you force second hand smoke down into someones lungs.I have always avoided doing this as much as possible, as I have said several times I was in favour of specific smoking rooms.

If a pub or club have customised smoking rooms or beer gardens (which most places in Dublin had) then I have no problem with that and it's probably likely that most places will have such rooms:confused: erm.. yet again, the point of this ban (from what has been said on the news etc) is that you cannot have those rooms! Beer gardens are ok in good weather, but not in rain/snow etc.

[Valleysboy1978]

Don't believe everything you hear in the news. There are pubs in Cardiff already in the process of building these rooms/gardens.
Alcohol is bad for you no doubt, but it doesn't affect those around you. Smoking can affect people up to 10 metres away!

[BodwadUK]

Stupid point but they are clamping down on alcoholics

Second hand smoke is dangerous and I will not be used as a lab rat to find out how dangerous.

[yrwyddfa]

That's just it, there is no facts about second hand smoke and cancer. It's all based on "well, common sense would tell you it's probably bad."

"Common sense" would also tell you that driving with your windows down during rushhour traffic is probably bad for you too. Or opening a window when there's a smog alert. Or not wearing sunscreen if you're going to be outside all day. Or eating too much McDonald's.

Do we need laws and regulations to keep us from doing this? No, we can figure all of this out ourselves. I'm going to start a new crusade, right now.

I hate sitting next to fat people on airplanes and buses. Honestly, it is the worst thing. It makes me horribly uncomfortable and I have no way to avoid it. Because of that, I want people to register with the government so they can regulate how often we eat fast food each week. We can have ID cards that we have to scan and our financial records can be auditted and searched to make sure we're not cheating.

I like this idea, I don't particularly care for fast food so it won't bother me. But it'll make my life more enjoyable.Very good points.

Before I start, I AM a smoker, but this, I hope, does not reflect in my rationality towards the subject.

Smoking, and it's related environmental concerns are real. Very real. I do not smoke in the company of children, adults, or non-smokers for that very reason. It is my choice. I do, however, smoke in a pub. One can argue that this is a herd instinct, but I find it difficult to justify that. I smoke because it is allowed. Now it will be banned, I will smoke outside, and will have no problem with that.

But now we've banned that, what's next? What else can someone do that damahes my health?

Let's start with anyone with a car capacity of greater than 1 litre. This gives my daughter asthma (life threateningly), and increases my discomfort during the summer months when I have to have an injection in my bum to prevent hayfever (otherwise my body swells like a balloon)

Let's carry on with mobile phones. Sure, there's been studies that prove? there is no health risk, but there's been the same studies for passive smoking. Each should be held equally. I don't want to stick (unlike what many of you want me to do) my head in a microwave, so why should I suffer so that you lot can text your mates?

Let's further carry it on with obesity. It's unpleasant, and I just don't like sitting next to fat smelly people. I could argue that methane (CH4) is a much much more efficient greenhouse than carbon dioxide (C02) so let's close down (remember we can't tax crap food - we taxed the smokers and that didn't work) all those places that sell food that isn't good for you. I certainly don't want to pay for the endless amounts of diseases that occur when someone has led a very bad dieted life.

While we're at we should ban all self-service of oil, and other petroleum products. If you get this on your skin did you know it's a carcinogen? Well, I, personally don't want to pay for you to be treated for that condition when the only reason you got that condition was for an act of convenience.

Speeding. Well, that's got to be the death penalty. It's reckless and it endangers life. Reduce all speed limits by 20 mph, and we'll all be a lot safer. I don't want to suffer the ill effects of speeding - such as almost certain death over 40mph

Cars. How much time do I waste sitting in my car in traffic jams around London (about 1/3rd of my day) Well, I'm wasting huge quantities of my life sitting there whilst some @rse who can't be bothered to take the train gets in my way.

But, of course, there is always the option of choice. There are plenty of non-smoking establishments around. Let market forces choose. But they wouldv'e done already if the those for this ban had voted with their feet. But because they haven't, I can only suppose, that they just don't believe in this enough to be of any concern

[sevenhalo]

Would you open your car window during a smog alert if there was a young child in the back? No because doing so would also affect the childs health
Like you said, don't beleive everything in the news. We're not shotgunning smoke into our children's faces. I even mentioned before that I won't smoke infront of kids (and I have alot of friends who feel the same).

Alcohol causes deaths. Unresponsible people drive drunk. If your attitude towards smoking is that it can effect people 10 metres away, what does that say about a drunk guy behind the wheel? We know that's going to kill someone. We don't know if second hand smoke is worse for you then other elements in the air.

[si_the_geek]

Alcohol is bad for you no doubt, but it doesn't affect those around you.Yes it does - there have been many times that I have seen people attacked on the streets during the day (and been on the receiving end myself a few times too) simply because the attacker was drunk.

When it gets to Friday/Saturday night in town, it's not surprising to see many fights over virtually nothing, with ambulances quickly in attendance.

There are also many occasions when drunk people are involved in road accidents, leading to the death of others, or themselves - which can scar the driver who hit them for life.


Dont let your hatred of smoking cloud your vision of the facts. ;)

[big blue alien]

That's just it, there is no facts about second hand smoke and cancer
This is rubbish and you know it. do a quick search for the facts. Have you ever heard of any reaserch saying its not bad for you (unless its sponcered by the tabaco companies)

"Common sense" would also tell you that driving with your windows down during rushhour traffic is probably bad for you too. Or opening a window when there's a smog alert. Or not wearing sunscreen if you're going to be outside all day. Or eating too much McDonald's.
None of these effect anyone else but smokeing does.
I understand smokers thinking its not that bad but thats because your used to the stink, non-smokers arn't, and if you want to risk your life thats fine by me. Just dont risk anyone else's for them.

[Valleysboy1978]

Anyone who drinks and drives, whether they have caused an accident should get a relevant jail sentence insantly. It is inexcusable.

As for yrywddfa's point about car emissions I am in total agreement with you. Cars should not be giving out those kind of emissions when there are safe alternatives but there are only about 10 models that use electric power and even they are hybrids. Car manufacturers should offer more models that use ONLY electric power. I'd buy one right now (I'm actually looking at the hybrid at the moment)

[big blue alien]

Yes it does - there have been many times that I have seen people attacked on the streets during the day (and been on the receiving end myself a few times too) simply because the attacker was drunk.
Thats very true. Alcohol is very dangerous but does that make smokeing right? If yes then so must be all drugs and dangerous driving.

[FishGuy]

Don't believe everything you hear in the news. There are pubs in Cardiff already in the process of building these rooms/gardens.
Alcohol is bad for you no doubt, but it doesn't affect those around you. Smoking can affect people up to 10 metres away!
Alcohol does affect people around you (Well maybe not you Valleys you seem a decent chap) but drunks getting violent, or just overly loud when when your out for a drink with the mrs, spilling drinks everywhere. etc.

If they do allow smoking rooms/areas they had better be comfortable and quite large because most of the pubs and bars around here the smoking areas will be the busiest area on the premisis.

[yrwyddfa]

My point is that smoking has been an inherent freedom forever. I have no problem with a ban.

My problem is the reasoning behind it. There are plenty of things us humans get up to that

(i) Make life difficult for someone else
(ii) Make life endangered for someone else

If you want to ban smoking on these grounds then, logically, you should be banning the rest, too.

[sevenhalo]

This is rubbish and you know it.
My point is, they have not proven it to be worse or cancer assisting then other elements. It is bad, yes; but so are car emissions. And that factory down the street, it's not making pretty, fluffly clouds. Also, your fireplace... Should we ban those as well, they stink up whole city blocks.

You went after smokers cause the media told you to. You ate every word right up because it seemed to make sense and it didn't effect you directly. As a bonus, your air smells a little cleaner every now and then. You're still getting carcinigens (sp?) and cancer causing agents... Those tax dollars tossed at commercials and awareness programs (it wasn't all tobacco supported) would have been better off providing new smoke stack filters for industrial sites and researching a clean burning fuel (like ethanol, sorry had to plug it :)).

[penagate]

I'd be very happy if all cars ran on ethanol, I've been wishing that for years.

I don't know why there is so much fuss about this ban though. It's not any worse than what is already in effect in many countries. Like I said earlier we have had similar regulations in Australia for years. And here smoking has been prohibited in most of the places mentioned for longer than the laws have been in place anyway. It's not like smoking is completely outlawed or anything. It's just one step towards improving the health levels of our society, just like moving to sustainable fuels will be one day. It can't happen all at once but at least the world is making some progress.

[big blue alien]

I wonder how many people would try to drink it if they had ethanol cars?

They use ethanol in loads of South American countries. not because of the emmisions but because its much cheaper and its renuable but i think if the whole world used it their wouldnt be enough to go around

[penagate]

They add a poisonous chemical. Besides, it's made from sugar cane (among other things). If we all grew it there'd be plenty.

[sevenhalo]

The fuss is that the regulations are too tight. There's a splinter in our finger and the government is cutting off the hand. The choice isn't left in the hands of the people or even the owners of the business... It's a huge infringement on our right and freedom. While it seems small and miniscule right now to a nonsmoker and they can justify the regulations anyway they want to; this is a huge step towards another law about what we can and can't do.

If we lose this battle and people can see that "wow, my discomforts can change other people's lives darasically;" the next thing on the list in alcohol. I would bet my last dollar on it. MADD and other anti-alcohol advocates will call for the same funding and support from the government (and from lawsuits against budweiser and other brewers) to start creating dry communities and awareness programs.

Eventually, it will just seem like common sense that people should not be allowed to have any alcohol in them while they're in public. Soon, it will turn to bars and making sure they don't serve people too much (instead of leaving it the hands of the bartender like it is, the government will put a max 3 drink regulation or something).

More gas stations and family grocery stores will be pressured to not sell alcohol, or keep it hidden so children can't see it. From there, it's going to be exactly what's happening to cigarettes right now.

It's a spiral and you'll let them do it. After all, it is just "common sense." By the time it's over, you'll be so reeducated that you won't even know why we allowed it in the first place (reffering to entheogenic agents from the 60's and 70's).

[big blue alien]

well people drink meths so i dont think that would put them off

How many countries have the right climate to grow it though, its fine for South America and Africa but if you add Europe and the US and China. I think we need a mix of ethanol, hydrogen and electric

[sevenhalo]

They add a poisonous chemical. Besides, it's made from sugar cane (among other things). If we all grew it there'd be plenty.
I work for an ethanol plant :)
http://www.cornlp.com
It mainly comes from grain (corn) here in the US. And you're right, we do poison it.

And people smoke meth, not drink it. That's completely different anyway. The poison we add will make you sick, you'll throw up profusely. You won't get enough down to even get a buzz before you're spending your night in the procelein bowl. :)

[big blue alien]

the next thing on the list in alcohol
Way too many people drink for that to work and it can be done sensibly so i dont think a total ban on alchol will ever happen.

In victorian britain you could get opium in a corner shop, do you think thats right. When it was banned it was very unpopular but when you look at it now its very sensible. Thats how people will see smokeing in the futur (most people see it like that now)

[big blue alien]

And people smoke meth, not drink it
I mean methelated spirits like you use in spirit burners

[sevenhalo]

How many people do you think smoked back in the 70's?

I don't know hardly anyone who didn't smoke back then. Alot have quit since, but it was all the time, everywhere. Even at work at your desk. I t was as common as coffee.

[MasterBlaster]

I work for an ethanol plant :)
And people smoke meth, not drink it.

Not true, people can drink, inject, sniff, smoke, eat meth. Hell, I'm sure there are some bored tweakers out there making meth suppositories. :sick:

[penagate]

I think he was referring to methylated spirits, not methadone.

[MasterBlaster]

Liquor is too easy for the average dumbarse to make themselvs for a national ban to ever be effective. All a ban will do is make Canadian wiskey and mexican tequilla very popular and expensive just like it did the last time they tried it. I think we should ban reality TV instead.

[MasterBlaster]

I think he was referring to methylated spirits, not methadone.

I was refering to methamphetamines(SP?)

I would venture to bet that one should never try to smoke methylated spirits :lol:

[penagate]

That's the one. I always get the damn things muddled up :blush:

[big blue alien]

I think we should ban reality TV instead.
great idea, it'll save lives aswell. If i see another series of big brother i'm gona have to kill someone

[zaza]

As the income from cigarettes is several billion p.a. (more than enough to cover the cost of the NHS!), a noticeable reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked will cause problems, and thus a requirement to tax higher on other items - alcohol/fuel/income tax/VAT/...

Just for info, the funding that the NHS received from the government last year was nearly 80 billion GBP. This is far, far more than is raised in tobacco taxes, which pulls in around 9.5 billion GBP.

[si_the_geek]

Ah yes, my info was a few years old - the NHS funding has risen significantly (particularly for building/expanding hospitals etc), and tobacco income has fallen as the market reduces.

Note that your figure for tobacco duty does not include VAT and taxes on the manufacturers (corporation tax etc), which I guess adds at least another couple of billion.

It is still presumably enough to cover the costs of treating smoking related illnesses.

[yrwyddfa]

Ah yes, my info was a few years old - the NHS funding has risen significantly (particularly for building/expanding hospitals etc), and tobacco income has fallen as the market reduces.

Note that your figure for tobacco duty does not include VAT and taxes on the manufacturers (corporation tax etc), which I guess adds at least another couple of billion.

It is still presumably enough to cover the costs of treating smoking related illnesses.Indeed it is. Those who want the world to give up smoking also want to pay an extta 1.5p on income tax (at 22%) They then perhaps will not be able to afford to eat out or go to pubs, or pay for private medical treatment.

But hey, Who cares? At least no-one smokes no more.

It's not a moral issue - it's a fiscal one. The sooner everyone realises that the better.

[zaza]

Perhaps so. But I still don't want to breathe it. People can smoke all they want, as far as I'm concerned, as long as they aren't affecting anybody else who minds (or minors, particularly babies). They'll just remove themselves from the gene pool earlier.

[sevenhalo]

zaza - Just cause you smoke or not doesn't effect your life expectency the way statistics attempt to portray. Sure it's not advisable, but it's not a death sentence either. I know people who smoked for 50+ years that are still alive and well at 85 (and no respirator mind you). I've also known people who were healthy and fit that passed before they turned 50.

The fact of the matter is, you're going to die; eventually. This campaign against smokers won't allow you to live longer. I already said before, but this whole thing is a way to put a "good face" on every bad motive fueling these laws and bans. I like yrwy's comment that the decision is fiscal. He's right. Here in Iowa, they've been talking about adding a dollar to each pack of cigarettes to fight methemphatemines. Why should my dollar (a sales tax no one else pays but smokers) go to help meth addicts? How does that make sense? How do these things even relate?

The answer is, they don't. It's another "good face" on a bad motive that will start to be siphoned in 2 years until it's abolished all together. Pretty soon, that tax will still be around. The reason will be lost, but the initial story kept the voter majority pumping their fist; so it all worked out.

You're fighting pointless battles with no gain and suffering huge losses. Quote me on this, pretty soon it'll be your bubble people decide they don't like.

[Pino]

zaza - Just cause you smoke or not doesn't effect your life expectency the way statistics attempt to portray. Sure it's not advisable, but it's not a death sentence either. I know people who smoked for 50+ years that are still alive and well at 85 (and no respirator mind you). I've also known people who were healthy and fit that passed before they turned 50.


But i know of people who smoke for 10 years and now have lung cancer and are going to die. so you know some lucky people the FACT is smoking leads to cancer. No getting away from that :)


The fact of the matter is, you're going to die; eventually. This campaign against smokers won't allow you to live longer. I already said before, but this whole thing is a way to put a "good face" on every bad motive fueling these laws and bans. I like yrwy's comment that the decision is fiscal. He's right. Here in Iowa, they've been talking about adding a dollar to each pack of cigarettes to fight methemphatemines. Why should my dollar (a sales tax no one else pays but smokers) go to help meth addicts? How does that make sense? How do these things even relate?

Why should my pound pay for your hospital care when you get ill because you smoke?

To conclude, the fact is the majority of people do not like smoking. And the majority should win. I am so looking forward to the ban I seriously cannot wait to come home after a night out and smell clean and fresh (relitivly ;)) I'm sorry but smokers have no argument any more. Its harmful to others so go elsewhere :)

Pino

[si_the_geek]

But i know of people who smoke for 10 years and now have lung cancer and are going to die. so you know some lucky people the FACT is smoking leads to cancer. No getting away from that :)Untrue I'm afraid. Smoking can increase the rate at which cancer shows itself (for some people, hugely), but it does not cause it.

If your genes mean that you have a high chance of getting cancer, smoking is likely to bring it on more quickly (which is why the warning messages are allowed). A large proportion of the very old (90+) have been smoking for many years, but do not have cancer.

I can't remember the source, but I have seen statistics that the rate of cancer among smokers and non-smokers is roughly equal, however the age is (on average) slightly lower for smokers.

Why should my pound pay for your hospital care when you get ill because you smoke? It doesn't, but after this it will.

The current tax acquired from smoking pays for hospital care for smokers and many non-smokers too.

If smoking reduces, an average working person in the UK will need to pay (roughly £600 each pa) extra in taxes to make up the shortfall in loss of government income which currently comes from smoking.

Its harmful to others so go elsewhere :)Again, what's wrong with (completely) separate rooms for smoking?

[sevenhalo]

Why should my pound pay for your hospital care when you get ill because you smoke?
That's something you need to take up with your government officials. Like si said, we already pay extra taxes for our cigarettes; not to mention, higher health insurance premiums. When it comes to cigarettes, it sounds like you're getting the "butt" of the deal.

[Pino]

Again, what's wrong with (completely) separate rooms for smoking?

This was tried, but the smokers refused to close the door.

[Pino]

That's something you need to take up with your government officials. Like si said, we already pay extra taxes for our cigarettes; not to mention, higher health insurance premiums. When it comes to cigarettes, it sounds like you're getting the "butt" of the deal.

I suppose its simple then... dont smoke.

I'm not being a pain in the arse here or anyhting. I dont see the attraction, I dont see the need and I see it as a problem. I wont touch girls that smoke, my g/f doesnt smoke, my friends dont smoke. And if they did i'd avoid them. I personally dont like it.

I agree to the fact you should be allowed to do it, but i dont agree with you doing it where people that dojnt like it do.

[sevenhalo]

Suppose this did happen. That the smokers refused to close the door. This was one small group of smokers in one location. There was no national uprising of smokers reopening the door to infect every citizen with secondhand smoke. This is such a small and ridiculous example of "why it didn't work." It's like refusing a whole ethnicity into your store because one person of that race attempted to steal something.

[si_the_geek]

I suppose its simple then... dont smoke.That's much more simple than saying "Dont drink alcohol ever again". ;)

You don't like smoking, fair enough. I agree you shouldn't be forced to inhale smoke. Separate smoking rooms would have been a more agreeable situation, and would have cost you less.

[sevenhalo]

I'm fine with the slight extra tax, and the increased health premiums. I don't mind all of that (although, I do beleive they should increase health premiums on a person to person basis for alcohol as well). We can actually be fined and drop from our insurance plan if we test for nicotine and don't claim it on our insurance policy. Real rough situation, but outside of the point...

The point is, we pay our debt to society. We'll pay a little extra for cigarettes or insurance; we understand what we're doing to ourselves and we're fine with it for the most part. We dig our own graves and bury our own bodies; no one is picking up the bill for us.

I still seriously think nonsmokers have their priorities screwed though. If you're so worried about the cigarette exposure and your health, why does it stop there? You can smell cigarettes, and you know when you're being exposed. There's hundreds of toxins out there that you'll encounter and have no idea you did. They don't have a smell (or just a faint one) and they can do damage 20x worse then a little second hand smoke.

Tell me this, and be honest. If we could smoke, and the smoke had no smell... Would you still be against it?

[Pino]

I'm fine with the slight extra tax, and the increased health premiums. I don't mind all of that (although, I do beleive they should increase health premiums on a person to person basis for alcohol as well). We can actually be fined and drop from our insurance plan if we test for nicotine and don't claim it on our insurance policy. Real rough situation, but outside of the point...

The point is, we pay our debt to society. We'll pay a little extra for cigarettes or insurance; we understand what we're doing to ourselves and we're fine with it for the most part. We dig our own graves and bury our own bodies; no one is picking up the bill for us.

I still seriously think nonsmokers have their priorities screwed though. If you're so worried about the cigarette exposure and your health, why does it stop there? You can smell cigarettes, and you know when you're being exposed. There's hundreds of toxins out there that you'll encounter and have no idea you did. They don't have a smell (or just a faint one) and they can do damage 20x worse then a little second hand smoke.

Tell me this, and be honest. If we could smoke, and the smoke had no smell... Would you still be against it?

Not as much

[sevenhalo]

Not as much
Now, what if I invented a cologne that smelled like cigarettes. None of the harmful effects, but all of the smell?

[Pino]

Now, what if I invented a cologne that smelled like cigarettes. None of the harmful effects, but all of the smell?

Being honest the smell is a big part for me. But the helth concerns are also there!

[sevenhalo]

So you admit that your motives are driven mostly by your own comfort and not necessarily heath concerns?

[Pino]

Honestly, mostly its a part of it. But as I say the health concerns for pro-longed exposure scare me.

[BodwadUK]

A) Smoking causes Cancer not accelerates it
B) Smokers are also responsible for damaging non smokers health so no paying more tax on cigs isnt more acceptable
C) In practice seperate rooms would be better but no one would abide by them

[baja_yu]

I wished they passed an smoking ban law in my country.
I'm a non smoker, and my eyes are very sensitive to smoke. The ban is not on smoking completely, just dont stink up the joint for everyone else, just because you are a smoker.

[Valleysboy1978]

What I couldn't understand though is why did Welsh, Irish and Scottish ministers vote on an English topic? That's just plain stupid! Only English ministers should have voted as it had nothing to do with the other home nations

[FunkyDexter]

What I couldn't understand though is why did Welsh, Irish and Scottish ministers vote on an English topic? That's just plain stupid! Only English ministers should have voted as it had nothing to do with the other home nationsIt's because the parliament at Westminster is the parliament of Great Britain rather than England. Therefore MP's who aren't English but are British have the right to vote on any act that comes though - even if the act only actually affects England.

Until we devolved power there wasn't really a contradiction as the act would have applied to Britain instead but now the Welsh, Scots and Irish have their own parliaments (actually, the Irish have had one for quite a while but that's a whole 'nother story) who could vote separately on such issues the contradiction creeps in. The obvious solution would be to create an 'English Assembly' but I personally think our Government system (including all the assemblies) is too big as it is.

[si_the_geek]

A) Smoking causes Cancer not accelerates it
B) Smokers are also responsible for damaging non smokers health so no paying more tax on cigs isnt more acceptable
C) In practice seperate rooms would be better but no one would abide by them
Nope, "Smoking causes Cancer" is propoganda I'm afraid. It can be a very heavy accellerant in some cases, but (AFAIK) it has never actually been proven to be a direct cause.

I agree with B, hence the idea of smoking rooms being a good proposal - you aren't forced to be near the smoke.

As for C, don't be so blinkered - it would be a law, and we could be arrested. Also, smokers are not evil people - if there were proper smoking rooms we would use them, and would not smoke in non-smoking areas (as has been proven over and over again for many years.. how many people do you see smoking on busses/trains/planes?).

[Pino]

how many people do you see smoking on busses/trains/planes?).

I dont know what its like where you are, but people smoking on the bus is very very common.

[si_the_geek]

Since it was banned around here (15ish years ago?) I've seen about 10 people, all teenagers trying to be cool. That's even with catching the bus at least twice a day during the week, for around 10 years.

[FishGuy]

I dont know what its like where you are, but people smoking on the bus is very very common.

I never see people smoking on busses and trains, and I use them everyday. The last time I saw someone smoke on a train was the "Animal Train" (The last train out of Leeds on a Saturday night. The bloke was drunk and almost immediatley got done by the police on board.

[sevenhalo]

I've given up... There's no way to explain the facts to a nonsmoker. The arguements they pose and the defenses they take aren't even their own motives. It's all just skewed perceptions they regurgitate from the media.

Yes, first hand smoke is bad for you. It can lead asthma and all those other fun things. THAT'S the only thing we know for certain. Constant exposure and constant consumption can cause damage. Everything we know about second hand smoke FROM CIGARETTES is just assumptions. The way I see it, being exposed to second hand smoke at a bar is no more damaging then grilling on a sunday afternoon, roasting marshmallows in a campfire or having a wood burning fireplace.

But people like Pino don't appreciate the smell, and guess what... We understand. We have our own smoking rooms, we ask before lighting up if we're around people we might not know (if they say no, we go outside); we were always willing to adjust in order to avoid offense. We're not big bad boogeymen ashing in baby carriages. We're just people who like to have a cigarette after dinner the same way you might like to have a beer or chew on a toothpick.

I know this is hard for you nonsmokers to understand, because it's not something we have in common. It's difficult to even find a methaphorical comparison that would do it just. So I'm not even going to try. I'm done with this... If you can't even stretch your mind the slightest to see how a public ban on smoking is infringing on personal freedom; then there's no point carrying on with this. This is just the tip of the iceberg for future "comfort bans."

Hopefully, sometime down the line we'll remember that "our freedoms" are an objective right and not subjective idealogies.

[Pino]

seriously when i get on a bus I expect people to be smoking.... i'm not exadurating. must just be manchester

[big blue alien]

seriously when i get on a bus I expect people to be smoking.... i'm not exadurating. must just be manchester
when i get on a bus i expect half the seats to be thrown out of the windows and sick on the floor, probly is just manchester

[big blue alien]

Yes, first hand smoke is bad for you. It can lead asthma and all those other fun things. THAT'S the only thing we know for certain.
I could hit you realy realy hard with a crow bar, might kill you but we dont know for certain, so i'll go ahead and hit you

[NotLKH]

So,

Over here in NY State, they first managed to ban cell phone use in cars, then got around to banning smoking in bars and restaurants.

When are you getting banned from cell phone use while driving?

[NotLKH]

BTW,

I'm pro illigalizing tobacco.

I'm against this hypocritical banning nonsense, while the Gov'ts still gather taxes off of them.

Gov'ts should be sued, allowing hazardous, toxic, deadly products to be sold to the target market, while making a buck off of those doomed to die.

[FishGuy]

So,

Over here in NY State, they first managed to ban cell phone use in cars, then got around to banning smoking in bars and restaurants.

When are you getting banned from cell phone use while driving?
Its already happened a few year ago. You are allowed to use them if you have a hands free kit. I actually agree with that law though its driving without due care and attention.

[si_the_geek]

Gov'ts should be sued, allowing hazardous, toxic, deadly products to be sold to the target market, while making a buck off of those doomed to die.How about petrol, alcohol, .... ? ;)

I could hit you realy realy hard with a crow bar, might kill you but we dont know for certain, so i'll go ahead and hit you :confused: You know for certain that it will hurt him, rather than just "annoy" him. Please make decent comparisons.

[big blue alien]

they first managed to ban cell phone use in cars,
If you mean for drivers thats been banned for ages
Gov'ts should be sued
Do you think they'd take it out of their wages? Public services are already underfunded.

[NotLKH]

The intended use of petrol does not lead to disease.
The intended use of tobacco does.

By Intent, this product leads to the poor health and demise of its target market.

If Alcohol is as deadly, then it too should be illegal.

[si_the_geek]

By Intent, this product leads to the poor health and demise of its target market.That's untrue, but I get your point.

The links between tobacco and disease is far less proven than the link between Alcohol and disease - hovever Alcohol is much more socially acceptable these days, and as such will not be made illegal (unless governments make the same kind of actions towards it as they did towards tobacco).

The intended use of petrol does not lead to disease.It does, just not directly to the user - the fumes expelled from the vehicle cause/inflame asthma and other breathing conditions, and it damages the environment - which affects us all to some degree.

[bushmobile]

Nope, "Smoking causes Cancer" is propoganda I'm afraid. It can be a very heavy accellerant in some cases, but (AFAIK) it has never actually been proven to be a direct cause.

How much evidence do you need?: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/smoking/?a=5441.

Tabacco smoke contains carcinogens, carcinogens cause genetic mutations that lead to cancer. Your never going to get a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study into the effects of smoking, so yes perhaps a 'scientific proof' is always beyond the moral horizon.

Regarding the difference between alcohol and tabacco: alcohol in moderation does have certain physiological benefits, lowering blood pressure through vasodilation. It is also nowhere near as physically addictive as smoking (obviously, psychologically it can be highly addictive).

I'm anti-smoking, but I also think drinking to excess it just as dangerous to yourself and others - but that is largely a problem with society itself.

The chemicals being pump constantly into our environments (specifically in the home - glade plugins / airsprays and alike) are all likely to be future causes of health problems amongst the wider population.

The problem is that there are a whole bunch of 'wrongs', and arguing that smoking should be ignored because there are others that aren't being legislated against, is niave to say the least.

[si_the_geek]

Your link didn't contain any evidence, only quotes from studies - which may or may not have been biased/accurate.

I have seen the results of several studies (including ones funded by cancer research organisations that were never actually published), but typically there is too small a group/duration for any conclusive evidence, or the science and conclusions have been dubious at best. As you say tho, a proper 'proof' is extremely hard for anything of this nature.


I do agree that smoking is not good for you, and that people should not be "forced" to be in smoky areas if they dont want to be. What I disagree with is the ban stopping us from being able to have proper smoking areas of pups/clubs.


The problem is that there are a whole bunch of 'wrongs', and arguing that smoking should be ignored because there are others that aren't being legislated against, is niave to say the least.I hope that wasn't aimed at me - at no point have I said that smoking should be ignored, only that the particular ruling in question is harsh (and due to finances, other "wrongs" are likely to be next).

There have been several posts in this thread (by people who understandably don't like smoke), which have completely ignored the fact that most smokers are decent people, and try to avoid "forcing" people to be near our smoke. I've been trying to show them that smoking isn't the only evil in the world, and trying to let them understand how this feels for nearly 30% of the population (according to your link).

A middle ground allowing both sides to have a suitable drinking experience would have been a much better solution in my opinion.

[bushmobile]

Your link didn't contain any evidence, only quotes from studies - which may or may not have been biased/accurate.

I have seen the results of several studies (including ones funded by cancer research organisations that were never actually published), but typically there is too small a group/duration for any conclusive evidence, or the science and conclusions have been dubious at best. Your own logic can be applied to what you've said. Surely studies you've seen can also fall under the same 'may or may not have been biased/accurate' umbrella. The page I linked to contained references to several papers on smoking/cancer link. A quick search of the BMJs archives pulls up numerous references (of which here are a couple):

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/312/7041/1259?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexacttitle=and&titleabstract=smoking+cancer&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1141169685690_23871&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1,2,3,4 - Danish cohort study ~1.5 million people (big enough group for ya? ;) )

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/315/7114/980?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexacttitle=and&titleabstract=smoking+cancer&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1141168497876_23403&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1,2,3,4

I'm playing devil's advocate a little here - I am well aware of the debate (and the anything but omniscient nature of the scientific community), but you seemed to be dismissing the arguments for a link without placing that same analysis upon your own evidence. (The University of Nottingham accept a large sum of money from the tabacco industry to close down their cancer research department - says it all to me :rolleyes: )

I hope that wasn't aimed at me
the topic of car fumes etc. came up, I jumped in the discussion quite late, so apologies if that wasn't what was being got at.

Anyway - all of the above is a bit off topic.

A middle ground allowing both sides to have a suitable drinking experience would have been a much better solution in my opinion. And there lies the problem, what is this middle ground? You mention having 'proper smoking areas of pups/clubs'. As I'm sure you're no doubt aware smoke is very pervasive, and short of having airlocks and nasa quality air filters - or a completely different entrance to the place, this isn't going to be achievable. Secondly, the cost of installing such areas would completely push small pubs out of the market & all you'd have left is Weatherspoons. Sadly, in this unideal world it's just not economically viable to fall anywhere but either side of the fence - either remove it completely or not at all.

which have completely ignored the fact that most smokers are decent people, and try to avoid "forcing" people to be near our smoke
I well aware of that, all the smokers i know go outside to smoke, and i respect that. I have no problem against people smoking where it's not going to affect those who don't want it to effect them, but I've also yet to see a separate smoking area that truely manages to keep it separate.

I can see where you guys are coming from and it must seem a bit like victimisation. Today the government's going after smoking and tomorrow they'll jump on the next most publicised campaign.

That's the problem of having a superficial nanny state.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Nope, "Smoking causes Cancer" is propoganda I'm afraid. It can be a very heavy accellerant in some cases, but (AFAIK) it has never actually been proven to be a direct cause.


I tried to stay out of this, but this statement I just couldn't pass up. By using that same logic, you could say that a bullet doesn't cause death. It has never been PROVEN to be a direct cause? What would constitute proof in your mind? Would you have to see some chemical from the smoke alter the DNA in such a way that a cancer occurred? It will never happen because it CAN never happen. Therefore, proof can never be obtained.

Direct causality can NEVER be proven in this case, or in most diseases. Your argument can be used to refuse all modern drugs including antibiotics. The direct causality of the malady the drugs are prescribed for can NEVER be determined.

If you therefore choose not to use any antibiotics, antimalarial, or other drugs or vaccines, that's fine, but I don't agree with you, and will not abstain myself. In those cases, we can both be happy. However, when it comes to smoking, your demand for a level of evidence that is demonstrably impossible to attain is affecting MY health (economically, socially, and physically). Why should I accept your addiction to sticking a pin in other people simply because you assert that nobody can prove that the pin hurts them?

In short, your argument is based on the assumption that the foundation of modern medicine is utterly wrong in this one case. That begs the obvious question: Do you feel that other epidemiological evidence (the basis for pretty nearly all medicine) is also wrong simply because direct proof is impossible?

[si_the_geek]

Thanks for the decent arguments guys.. this is gonna be a long one!
(as it's gone 1am I may be a little less than coherent!).
A quick search of the BMJs archives pulls up numerous references (of which here are a couple):

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/312/7041/1259?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexacttitle=and&titleabstract=smoking+cancer&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1141169685690_23871&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1,2,3,4 - Danish cohort study ~1.5 million people (big enough group for ya? ;) )That's the first time that anyone has brought anything to my attention with any scientific weight, as opposed to being based on opinion (their own, or of researchers).

It's gonna take me a while to get thru it all, but if the 'headlines' are supported by the document (which I presume they will be), then this is the closest we can get to full 'proof' for this kind of situation.
you seemed to be dismissing the arguments for a link without placing that same analysis upon your own evidence.I was dismissive as there was nothing there - but you have now provided a suitable link. ;)
(The University of Nottingham accept a large sum of money from the tabacco industry to close down their cancer research department - says it all to me :rolleyes: )I've never heard that before, and I must say I'm very surprised. I have heard contrary reports, but due to circumstances these are effectively hearsay.
As I'm sure you're no doubt aware smoke is very pervasive, and short of having airlocks and nasa quality air filters - or a completely different entrance to the place, this isn't going to be achievable. Secondly, the cost of installing such areas would completely push small pubs out of the market & all you'd have left is Weatherspoons. Sadly, in this unideal world it's just not economically viable to fall anywhere but either side of the fence - either remove it completely or not at all.It is certainly possible for large establishments (the air filters are actually fairly cheap) - it is possible in offices too (like the last place I worked).

I do understand your argument, but it has been proven (by Weatherspoons no less) that non-smoking bars can do well even if they are surrounded by smoking establishments. Of course we can only speculate how this would have changed things for the smaller venues.
I tried to stay out of this, but this statement I just couldn't pass up. By using that same logic, you could say that a bullet doesn't cause death. It has never been PROVEN to be a direct cause? What would constitute proof in your mind?
...
In short, your argument is based on the assumption that the foundation of modern medicine is utterly wrong in this one case.Erm.. bullets have been proven to cause death. What I wanted to see (and now have) is something of the quality that bushmobile linked to, rather than small-scale or biased studies (which is what the vast majority of tobacco/cancer studies are).

I have no problem with medical studies for new drugs etc, as they have stringent regulations - unlike most studies into the tobacco/cancer link.
...is affecting MY health (economically, socially, and physically). Why should I accept your addiction to sticking a pin in other people simply because you assert that nobody can prove that the pin hurts them?I don't force others to smoke, and avoid smoking near non-smokers given the chance (at my last job I was allowed to smoke at my desk but still went to a separate smoking area, for 5 years).

In the UK, smoking is economically 'good' for non-smokers, due to the very large taxes imposed.
I can see where you guys are coming from and it must seem a bit like victimisation. Today the government's going after smoking and tomorrow they'll jump on the next most publicised campaign.

That's the problem of having a superficial nanny state.I couldn't agree more. :thumb:

[bushmobile]

In the UK, smoking is economically 'good' for non-smokers, due to the very large taxes imposed.That is a highly simplistic statement. You, yourself have been (rightly) arguing against the reliance upon hearsay and unfounded opinion in the course of this debate.

Perhaps you might want to check out the 'International Review of the Health and Economic Impact of the Regulation of Smoking in Public Places' funded by NHS Health Scotland (long version (http://www.hebs.com/researchcentre/pdf/internationalreviewfullreport.pdf) / short version (www.healthscotland.com/researchcentre/pdf/internationalreviewshortreport.pdf))

I have no intention of reading the full thing, but the little I read indicated that there are predicted net benefits in the region of £4.5 billion after 30 years (assuming I'm reading it correctly, it is very late :ehh: ).

Whatever the case, the tax on cigarettes seems to make up only a small proportion of the economics surrounding the smoking ban.

[baja_yu]

While this is an important issue, I think that much more important problem is that so many young kids are smoking, and the government should concentrate more on preventing that.

[Shaggy Hiker]

A bullet has never been proven to cause death that I am aware of. We have seen the hole created by the bullet, but nobody has proven that the subsequent death was caused by the hole, it has simply been assumed. I agree that this is evidence that is FAR more obvious to the average viewer, but the same principle applies: "This thing was done, which had these potentially harmful effects. This result happened. We infer that the action was the cause of the reaction, though we have not shown the actual mechanism for each case."

Basically, we never prove anything medically to a mathematically rigorouse level. We make a model of what we think is happening, and weigh the evidence that our model is correct versus the evidence that some other model is correct. In the case of smoking, the weight of evidence favors the hypothesis that smoking causes diseases, but there are other models that could be put forward. I am not aware of any that have anywhere near the weight of evidence as the Smoking is Harmful model has. However, all scientific results are measured in this fashion, though some are disguised behind P values and other things.

As for smoking, it has no real impact on me. It seems that there are very few Americans who smoke now, though that may be a regional thing. I work for an agency that banned smoking in all of its buildings and vehicles long before it became fashionable. How and why was before my time, and I have never bothered asking. I rarely encounter smokers, and get the smell of smoke only about once a month at most. Therefore, I have heard people talk for and against....well, mostly against, but it is not a personal issue for me, so I have never payed close attention.

I have always heard about the huge cost to health systems caused by smokers based on their increased incidence of respiratory problems. Whether this is true or not is not something I have studied. I would point out that when I was managing a crew, it was alcohol that caused the greatest expenses for us, and the most trouble. Smokers never caused any issues except that they had to go puff on those sticks at every break.

[FishGuy]

Scott Adams take on it.
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
Take smoking in public; I favor banning that because I don’t like to be around it. According to Penn and Teller – notable skeptics – there isn’t any good science proving second hand smoke hurts people. So I’ll stop using that argument. But there isn’t any science that says littering hurts you either, and I’m against that because I don’t want to look at it. Second hand smoke is like litter in my nose.

[Valleysboy1978]

In the UK, smoking is economically 'good' for non-smokers, due to the very large taxes imposed.:eek:
Ah that's okay then. Perhaps you can explain to those people dying of lung cancer, who have never smoked in their life, that they are dying to financially benefit the tax system?

If it means a couple of billion shortfall in the NHS then so be it, smoking in public places needed to be banned, and seeing as the majority of the population supported it (and we do live in a democracy after all) then this is a case where the politicians are finally doing something their constituents wanted.

[honeybee]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/13/britain.smoking.ban.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

Unfortunately, this frivolous ban won't be fought or resisted. To a non-smoker, this isn't an issue. But this is just like the pro-life/pro-choice abortion issue. You have a bunch of irrelevant individuals (such as men in the Supreme Court) voting on a matter they have little to do with.

Hey guys, this view is bound to fuel/start a debate on whether a smoking ban is good or not, and further if smoking itself is good or not. So I am reporting this post to the moderator to preserve the sanctity of the World Events forum.





















































Oh, excuse me if you actually believed that. I really wanted to just check if I have been banned from here.

.

[FishGuy]

I dont fall for any of the money related arguments and I fully agree with the non smokers that they have a right to breath clean air where ever they decide to go.

The only thing that I dislike is the governement trying to prevent me from carrying out my decision to do something I know is bad for me, in a way that wouldnt affect others (This is not strictly true as it would obviously affect my family and is a very selfish thing to do).

However It should be a landlords decision if him lets people smoke in his house or not, if he permits it then I would have the option to go in there and smoke just as the non smoker has the option not to and visa versa. The same goes for any employees there maybe.

Smoking aside it is mainly loosing the freedom of choice that is frustrating me as I am pretty sure alcohol is the next thing on the list even if its a long time away or just other life choices in general.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Smoking aside it is mainly loosing the freedom of choice that is frustrating me as I am pretty sure alcohol is the next thing on the list even if its a long time away or just other life choices in general.

Alcohol was tried, and was singularly unsuccessful.

I wonder what effect outlawing cigarettes would actually do. There would be something of a black market, which would be profitable, but who would be using them?

1) Current addicts, because the addiction is pretty strong.

2) ????

At first I would think that there would be people using them simply because they are illegal. However, nicotine doesn't produce a reaction as strong as alcohol, LSD, coke, etc. The effect is rather moderate, the taste is rather bad, and the smell is fairly replusive. Would people actually bother with doing such a lame drug simply because it was illegal?

Frankly, I think we should outlaw cigaretts just to find out. If we found that there was a segment of the population that used them simply because they were illegal, we should take the logical next step and try making it illegal to smeer cow dung all over your body.

[MasterBlaster]

Alcohol was tried, and was singularly unsuccessful.


The cops have a lot more guns now than they did the first time they tried it. It didn't work last time because we still had the right to bear arms and challenge the government. "Organized Crime" as the man calles it, are no longer better armed than law enforcement. Thank the anti-gun dieckheads for taking that and our freedom to do keg stands away.
:cry:

On a serious note. No drugs alcahol tobacco should be illegal. Only the mass marketing and manufacturing for intent of distribution of these things should be Illegal. If BillyBob Clampett wants to fire up his still and make a batch of shine and enjoy it with one of his home grown cigars, what the hell gives any one else the right to stop him.

[NotLKH]

... There would be something of a black market, which would be profitable, but who would be using them?

1) Current addicts, because the addiction is pretty strong.

2) ????
...

Frankly, I think we should outlaw cigaretts just to find out.

I think the majority of smokers are law abiding citizens, and would not bother slumming to a street corner to get a cigfix.

I agree, lets get them outlawed.

[nemaroller]

I agree.

Just let me stockpile a few 1,000 cartons just in case I can't kick it.

[demotivater]

I quit as of yesterday. I'm on the verge of killing someone. :mad:

[si_the_geek]

I have no intention of reading the full thing, but the little I read indicated that there are predicted net benefits in the region of £4.5 billion after 30 years (assuming I'm reading it correctly, it is very late :ehh: ).

Whatever the case, the tax on cigarettes seems to make up only a small proportion of the economics surrounding the smoking ban.
I haven't read it fully either, but it sounds like a reasonable estimate based on the figures. I'm not sure if the effects would be 'forwarded on' to the customers tho.
A bullet has never been proven to cause death that I am aware of. We have seen the hole created by the bullet, but nobody has proven that the subsequent death was caused by the hole, it has simply been assumed. I agree that this is evidence that is FAR more obvious to the average viewer, ....I see what you mean, but the effects of the bullet are very rapid, as opposed to smoking, which can take decades - giving other factors (such as career and environment) the chance to take effect too (which believe me, has been used to the advantage of the 'funders' of a large proportion of studies - on both sides).

Scott Adams take on it....
I fully agree with the non smokers that they have a right to breath clean air where ever they decide to go.Good comments, I agree with his view, and yours. :)

Ah that's okay then. Perhaps you can explain to those people dying of lung cancer, who have never smoked in their life, that they are dying to financially benefit the tax system?Please pay attention to what I have written throughout the thread. I agree that you shouldn't be forced to be near smoke, and have actively promoted that for several years. I am saying that smokers should have an option of smoking and drinking, albeit in a separate area (for those premises that can afford it).

seeing as the majority of the population supported it (and we do live in a democracy after all) then this is a case where the politicians are finally doing something their constituents wanted.What makes you so sure it was a majority who supported it? Do you know anyone who was asked? I'm not saying you are wrong, but this seems to be completely unsupported (I saw many interviews, with only a low percentage of supporters). My impression from reports I have seen/read is that most of the pressure on politicians came from organisations such as breweries.

bushmobile's first link says that over 30% of the population smoke, and this does not seem to does not cover Roll-your-own (GV etc), which sells around half the quantity of pre-made cigarettes. Plus of course there is a large amount of imports, especially as prices are much lower in other parts of the EU many smokers buy in bulk when we holiday within the EU.

As there are that many smokers, I see any majority supporting a ban being small.

I think the majority of smokers are law abiding citizens, and would not bother slumming to a street corner to get a cigfix.I woul agree with that, but not the next bit. ;)

[BodwadUK]

You will find that some smokers also want a ban as they want to quit ;)

[Valleysboy1978]

Indeed. Besides having separate smoking areas would be impractical, epensive and unforceable. However with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all going for a total ban the likelihood of England following suit was likely, and if they had gone for a partial ban it would have been obivous that it was due to pressure and not for health reasons. A total ban suggests the reasons were health related.

[FishGuy]

I wonder what the public places actually means.

i.e Will I still be able to smoke at the Football Stadium. The ground allready has smoking and non smoking areas, and being a stadium sort of outdoors so is well ventillated but because there is a roof do you think it will be covered in the banmeaning the smoking areas will nolonger be allowed?

[Valleysboy1978]

Hmmm, good question. Well I know the Millennium Stadium is the same with designated smoking areas, but these are in the aisles around the stadium. These will probably be included in the ban because it will theoretically affect those around them.

I suppose it would mean any enclosed space (anywhere with a roof?) that could affect others in a 1m radius?

[bushmobile]

I believe a public place is classed as any area that a member of public can access either FOC or by paying a fee. So... things like member's clubs (which are truely invite only) and an individuals homes are exempt, but shopfloors, pubs, clubs etc. aren't.

[Valleysboy1978]

No, private clubs are NOT exempt. Probably the only places that are not exempt are in the open (in the street) and your home

[yrwyddfa]

No, private clubs are NOT exempt. Probably the only places that are not exempt are in the open (in the street) and your home . . . and of course the bar in the House of Parliament. Really.

[FishGuy]

I wonder what the public places actually means.

i.e Will I still be able to smoke at the Football Stadium. The ground allready has smoking and non smoking areas, and being a stadium sort of outdoors so is well ventillated but because there is a roof do you think it will be covered in the banmeaning the smoking areas will nolonger be allowed?

I asked my club secretary..

This is something being discussed by the Football League and clubs will be advised in due course of any action which has to be taken.

[BodwadUK]

That is a good question as it seems to fall half and half

[bushmobile]

No, private clubs are NOT exempt.I meant exempt from being public (didn't phrase it very well admittedly) - i.e. they are probably not legally public, hence the reason for the debate about including them. In my opinion they should also be exempt from the smoking ban.

Regarding football stadiums, if they're all-seater then I guess since your seat is assigned, you can't (in theory) move if the person next to you is smoking and so they should be included.

[FishGuy]

Regarding football stadiums, if they're all-seater then I guess since your seat is assigned, you can't (in theory) move if the person next to you is smoking and so they should be included.

Then you have chosen a seat in the wrong area of the ground, there are smoing areas and non smoking areas.

[Valleysboy1978]

Since when have you been able to choose your seat in a stadium? The stadium seating are ALL non-smoking (at least it is at Twickenham, Lansdowne Rd, Murrayfield and Millennium Stadium), there are smoking areas in the corridors.

bushmobile, I can see your point about private clubs but remember the staff also have to work there so I can see why they were included in the ban. In the end they couldn't justify the ban for health reasons if specific places were exempt. It had to be either a total ban, or no ban. It was the only way

[FishGuy]

Yes I take your point about the stadiums you mentioned, but at many grounds in the football league you can chhose your seats in either smoking or non smoking areas both for season tickets and match day tickets.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I agree.

Just let me stockpile a few 1,000 cartons just in case I can't kick it.

:lol:
When I was in college, my calculus professor told us how he used to make a few bucks by smuggling cartons of cigs from New Hampshire into Massachusettes. Apparently the tax difference was such that he could make a profit that way.

[FishGuy]

:lol:
When I was in college, my calculus professor told us how he used to make a few bucks by smuggling cartons of cigs from New Hampshire into Massachusettes. Apparently the tax difference was such that he could make a profit that way.
Thats generally what goes on here, peopple nip over the Channel to France on Cig runs. With lowcost airlines like Jet2 I know a lad who flew to Barcelona for £10 stayed for an hour bought a suitcase full of cigs and flew stariaght back, sold them and made about £10 on each box.

[BodwadUK]

Not good if your caught though

[Wally Pipp]

We've seen that going on for years on our shores as well. English day tourists raiding the duty frees like bees to a giant pot of honey.

[BodwadUK]

Our tax is huge thats why

[FunkyDexter]

On the whole 'protecting the staff' issue, if I hired a housekeeper, would that mean I couldn't smoke in my own home?

[yrwyddfa]

On the whole 'protecting the staff' issue, if I hired a housekeeper, would that mean I couldn't smoke in my own home?Yes. The housekeeper would be your employee, and your home would be considered the workplace.

You could, I suspect, under current UK legislation insist that she wears her French maid uniform, though :)

[FunkyDexter]

You could, I suspect, under current UK legislation insist that she wears her French maid uniform, though That's settled it then, time to place my want ad. :bigyello: