Printable View
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe...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 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!
YAY I hate cig smoke
i have to agree. The smoke is pretty horrible after a night out. :(
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)
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by mendhak
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.
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. :oQuote:
You could pass a law that all smoker's have to wear a hat that reads 'I'm stupid'
Why are you so surprised? Not all forms of government follow the way you do things.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
Unless they happen to be outside the pubs/clubs - in which case they'll get much more than before.Quote:
kids will no longer be subjected to smoke in public environments
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.
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.
Some of you might remember this
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
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by si_the_geek
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.
A simple contract of employment would solve that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Merrion
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by FishGuy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by FishGuy
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))
LOL I was saying about the girls thing yesterday :lol:
I cant stand women that smoke, Major turnoff
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BodwadUK
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BodwadUK
I disagree, but can understand your view (it depends on the smoker).Quote:
Originally Posted by BodwadUK
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?
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.Quote:
The NHS is only given enough funds to cure the smokers (From Cig tax) not those caught in smoke filled environments.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
What makes you think that many want a ban? I think you'd find that most people are ambivolent.Quote:
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.
Erm.. the problem with this statement is that the entire point of the ban (as it is now) is that you cannot have smoking rooms.Quote:
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
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.
I know of about 20 in Bristol that have been non-smoking for over a year.Quote:
Oh come on, be reasonable. What clubs, pubs and such would be non-smoking if it was optional? None.
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....
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)
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
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.
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.
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?
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:
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 thatQuote:
I find it hard to imagine what the atmosphere will be like in my local without the smoke
There 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.Quote:
there are too many deaths in Britain because of people doing stupid things like smokeing
It 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.Quote:
This law dosent mean you cant smoke, it means you cant make other people smoke
That's irrelevant, they would still be the ones who were liable. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BodwadUK
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.
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 runQuote:
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 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.
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:
To sit in a relaxing chair and drink?Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by big blue alien
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.Quote:
I can understand that, but what is wrong with having only certain rooms for smoking?
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).
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:
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.
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.
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.
Indeed it is. For once the majority opinion wins
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.
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.Quote:
The smoke does actually travel across a room and it puts me off my food almost insantly.
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
:ehh:Quote:
Originally Posted by si_the_geek
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
My wearing no sunscreen outside does not affect your health if I stand next to you, yet smoking next to someone would.
That is as a non-smoker tho, for you it wouldn't be different would it? ;)Quote:
Look, this law was inevitable and I could not see any difference of social life in Dublin compared to Bristol or Cardiff.
As I said, think of how you would feel being stuck not drinking - on every night out.
Like it or not, alcohol is worse for you. Believe it or not, coffee is quite bad too.Quote:
Like it or not the current healthly lifestyle being promoted required something be done about smoking in public areas.
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.
I have always avoided doing this as much as possible, as I have said several times I was in favour of specific smoking rooms.Quote:
Why should you be forced into it? Because you force second hand smoke down into someones lungs.
: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.Quote:
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
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!
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.
Very good points.Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhalo
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
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).Quote:
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
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.
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.Quote:
Alcohol is bad for you no doubt, but it doesn't affect those around you.
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. ;)