The PINNACLE of disgusting [Smoking Ban]

[mendhak]

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.

[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...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.

[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 environments

Unless 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

[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

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 that

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.

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 ) 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

[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 smokeing

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.

This law dosent mean you cant smoke, it means you cant make other people smoke

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.

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.