Smoking in public places to be banned

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Also cigarettes should be where they belong as they are DRUGS, in the hands of pharmacies only, not in almost any shop who will sell to children regardless of the law.

So by your argument, pharmacies should be the only shops that are allowed to sell alcohol as well?

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

So by your argument, pharmacies should be the only shops that are allowed to sell alcohol as well?

Wouldnt bother me if it was however there are big difference between alcohol and tobacco products.
1. nicotine even in passive mode is considered now to cause potential ill health
2. tobacco products are becoming a socially unaccpetable product
3. No licence is required to sell it
4. It is herbal and a form of self medication
5. Many unsrupulous shops give no s**t about underage health and only care for as much profit as possible
Alcohol
1. in small quantities can be considered good for you
2. Alcohol is still a socially acceptable pasttime, despite the mass of unsociable behavior at boot ot time
3. Apart from illegal imports a licence is required to retail it, still again we do have shops that care more for profit than for undreage health and possible vandelism resulting from over drink at a young age
4. Contrary to popular belief alcohol is not addictive nor is it actually a drug. (yes you can become mentally dependant). You can drop alcohol by clicking your fingers. Still its not really a form of medication but a consumable item that in excess can cause sickness.
5. There is no passive effects, except of course puke on the streets and the antisocial behaviour from having had too much.
The main 2 things that are similar is that a long term excess in either product can and probably will cause ill health of serious consequence

[zoombini]

Originally Posted by sonygeezer

People make me sick if you don't want to inhale other peoples smoke then don't go to places that allow smoking. If you didn't want to say play bingo then you wouldn't go to a bingo hall would you so what the hell is the difference. The trouble is that the majority of people don't smoke but can't be arsed to complain so they want the government to do it for them.
Ps I am a non smoker.

So what you are saying is that because we do not want to inhale smoke, we should not go to the pub or any public places, just because other people are to be allowed to smoke there?

You are forgetting that its them that are the ones that are causing harm, to themselves & others who they smoke around.

We non smokers also have as much of a right & yearning to "go to the pub" so why should our enjoyment of this always have to be spoilt by others smoking?

Public places are not the sole domain of the smoker, they are the domain of the people, the public yet many are being forced to stay away from them because they cannot stand the stench or the problems that they suffer because others smoke.

to smokers !

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Alanmelon

As for the loss of tax revenue for the government - how about the money saved in the NHS through not having to pick up the pieces?

If I have time to dig around later, I'll find the figures, but believe me, the revenue from cigarettes FAR OUTWEIGHS the cost of treating smoking related illnesses.....

[orangebird]

My local pub would go out of business if a ban was forced. Most of the regulars smoke, and like me, they wouldn't go into a pub if they couldn't have a smoke with their drink....

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by zoombini

So what you are saying is that because we do not want to inhale smoke, we should not go to the pub or any public places, just because other people are to be allowed to smoke there?

You are forgetting that its them that are the ones that are causing harm, to themselves & others who they smoke around.

We non smokers also have as much of a right & yearning to "go to the pub" so why should our enjoyment of this always have to be spoilt by others smoking?

Public places are not the sole domain of the smoker, they are the domain of the people, the public yet many are being forced to stay away from them because they cannot stand the stench or the problems that they suffer because others smoke.

to smokers !

I agree, if you don't want to inhale smoke go to a non-smoking pub or restaurant or whatever.

There is a a big pub near us that caters for families, they do lovely food but I can't go there becuase my meal is ruined by screaming kids running riot all over the place. Why should my enjoyment be ruined by others???

But no that I know that this place is kids playground, I don't go there. I go to a quieter pub a further away where I can enjoy my meal in piece and have a conversation without haveing to shout over the screams of under fives.

It should all be about choice and nothing should be forced upon anyone. If you don't like smoke stick to the no smoking zones. It's not difficult.

Oh, and by the way I'm not a smoker but a believer in peoples freedoms

[zovat]

I have already stated my oninions on another thread - so I'll just re-post this...

Originally Posted by Me

The interesting thing about his statement to me, was that he said what a lot of people would like to say (albeit in a politically incorrect way).
Some people smoke because they want to, because they enjoy it.
When I was smoking (and I may end up doing so again later in life), I did not need a cigarette, I could quite happily not smoke for days. I enjoyed a cigarette with a pint, and when I was out in a field in the pouring rain at 2am, waiting for something to happen, it was one of life's pleasure to have a fag and a cuppa.

I do not smoke now - but I believe that if someone wishes to smoke, that is their choice, and not the governments. If a landlord wants to have a non smoking pub, he can - some already do.
Some landlords smoke, some bar staff smoke - if they want to allow smoking in THEIR pub, why shouldn't they.

If you want to smoke - go to a pub where you can - or smoke outside if you are at one you can't.
If you do not want to smoke, or be in a smokey atmosphere - go to a pub that is smoke free (or one that has decent ventilation).

We should allow people to retain their choices - not force them to conform to some government standard.

Ahhh, that feels better over

I will add that smoking in the open (parks etc) is probably (IMHO) less harmfull to others than standing near a road - or walking anywhere in london....

[sonygeezer]

Originally Posted by zoombini

So what you are saying is that because we do not want to inhale smoke, we should not go to the pub or any public places, just because other people are to be allowed to smoke there?

You are forgetting that its them that are the ones that are causing harm, to themselves & others who they smoke around.

We non smokers also have as much of a right & yearning to "go to the pub" so why should our enjoyment of this always have to be spoilt by others smoking?

Public places are not the sole domain of the smoker, they are the domain of the people, the public yet many are being forced to stay away from them because they cannot stand the stench or the problems that they suffer because others smoke.

to smokers !

No what I am saying is that it is about time non smokers started standing up for themselves, if 75% of the population are non smokers and they stopped going to Pubs and places that allow smoking and made their feelings known that this is why they are doing this then things would change, but all I seem to hear is non smokers winging but still putting up with it. So if you go somewhere where they allow smoking then don't just get up and walk out but also make it known to the person in charge that that is the reason why you are leaving and he or she is losing your custom because of it.

[zovat]

Originally Posted by zoombini

So what you are saying is that because we do not want to inhale smoke, we should not go to the pub or any public places, just because other people are to be allowed to smoke there?

You are forgetting that its them that are the ones that are causing harm, to themselves & others who they smoke around.

We non smokers also have as much of a right & yearning to "go to the pub" so why should our enjoyment of this always have to be spoilt by others smoking?

Public places are not the sole domain of the smoker, they are the domain of the people, the public yet many are being forced to stay away from them because they cannot stand the stench or the problems that they suffer because others smoke.

to smokers !

Ok- my opinion...

If you don't smoke - go to a pub that is non smoking (there are plenty around) or vote with your feet, telling the pub owner that is why you are not coming to that pub.

Insist that the location has decent ventilation/extraction... I was at an airport recently that had a smoking area in the middle of the lounge - the ventilation was good, and you could stand next to the area without smoke getting near you.

Don't start telling people what they can/cant do - to take this further - lets stop people drinking in pubs - because drunks cause fights and harm people around them...
How far are you willing to go before you see this as an infringement of a persons freedom ?

LOL...........................

Lets all sit around and watch the government goose-step down Whitehall, and take away even more of our personal freedoms.

Ok, I'm a smoker, and at the moment I have no intention of giving up. If I'm in a public area and smoking is allowed, I'll bloody well smoke. On the other hand if I'm in a confined or private area, and there is a non-smoker about I'll ask if I can smoke (even in my own car). When I'm at home, or in someone elses home I dont smoke inside. My usual haunt if I'm having a smoke is the garage, but anywhere outside is good. But it's my choice to smoke, and yes I am well aware of the health issues, so I dont need a lecture about it. When I'm ready to stop I will.

It's fummy to see all the complaints about the health issues of smoking, and how these will be sorted by banning smoking in public. Will they b0ll0ck$, how much time each week do you non-smokers sit in a bar full of smokers? Now compare that to the amount of time you spend in any urban area with vehicular traffic. What do you think will do you more harm, the passive smoke in the bar, or the tons of fumes pumped out by all those internal combustion engines every day. Just as an example, there is a pollutant blown out of the exhausts of every desiel engine called a p10, its one of the most carcinogenic substances ever discovered, so enjoy you're ride to work tomorrow enduring all those p10's.

I vaguely remember the report that was produced about 5 years ago, that gave a comparison asto the amount of tax from cigarette duty. I turned out that the duty paid was the equivilent to 25% of the NHS budget, we are talkin BILLIONS and prolly TENS of BILLIONS in tax. So forget a ban, the only way the government could get that money back would be a tax rise of about 4% for everyone. LOL

Originally Posted by zovat

If you don't smoke - go to a pub that is non smoking (there are plenty around)

There are? Care to provide a list of them because I can't find anywhere that details pubs that have a complete "no smoking" policy.

Insist that the location has decent ventilation/extraction...

Yes, this is would be a good thing. Unfortunately too many places don't have such systems.

Don't start telling people what they can/cant do - to take this further - lets stop people drinking in pubs - because drunks cause fights and harm people around them...

This is a ridiculous comparison. People who drink alcohol don't generally start spraying it around everywhere and covering those who don't drink with it (except for racing car drivers etc!)

How far are you willing to go before you see this as an infringement of a persons freedom ?

And what about *my* freedom to not breathe their smoke and have it stink up my clothes? I have no objection to people doing things that don't impinge on me or anyone else, but your freedom to swing your fists around ends at *my* nose.

Originally Posted by Earl of Bronze

Lets all sit around and watch the government goose-step down Whitehall, and take away even more of our personal freedoms.

That's an interesting viewpoint you have there...

It's fummy to see all the complaints about the health issues of smoking, and how these will be sorted by banning smoking in public. Will they b0ll0ck$,

Well, curiously enough, I don't seem to have seen many comments from people actually *saying* that "these will be sorted by banning smoking in public". So perhaps the testes you are referring to are from people who exaggerate what is being said when actually what the suggestion is is that it will help *reduce* these health issues.

how much time each week do you non-smokers sit in a bar full of smokers? Now compare that to the amount of time you spend in any urban area with vehicular traffic. What do you think will do you more harm, the passive smoke in the bar, or the tons of fumes pumped out by all those internal combustion engines every day.

So you're saying that because *something else* does more damage (although smoking is actually reckoned to be responsible for around 90% of lung cancer deaths), we shouldn't at least make a *start* somewhere?

Oh, BTW, does smoking get you to work? Does smoking carry your shopping? If you gave up smoking would you *lose* money? If you didn't smoke would you have trouble getting a job? No...?

Yes, it would be a good idea if we didn't have so much pollution chucked out by cars and lorries etc, but until there's a better alternative (improved public transport, non-polluting vehicles etc) it's a bit ridiculous to compare the two situations because it's much easier to try to stop smoking.

I vaguely remember the report that was produced about 5 years ago, that gave a comparison asto the amount of tax from cigarette duty. I turned out that the duty paid was the equivilent to 25% of the NHS budget, we are talkin BILLIONS and prolly TENS of BILLIONS in tax. So forget a ban, the only way the government could get that money back would be a tax rise of about 4% for everyone. LOL

Ah, so now we have the "it's going to cost *you* money if *we* give up smoking, so we're actually *helping* you" argument...

Except, of course, that "4% tax rise for everyone" figure you claim there is *completely* misleading because there will be less working hours lost through tobacco related illnesses such as asthma, mouth, tongue, throat and lung cancer and coronary heart disease, less lives lost through those illnesses, so people will live longer (and, hence pay more tax over a longer period) and less cost to the NHS, less lives lost through fires caused by careless smokers, so less cost to the Fire Brigade etc etc etc.

[ian@huth]

Is smoking as bad for you as some people make out?

Are there any beneficial advantages of smoking?

Smoking is something that we only ever appear to hear the negative aspects of but rarely the positive aspects. Are those that are against smoking fully aware of both sides of the argument?

Can those that are against smoking honestly say that they are in full possession of all the facts that enable them to come to their conclusion that smoking should be banned alltogether?

Have a thorough look at http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm and the whole site that this is from.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Graham

There are? Care to provide a list of them because I can't find anywhere that details pubs that have a complete "no smoking" policy.

No most pubs don't have a "complete" No Smoking policy, but very many have no smoking areas.

Personal choice and personal freedom, it should be up to the landord of the establishment to decide who he wants to cater for. If you don't like it don't go. I refer you to my earlier Children in pubs anology.

Yes, this is would be a good thing. Unfortunately too many places don't have such systems.

Well maybe the government should be pushing for these systems to be installed rather that considering a blanket ban.

This is a ridiculous comparison. People who drink alcohol don't generally start spraying it around everywhere and covering those who don't drink with it (except for racing car drivers etc!)

This is a poor comparison but then again such a comparison is not required.

And what about *my* freedom to not breathe their smoke and have it stink up my clothes? I have no objection to people doing things that don't impinge on me or anyone else, but your freedom to swing your fists around ends at *my* nose.

Your freedoms should be upheld, and so should those of smokers. You have no right to enforce your will onto them as they have no right to enforce theirs onto you.

Choice must be available to all, personal preference and common sense should prevail.

[ZrByte]

Originally Posted by Pierre

No most pubs don't have a "complete" No Smoking policy, but very many have no smoking areas.

Yes and how often is this area filled with smoke coming in from the smoking side?? Answers on a postcard
I am also curious why the non-smokers are segregated to a small section of the pub while smokers have the run of about 75% of the pub (Including the Bar itself) a non-smoker cant even get to the bar to get a drink without beeing saturated so dont give me this no smoking area BS.

and to some of the other posts wich I cant be bothered quoting at the moment....
The old vote with your feet arguement (or the bend over arguement as I prefer to call it) how often does this work? to answer that look at the situation were in now, that'l show you how well bending over, I mean walking away has done over the years.
To make my point slightly clearer, I dont have a big problem with smoking (well I do actually but its not my right to try and stop it completeley), I have a problem with smokers shortening my life & My families.

Now a good reason for banning smoking......
as we all know Smoking can kill over a prolonged period of time even in small doses (Larger doses expanentially decrease the time taken to do damage), people are fully aware of this, and as such the tobacco companies are accessories to assisted suicide (euthanasia) wich, last time I checked, is very very illegal.
since passive smoking causes far more damage than direct smoking does and smokers know this, People smoking in public places are also accessories to Murder, Or indirect manslaughter (or what would be a more appropriate term?) wich is also illegal.