Smoking in public places to be banned

Originally Posted by ianathuth

Just because overall smokers are in a minority does not mean that they are in a minority in a particular place. For all you know when you walk in a pub you could be the only non smoker in there.

You miss the point.

Go into a pub, count the number of people there, then count the number *actively smoking* at any time.

Unless they're dedicated chain smokers on 60 a day, even those who smoke will only be doing it for a few minutes each hour.

So what's so hard about them popping out for a drag every now and again?

Do we take the same stance on pollution from cars and ban them from town centres? Why should the millions of non driving public have to breath the pollution from them?

Err, have you *heard* of "Park and Ride" schemes? What about pedestrianisng major shopping areas? Not only do they reduce congestion, they also reduce pollution!

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Graham

I'm looking at it from the point of view that the non-smoking *majority* should not be shoe-horned into a non-smoking area, when they should really be given preference over the smoking *minority*.

So the majority should be given rule over the minority - in this particular instance.

might is right?

Originally Posted by Pierre

So the majority should be given rule over the minority - in this particular instance. might is right?

No, the *views* of the majority, *when* what the minority is doing is having an effect on them, should definitely be taken into account.

There's a big difference.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Graham

You miss the point.

Go into a pub, count the number of people there, then count the number *actively smoking* at any time.

Unless they're dedicated chain smokers on 60 a day, even those who smoke will only be doing it for a few minutes each hour.

So what's so hard about them popping out for a drag every now and again?

So effectively you are saying that there is not much smoke about. If it's the smell you are complaining about then are you going to ban perfume and aftershave too. I have been put off more by those smells than I ever have by cigarette smoke and that was when I didn't smoke. Those smells are also very hazardous to your health when the wife smells them on you and thinks you have been misbehaving.

Originally Posted by Graham

Err, have you *heard* of "Park and Ride" schemes? What about pedestrianisng major shopping areas? Not only do they reduce congestion, they also reduce pollution!

I have also heard of "no smoking" areas and no smoking pubs, try and find one and you may be happy.

I don't think that this exchange can ever result in any agreement as each have their own ideas and won't be moved. Lets leave it that we should have freedom of choice in what we do and where we go. A publican should also have free choice in what he allows on his property.

Originally Posted by ianathuth

So effectively you are saying that there is not much smoke about.

No, I'm saying nothing of the sort and I cannot see how you got to that conclusion from what I said!

Smoke from cigarettes, unlike perfume and aftershave, is being *renewed* constantly by smokers. If someone was sitting there putting on perfume every few minutes and sitting in a cloud of the stuff, you'd probably object too!

I have also heard of "no smoking" areas and no smoking pubs, try and find one and you may be happy.

And so we're back to the "if you don't like other people's anti-social behaviour, go somewhere else" argument

A publican should also have free choice in what he allows on his property.

Have you ever *looked* at the laws that restrict what publicans can or cannot allow on their premises?!

Graham dont go on about peoples right of choice then say its OK to deny smokers their choice.

If YOU dont like it YOU go elsewhere. simple fact really and probably the most pleasing all round.

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Graham

You miss the point.

Go into a pub, count the number of people there, then count the number *actively smoking* at any time.

I normally see plenty of people smoking, pretty much constantly.

Unless they're dedicated chain smokers on 60 a day, even those who smoke will only be doing it for a few minutes each hour.

Drinking and smoking generally go hand in hand, you'll find that a lot of people will get through double the amount of fags they'd smoke during an average day

So what's so hard about them popping out for a drag every now and again?

Go to a busy nightclub (or even some of the more popular pubs round here), if you "pop out for a drag" you won't get back in.

[zoombini]

I have never heard of any possibilities of someone getting Cancer etc through sniffing perfume or deoderant on someone else.

Now passive smoking, thats something that I have heard is harmful to others.

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by zoombini

I have never heard of any possibilities of someone getting Cancer etc through sniffing perfume or deoderant on someone else.

Now passive smoking, thats something that I have heard is harmful to others.

Yes, but if it wasn't for successive governments making it an issue that they want everyone to stop smoking, you'd never hear about passive smoking either - ignoring the contribution that smokers make to the exchequer (and I am aware that this in an involuntary tax), no government can afford for everybody to stop smoking.

More to the point, how do people know that sniffing perfume or deodorant etc isn't harmful to others - I'm sure that it isn't but I couldn't give a definitive answer. The issue there is simply that those make you smell nice (for a while anyway), whereas smoking doesn't.

Originally Posted by Nugget

Yes, but if it wasn't for successive governments making it an issue that they want everyone to stop smoking, you'd never hear about passive smoking either - ignoring the contribution that smokers make to the exchequer (and I am aware that this in an involuntary tax), no government can afford for everybody to stop smoking.

More to the point, how do people know that sniffing perfume or deodorant etc isn't harmful to others - I'm sure that it isn't but I couldn't give a definitive answer. The issue there is simply that those make you smell nice (for a while anyway), whereas smoking doesn't.

Does anybody know what the total tax take from tobacco duty is, and the estimated NHS expenditure on treating smoking-related illness? Banning it altogether might not prove to be such a large net loss to the exchequer as some people claim.

This isn't a rhetorical question - I really don't know the answer to this, but if anyone does, I'd be very interested.

[zovat]

Originally Posted by zoombini

I have never heard of any possibilities of someone getting Cancer etc through sniffing perfume or deoderant on someone else.

Now passive smoking, thats something that I have heard is harmful to others.

but not as harmful as driving a car...
Yet you are not insisiting that people stop driving their car wherever you want to be...
Hmm, the majority of people drive cars - this is the biggest single cause of pollution (accounting for approx 1/3 of all pollutants in our atmosphere, and : according the the findings reported here Cause as many problems as long term exposure to second hand smoke.

In the same report :

Originally Posted by BBC

In 1998, an influential government committee on the effects of air pollution suggested that 10,000 people a year might be dying as a result of particulate pollution.

yet I do not see you suggesting that if you want to get to work you should walk, or all drivers should have to use a different part of the town....

people have a choice to not use a smokey pub, they do not have a choice to walk in a city and not breathe in the fumes...

I'm not saying that smoking is not harmfull both to the smoker, and others around, but there are choices that can be made by individuals, without the government forcing everyone into their particular way of living.

As ever - just my 2c

[zovat]

Originally Posted by towny

Does anybody know what the total tax take from tobacco duty is, and the estimated NHS expenditure on treating smoking-related illness? Banning it altogether might not prove to be such a large net loss to the exchequer as some people claim.

This isn't a rhetorical question - I really don't know the answer to this, but if anyone does, I'd be very interested.

According to ASH : on this site : http://www.ash.org.uk/html/smuggling/html/whytax99.html

Originally Posted by ASH report in 1999

It is true that NHS costs are lower than tobacco tax revenues. Tobacco taxation amounts to £10.5 billion per year whereas a figure for NHS spending on tobacco related disease is £1.7 billion

so even ASH realise that smokers are paying more in tax than the extra cost of smoking related disease....

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by towny

Does anybody know what the total tax take from tobacco duty is, and the estimated NHS expenditure on treating smoking-related illness? Banning it altogether might not prove to be such a large net loss to the exchequer as some people claim.

This isn't a rhetorical question - I really don't know the answer to this, but if anyone does, I'd be very interested.

TBH, I don't know what the expenditure on smoking-related illness is ( altohugh I'd be surprised if they could really tie it down to a figure as illnesses like lung cancer can still occur even if you've never smoked), but the last figure I heard (a few years ago now, I admit) was that tax income purely from smoking products was in the region of 4 - 5 billion per year.

[xaq141175]

Originally Posted by towny

Does anybody know what the total tax take from tobacco duty is, and the estimated NHS expenditure on treating smoking-related illness? Banning it altogether might not prove to be such a large net loss to the exchequer as some people claim.

This isn't a rhetorical question - I really don't know the answer to this, but if anyone does, I'd be very interested.

In 2002-2003 the uk treasury collected £8 billion from tobacco revenue(excluding VAT).

Originally Posted by zovat

According to ASH : on this site : http://www.ash.org.uk/html/smuggling/html/whytax99.html


so even ASH realise that smokers are paying more in tax than the extra cost of smoking related disease....

Great, then I say let them poison themselves if they (smokers) are doing the NHS such a service.

I think there is a need to formalise some of the voluntary bans that have appeared in recent years - on trains, in cinemas, and the like - but I would favour tough legislation forcing 'venue' owners to make proper provision of smoking and non-smoking areas over an outright ban. There's a lot you can do to control air-flow with modern air conditioning and the like.