Smoking ban in "open public spaces"?

[Saracen]

Where do you stop banning things because "it annoys some people"?

....

I think we'd need some definition of what's meant by "annoy people". Where does "annoy" turn into "detrimentally affect" for instance?

But really, that's an entirely different thread. And probably an interesting one.

[Obie]

I have for years declined to visit anyone (with a couple of very specific exceptions) that smoked. And with one exception, a disabled friend who despite knowing I'd let him smoke refused to because he knew I disliked it, refused to allow smoking in my home.

So, I'd class myself on the militant end of disliking smoke.

Yet, a little while ago while visiting my brother, my nephew "lit up" an e-cig while sitting next to me. He puffed away, on and off for an hour or more, and I wasn't aware of anything more than a mild and not unpleasant aroma. Had it been an actual cigarette, I'd have been coughing and spluttering, and having trouble breathing, inside a minute or two. With his e-cig, it had no effect on me.

I don't know enough about e-cigs to know if exposure, or prolonged exposure, to e-cig vapour actually carries a risk for 2nd-hand inhalers, but it is nowhere near the thoroughly foul experience that 2nd-hand cig smoke is.

So IF such a damaging effect from 2nd hand inhalation exists then my view will change, but currently, people vaping doesn't bother me.

What we do need is a decent level of research to find out, for as certain as is possible, whether such 2nd-hand exposure does cause damage or not, or we risk substituting one set of damage for another.

I agree, It hasn't been around long enough to know the long term effects however I feel that there would possibly be certain ramifications to 2nd hand vapor/e-cig smoke albeit the tar is vacant, nicotine (among other chemicals) is not.

[Unique]

sounds like a good idea.

apart from the obvious smell and smoke, remember the fag ends that can litter beaches and parks and even fire risks from left fag ends that aren't put out right

also, for health reasons I think smoking should be banned. I don't think many people if they had a real choice to change history would say they are happy to have been a smoker all their life, wasting huge sums of money, stinking themselves and clothing and places they are in, affecting their health and the health of those around them, but once people are addicted to something they will often not admit to things like this and rationalise all sorts of excuses to continue doing it

if there was an outright ban proposal at the moment I doubt it would pass as the corporations behind fags have so much money to lobby. so an alternate approach is to restrict where people can legally smoke, and continue to make further restrictions a bit at a time so there are few places people can smoke, so less smoking occurs, people over time don't notice or forget about when they could do things, less people start smoking etc, and then we come closer to a time where we can propose an all out ban without it bothering people as much

with various changes in the law about smoking, plus the e-cigs I know a few people who have now given up or dramatically reduced smoking and they say they don't miss it and wish they did it sooner. but rather than self control, they needed changes in laws to help change their habits, but at the same time admit they were reluctant to change and didn't want a change imposed on them, but admit it was something that was good for them

[Macman]

Far more pressing matters out there. Budget cuts etc and the Council is actually putting time and effort into this??

I think they should just scrap this from the agenda and focus on ACTUAL pressing matters.

I see someone smoking, like others have said I'd alter my course slightly. And if someone chooses to smoke that is their choice.

[kalniel]

Far more pressing matters out there. Budget cuts etc and the Council is actually putting time and effort into this??

Presumably it's precisely for budget reasons that they're considering this.

[Macman]

Presumably it's precisely for budget reasons that they're considering this.

How so?

[kalniel]

How so?

They're trying to save money across the board. Measures to reduce NHS funding are of key interest as the ring fenced funding isn't enough to meet projected need.

[ik9000]

They're trying to save money across the board. Measures to reduce NHS funding are of key interest as the ring fenced funding isn't enough to meet projected need.

if that were the case the solution is to deny treatment on the NHS for any smoking related diseases. That saves the cost and burden on the NHS while maintaining the revenue stream from tax on cigarettes.

[Macman]

They're trying to save money across the board. Measures to reduce NHS funding are of key interest as the ring fenced funding isn't enough to meet projected need.

They'll need to look elsewhere tbh. The time spent looking into it as I know they haven't went ahead with it isn't going to be worth the outcome.

I wouldn't even say more awareness at schools at what kind of damages smoking does to a person. Kids just don't listen.

They need to tackle it at the source, ban the elements on cigs? Tax the companies more? But thats the government that needs to do it. Not the local authority.

And more importantly... someone who gets lung cancer and has been advised to stop smoking? But continues to smoke? He or She should just fork out for their own treatment. NHS is providing a service but alot of people abuse it left right and centre.

I for one, I am grateful to have the NHS. I suffer from hard of hearing and epilepsy... god forbid if I had to pay for my hearing aid repairs..

[GuidoLS]

Fair warning - if your governments (local, national, etc) decide to take on this issue in the same manner as the US, it's going to get 'worse' for the smoker. And that's not really a bad thing. Here, it's banned from major (and many lesser populated) vacation areas. It's banned on Federal property. It's not just banned, but illegal within a certain footage of hospital and medical center property. Note I didn't say doors - they'll ticket you for smoking in their parking lots. There's very few places where smoking inside in a 'public' place is legal anymore.

Personal note, and full disclosure - 30 year smoker, 3 years quit, and in deep regret of the both the money and health wasted in that period of time. It's easy to dismiss/scoff at someone when you're younger. You haven't really broken anything inside your body yet. At least you don't think you have. Got news for you. You have broken something - your sense of smell and your sense of taste. You may be unaware of it, but even if you never light up in the presence of someone else, they'll know you smoke. Your clothes stink. Your skin, especially your hands, wrists and lower arms, will stain from nicotine, and they too will smell. You may think you have the same stamina as when you didn't smoke. You're deluding yourself. Your lungs no longer have the same capacity. Oh, they're wonderful vessels, and will regenerate, to a degree, over time. But each inhale kills hundreds of thousands of cilia - those little hair like things that feed oxygen into your blood stream.

And the good news? You pass all this all along to everyone around you, inside and out. You may not want to believe in second hand smoke, and the dangers of it, but it's very real. I'm going to stop here, before it starts getting preachy - but I will stop with this comment:

Your right to poison yourself comes full stop when you start poisoning someone else. That's both common courtesy and common sense.

[Ttaskmaster]

The only reason smokers enjoy smoking is the feeling of nicotine leaving their system, not it going in.

Then why does a 24mg eCig not give me the same satisfaction... or indeed any satisfaction?
I'm toking on that far more than a cigarette and taking in even more nicotine, yet find it utterly rubbish...

that's a very strenuous load on your immune system which will in turn create a bigger chance for you to catch that 'flu'.

I must have one awesome immune system then, given how I've dragged roughly 20-a-day for 24 years and can't even remember the last time I had so much as a slight sniffle...!

Where do you stop banning things because "it annoys some people"?

NEVERRRRRRRRRR!!!!
We must kow-tow to every single niggle, if so much as one person objects to it... and so long as we can take the issue on to justify our jobs and earn votes, of course!!

The smoking ban in enclosed public spaces I was OK with though, although it has seriously hurt pubs (not that I care that much as I don't drink) which were a cornerstone of the UK social scene.

I don't drink, but I do smoke.
Now that's something else I cannot do while waiting for all my friends to finish getting lashed...

So, what would out-door bans do to our society and economy?

Not much. People will still smoke.
The only ways to stop it is to outright ban it, or price people out of the market.

It seems to me that most smokers have stopped lighting up and are now going down the cheaper and dubiously-enforced route of vaporisers.

They're not cheaper if you roll your own...!!

Do the people who aren't tolerant of smokers find vaporisers to be fine? Would vaporisers be allowed in these outdoor smoking-free zones?

No way, Jose...
They're banned here because of the "Corporate Image"...

remember the fag ends that can litter beaches and parks

You only get fag ends on Hampstead Heath!
So... cigarette butts are a BIG no-no, but sweetie wrappers, chewing gum, McDonalds packaging, beer bottles, drinks cans, kebab leftovers and all that - Those are perfectly fine and unoffensive?

I know a few people who have now given up or dramatically reduced smoking and they say they don't miss it and wish they did it sooner.

I know many ex-smokers.
Every... single... one... still says they miss it, even those who quite decades ago. Most miss it something chronic.

What's probably most surprising is the number of nurses who smoke.

Your right to poison yourself comes full stop when you start poisoning someone else. That's both common courtesy and common sense.

Except when there's a quantifiable benefit, such as being able to drive, make electricity, produce plastic, profit from oil, etc etc or even just the centuries old tradition of getting out of my tree on booze!

There are hundreds of things we all do that poison people, or otherwise negatively impact their health. Generally, so long as it's taxed, it doesn't seem to matter.

[kalniel]

if that were the case the solution is to deny treatment on the NHS for any smoking related diseases. That saves the cost and burden on the NHS while maintaining the revenue stream from tax on cigarettes.

While it would help financially, that would breach the NHS principals. Next you'd say no NHS for people who don't exercise, or who eat badly, or who don't manage their diabetes correctly or...

They'll need to look elsewhere tbh. The time spent looking into it as I know they haven't went ahead with it isn't going to be worth the outcome.

I wouldn't even say more awareness at schools at what kind of damages smoking does to a person. Kids just don't listen.

They need to tackle it at the source, ban the elements on cigs? Tax the companies more? But thats the government that needs to do it. Not the local authority.

And more importantly... someone who gets lung cancer and has been advised to stop smoking? But continues to smoke? He or She should just fork out for their own treatment.

Again that comes down to the principals of the NHS. There are a whole range of things that we willingly do that are bad for our health. For the NHS to discriminate against them is going down a very difficult route - but arguably if we end up down the medical insurance route, one we'll go down anyway.

[Jonj1611]

What's probably most surprising is the number of nurses who smoke.

Indeed, I know quite a few nurses that smoke.

[Macman]

For the NHS to discriminate against them is going down a very difficult route - but arguably if we end up down the medical insurance route, one we'll go down anyway.

Discriminating?

- Patient has Lung Cancer
- Its in best interests to stop smoking and change XYZ
- Patient continues to smoke and lifestyle hasn't changed.
- NHS has provided a service a level of responsibility if you like. Patient also has to do the same to accomadate the service the NHS is providing.
- Patient should pay for treatment.

It's just like those who get themselves in to some nick on a Sat night and smashed out the nut on drugs. i.e. T in the Park. (Self Inflicted)

- Why should Tax Payers fund that? Self Inflicted Booze sessions, resulting in Ambulance call out, the individual should be charged.

[shaithis]

Presumably it's precisely for budget reasons that they're considering this.

If it is for budget reasons, they need to be careful. The last time I checked, the number for how much smoking costs the NHS was between £.52bn and £6bn/year (I am sure the upper-end is nothing like the truth and that's before you take into account we ALL die eventually which costs!)

The goverment takes in almost £10bn/year in tobacco duties from smokers and another £2.5bn from the tobacco companies.

So currently smokers are most certainly subsiding the treasury.

This is another reason that vapes are putting a spanner in the works.....they dodge the tobacco taxes.

[kalniel]

Discriminating?

- Patient has Lung Cancer
- Its in best interests to stop smoking and change XYZ
- Patient continues to smoke and lifestyle hasn't changed.
- NHS has provided a service a level of responsibility if you like. Patient also has to do the same to accomadate the service the NHS is providing.
- Patient should pay for treatment.

It's just like those who get themselves in to some nick on a Sat night and smashed out the nut on drugs. i.e. T in the Park. (Self Inflicted)

- Why should Tax Payers fund that? Self Inflicted Booze sessions, resulting in Ambulance call out, the individual should be charged.

Do you have as healthy a lifestyle as you possibly could? There's truly nothing you could do to improve things like go vegan/do more exercise? If not, why should NHS treat you either? Save loads of money if they only treat the top 1% healthy lifestylers who actually do everything they can