Smoking ban in "open public spaces"?

[Saracen]

Declaration of interest - non-smoker here, I think it's a disgusting habit, and the smell, especially in enclosed spaces, is foul.


So .... there was this article on the radio about a proposal, from Brighton Council IIRC, to ban smoking on the beach and in parks. And if it goes through (council has yet to decide), you have to wonder, Brighton today, tomorrow the world??

Now, I fully support the ban in enclosed public spaces because, from my personal perspective, other people's smoke kept me out pubs and even many restaurants for years.

But I can't help but think ... this is a step too far.

I struggle to see how people smoking on a beach or in a park affects others, other than in a VERY minor way. If I see someone smoking on a beach, I can simply either hold my breath as I walk past, or alter my course slightly.

One issue raised was cigarette stubs littering the ground. Well agreed, that's disgraceful. So, punish the litterers, not smokers that don't litter.

Ultimately, there will always be a conflict between the right of smokers to smoke, and the right of others to not have smoke inflicted on them. There's no perfect answer to that, so to me, it's about the degree it affects others. Smoke in restaurants has ruined many a meal for me, but smoke on a beach? Really?

Biscuit mentioned in another thread about totalitarian tendencies in government, and this strikes me a a rather petty local government example of the phenomenon.

[kalniel]

Balance is key.

I work on a non-smoking campus, ie smoking is only allowed in designated areas, despite there being a huge amount of open land. Benefits as far as I can tell are partly risk assessment and nature conservation based, but it does mean that smokers are potentially forced to be in an less healthy environment by having to breathe in each others smoke if the areas are busy.

[andreipoe]

Now, I fully support the ban in enclosed public spaces because, from my personal perspective, other people's smoke kept me out pubs and even many restaurants for years.

But I can't help but think ... this is a step too far.

I struggle to see how people smoking on a beach or in a park affects others, other than in a VERY minor way. If I see someone smoking on a beach, I can simply either hold my breath as I walk past, or alter my course slightly.

One issue raised was cigarette stubs littering the ground. Well agreed, that's disgraceful. So, punish the litterers, not smokers that don't litter.

My thoughts exactly. I doubt banning it everywhere will do a lot of good.

[ik9000]

Anyone tried walking in/out of a station in central london recently? Through the cloud of smoke from the smokers huddled by the entrance despite signs saying don't smoke there. Not very pleasant. ditto trying to have a picnic in a park when a group pitch up and start smoking by you. Normal parks you could move away, but why should you have to - and in central london parks get so full that actually moving is not always possible. E.g Holland Park etc where there is limited lawn space for picnicking in.

I can however see the contra argument. The underlying issue seems to be smoking causing a nuisance to others, not outdoor smoking in and of itself.

Does seem to be an odd one, though there are places - shopping streets, bus stop queues etc where I can see an outdoor smoking ban being to the benefit of the public.

[Obie]

I think they should ban it, the world would be better off without things like cigarettes and alcohol that affect your natural thought process. I mean there's just no benefit to smoking...It shortens your life span, costs you extra money, smells bad, elevates heart rate (minimum of 10 bpm) and will make your lips look like a GPU heatsink after time. One life, might as well try be the best version of yourself you could possibly be.

[Jonj1611]

I am an ex-smoker and I hate smoking now with a passion and I dislike smoke blowing in my face while out in the street however in an open public place, whether thats a park, the highstreet or the beach then no it should NOT be banned.

Supposed to have certain rights and freedoms in this country and seems almost weekly the government is bringing in new things to take those away.

[Obie]

Supposed to have certain rights and freedoms in this country and seems almost weekly the government is bringing in new things to take those away.

Do cigarettes not take away certain rights & freedoms? i.e. Your natural birth right to feel healthy & calm...Your freedom to choose. Ask any smoker, if they had the 'choice' to wake up tomorrow being a non-smoker they'd take it. These are not rights & freedoms given to you from a country, but by life.

[Obie]

But seriously, banning isn't really the answer. People need to feel like they want to stop, not being forced to stop. The mindset needs to change from a 'I want this, but can't have it' to a 'I can have this but don't want to'. That will only come from education, not legislation.

[Jowsey]

Meh, I'm not bothered about smoking in public, whilst a nuisance it's not as damaging as smoking indoors was I don't believe, where the smoke doesn't dissipate, it just circulates.

I personally think smoking should be banned full stop. It should be introduced through a rolling age increase, year on year. So that if you can legally smoke now and do smoke, you may continue to smoke but younger generations are not allowed to. I've had two grand parents die of lung cancer and sometimes I think a populous can be so stupid you possible should limit it's options. Or alternatively you can just continuously increase the tax on it. But that spins you into a cycle as I'd imagine there is a concentration of smokers from lower income backgrounds, then they end up spending more money on smoking and have less disposable income... Or maybe I'm too cynical.

[Jonj1611]

I was a smoker and not entirely sure what you are on about. People should have the right in open spaces to smoke if they want to, same as they have the right not to smoke.

And no I dont agree with ask any smoker, I used to smoke and I enjoyed it, if someone asked me if I wanted to stop I would have said no. My reasons for stopping were two-fold, one for my kids and secondly because of the expense but if it hadn't of been those factors I would have been quite happy to continue smoking as that was my choice.

[abaxas]

Random thought..

Someone with the flu is more dangerous in an open space than a smoker.......

[Obie]

I was a smoker and not entirely sure what you are on about. People should have the right in open spaces to smoke if they want to, same as they have the right not to smoke.

And no I dont agree with ask any smoker, I used to smoke and I enjoyed it, if someone asked me if I wanted to stop I would have said no. My reasons for stopping were two-fold, one for my kids and secondly because of the expense but if it hadn't of been those factors I would have been quite happy to continue smoking as that was my choice.

How long have you been a non-smoker? If your kids were out the house and money wasn't an issue, would you really go back?

[Jonj1611]

2 and a half years now. Absolutely I would, I enjoyed it, it helped me relax, like some people that enjoy a drink after work, for me I don't drink.

However I never enjoyed roll up cigarettes and the price of normal cigarettes is amazingly expensive so even if I wanted to for that reason alone I am not too sure if I could.

[Obie]

Random thought..

Someone with the flu is more dangerous in an open space than a smoker.......

The only reason smokers enjoy smoking is the feeling of nicotine leaving their system, not it going in.
The immune system immediately tries to get rid of the nicotine (If it didn't the toxin would kill you). Now when your having say even 10 cigarettes a day, that's a very strenuous load on your immune system which will in turn create a bigger chance for you to catch that 'flu'.
Now I'm not saying it's only smokers that are going to get the flu because yes there are other factors to look at however you are more likely to catch & spread that flu whilst being a smoker.

[shaithis]

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

When I was growing up I believed we lived in a free country but that is increasingly being shown as a lie. There are already certain things that do not hurt anyone that I cannot legally do in my own home. 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. Whether that is a good thing or not depends on what side of certain fences your on I guess.

So, what would out-door bans do to our society and economy? They could have implication further reaching then people might think.

And lets not forget the great exception (that must be killing tobacco companies at the moment).....vaporisers. It seems to me that most smokers have stopped lighting up and are now going down the cheaper and dubiously-enforced route of vaporisers. I see people chugging on them everywhere, including at desks in some offices! Do the people who aren't tolerant of smokers find vaporisers to be fine? Would vaporisers be allowed in these outdoor smoking-free zones?

[Saracen]

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

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 tne 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.