Its a start !

[DTM107]

No-one has posted here so thought Id be the first to do it

I think a complete ban on smoking is a BAD idea while im still a smoker, but a GOOD idea when I quit tho

Discuss.........

[BEANFro Elite]

A complete ban is completely naive, as just think about how difficult it would be to police.

Being a strict non-smoker myself, I DO however believe smoking in all public places should be banned but smoking in your own home is fair enough by me as its not in anyone else's face who shouldn't be there.

I think THATS fair

[Cmot]

A complete ban might be naive, but a partial one is just plain old stupid and conveys the message to the young that it's ok to smoke if it's done in designated spaces.

Of course what you do in the privacy of your own home is your business, but if we are to ban smoking in certain public places, then we should do it in all and then worry on how to police it.

[mike_w]

Originally Posted by Cmot

A complete ban might be naive, but a partial one is just plain old stupid and conveys the message to the young that it's ok to smoke if it's done in designated spaces.

Why is it wrong to smoke in designated places? I'm sure just about every young person is more than aware of the dangers of smoking. By doing it in designated areas, we make sure that non-smokers are not in danger, or are aware of the risks of being there. We wouldn't force non-smokers to go into smoking areas, and nor would they ever have to. If public smoking were completely banned, then I doubt all smokers would stop smoking in public.

Just so that you know, I'm a non-smoker. And I can't stand the smell either. Eurgh! But that's still no reason to take away other people's liberties.

[Funkstar]

Part of the argument against a partial ban is that staff still have to go into the smoking sections, putting them at risk.

Also it isn't and never will be a full public ban, just a ban in public *enclosed* spaces. Spaces that the law can be enforced in (pubs etc.)

[FarmerJon]

I don't honestly believe that many people know the scale on which smoking really effects health. It's not just lung cancer which some people seem to think, but it is in the top 5 causes for all kinds of different cancers, it's involved in some inflammatory bowel conditions, it is a SERIOUS cause of heart disease, strokes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema & all kinds of other things. As Funkstar said, it's not just your own health you affect if you smoke, but other people's too. I'm all for public liberty, but by smoking you're also affecting other people's liberty in the same way as if you smacked them in the face tbh. I grew up in a country (belgium) where almost EVERYONE smokes & i honestly mean 7-8 of every 10 people in a pub at least. Pubs and places will comply with the new laws, because if they don't and people who work there get ill then they will sue based on the fact that their employers were neglegent & for once they'd be right.

[Funkstar]

And since FarmerJon has resurected this old-ish thread, i'll ship in with another interesting point on the debate. There was a report in the local paper hear (The Press and Journal) a few weeks ago. Apparently the pub/bar trade has reported an increase in trade since the smoking ban started. I'm pretty sure this is a nation wide increase in trade as opposed to just an increase in Aberdeen.

I con't find the original article, but there a subsequent one:
http://www.thisisnorthscotland.co.uk...e=filtersearch