Smoking ban in all pubs and clubs

[TheAnimus]

Tobacco advertising hasn't been restricted for that long , so why are kids taking to smoking in fhte first place ?

Because its damn easy to immitate, their perents might smoke, friends parents, somewhere there are role models doing it.

Plus, children see the effect it has on people, and don't understand its an addiction, a lot of 6 year olds, think that smoking makes you happy. Granted for a smoker its how they get a fix of niccoteen, but few understand the physcological effects (which are best observed by a non-smoker, when a smoker is under heavy stress, and then sudenly, they've got no cig's and are too busy to buy them).

Its also in films, soaps, and peer pressure, the same way sex is, a 15 year old sister of a mate has been sending very flirty txt's to her bf and back, neither of them want to have sex, they know this because they've had plentyer oppertunity, its just for peer pressure they send very 'adult' txts, and wow does it get them street cred (as everyone assumes their genuine). Kids, even adults do things just to fit in, or be cool, smoking is often one.

To say advertising makes kids smoke is stupid however, its much more than just one 'bad evil' thing making people want to smoke.

However i think its fair to say that smokers are addicted, and as such their judgement on matters such as health effect and impact of their habbit on non-smokers is greatly marred. So basically i think that smokers shouldn't be allowed to vote

[TooNice]

[...]
So why do us smokers get treated differently?
[...]

Whether the government has ultimate motives, I don't know. But from my perspective, it is pretty simple: a lot of addiction out there do not harm the people around. As I've previously said... if there is one way to trap the smoke coming off a smoker's cigarette around him/her, then they are free to smoke all they want. And that is the reason I really don't care whether people are addicted to caffeine/alcohol etc. as long as those do not cause them to break things/harm people around them.

The consumption of alcohol/caffeine itself doesn't do much (until the point you are addicted) to the people around you.
The consumption of a cigarette does.

When infact- The most worst chemical in the world is Alcohol.......[...]

Do you have any reliable source that backs this up? And "worst" in what sense?
In moderation, I haven't heard that it is more damaging than cigarette to ones health. And it is certainly harmless to the people around you (again, in moderation - as in before you get drunk and start doing things that hurt the people around you). But in moderation, the smoke of a cigarette WILL cause some damage to the people around you.

Now it is true that drink driving can cause direct and fatal accident. And I am certainly against over the limit drink-driving (in fact, I prefer if people didn't drink drive at all).

Plus, children see the effect it has on people, and don't understand its an addiction, a lot of 6 year olds, think that smoking makes you happy.

Yea, actually, the influence start even earlier. I must've been 3 or 4 when I saw some people around me smoke (not my direct family, it was either distant relatives or their friends). Though I didn't know the word "cool" back then, I felt there was something about it that was "special" and had the urge to try one. Well, I guess I could say that "luckily", I was given one. Normally I'd say that was darn irresponsible of them... but after inhaling that thing once, I was put off ever since. So... thanks?

[RVF500]

Whether you agree with smoking or not what this boils down to is choice. Once again the govt has removed choice for good or ill. Basically they ban whatever does not fit their poilitical viewpoint. Whether it be fox hunting, smoking, whatever. The question is what will be next? Who knows, one day we may only be able to watch state TV or read state newspapers. For our own good of course.

As for the tax angle. Don't worry, Gordon will have something up his sleeve. Taxes on fuel and alcohol will rise to take care of that. Those who still have a pension will find that the funds have been taxed a bit more. People with the temerity to own their homes homes without being an MP (you can have 4 and pay your community charge every few years if you get cought if you are a labour MP) will find that the taxes will sneak up. Water and sewerage taxes is another example example. Failing that he'll just invent a new tax. Plus they can always divert some lottery money again.

[schmunk]

Whether you agree with smoking or not what this boils down to is choice. Once again the govt has removed choice for good or ill. Basically they ban whatever does not fit their poilitical viewpoint.

The government didn't vote this through, parliament did, representing all popular political viewpoints.

As for the tax angle. Don't worry, Gordon will have something up his sleeve. Taxes on fuel and alcohol will rise to take care of that. Those who still have a pension will find that the funds have been taxed a bit more. People with the temerity to own their homes homes without being an MP (you can have 4 and pay your community charge every few years if you get cought if you are a labour MP) will find that the taxes will sneak up. Water and sewerage taxes is another example example. Failing that he'll just invent a new tax. Plus they can always divert some lottery money again.

People seem to be forgetting that the money that future ex-smokers currently spend on cigarettes will still be spent on something tax-generating. OK, it will still produce a shortfall, as the rate of tax on cigarettes is particularly high, but it won't be as great as has been mentioned above.

[RVF500]

Bit of a poisoned chalice in terms of getting it through parliament. If the opposition killed the bill then they would be accused of playing fast and loose with the nation's health. Given that health is such a political hot potatoe then it would be shooting themselves in the foot to oppose it strongly. Not that I kept up with the debate. There didn't seem much point. Basically just about anything it want's to get through it uses a brute force approach until they get it.

I really don't care either way. I don't smoke myself now nor do I care if others do smoke. I do care that I think this govt is eroding our freedoms, amongst other things, and I just see this as another step down that road.

[autopilot]

Not read the whole thread but i will add my 10p...

I am a smoker, have been for 15 years, but i still think a ban should happen. I also agree that the total ban would be a better because of the unfairness a partial ban would have imposed on bars and clubs.

However, i think many bar owners are very worried. I have a mate who owns a bar would says he will lose out to the bars that beer gardens or places you can go outside.

I hope this will help me give up smoking too, but i will find myself drinking in pubs less. Especially the times when i would have just poped in for one pint and a quick smoke are lunchtime etc.

[menthel]

And as for the vote, it was a free vote, the whip was not enforced. That is why the health secretary, who put the partial ban forward, then voted for a complete ban, as did the PM and other members of the cabinet. That is proper democracy.

[wedge22]

The ban sounds just like the one here in Vancouver, I have no idea when it was put in place but I have never heard anybody complain and I see alot of people sitting outside of pubs and restaurants eatingand drinking. When it is cold they have rather large heaters blowing hot air over them and they get to people watch too.

[RedPutty]

I have to go without smoking for 4 hours

I think it should be ringing warning bells for you if you are worried about going 4 hours without smoking. You are addicted my friend, I know what its like I was there too. Might be a good time to think of giving up.

Other people shouldn't have to put up with a stinky polluted atmosphere because of some peoples addictions.

"non smoking areas" are a joke in many places as smoke cant read signs and some morons who smoke don't seem to be able to read either.

[RedPutty]

I am ALL FOR BANNING CARS in restaurants and pubs.

ROFL

[Paul Adams]

Sweden has had a ban on smoking in bars for a while with no complaints, and there are (still) plenty of smokers, now they happily trot to the door when they want a smoke.

If people want/need to smoke, they'll smoke - in cultures that don't frown upon it.
European countries seem a lot more relaxed towards smoking than in the US (or at least California where you can be made to feel very small if you light up, and people really do sneak out and smoke by the back door like teenagers).

One downside is that some pubs in the UK might need a spot more cleaning when there's not so much smoke to mask the other aromas

[Moby-Dick]

thats true - you did smell other smells in some of the irish pubs - especially if sitting near the loos.

[jackofalltrades]

i am for the ban as long as there are places like a balcony in clubs or places which you have to pay to get in!
(non-smoker)