http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po...ng_ban_4709258
Very interesting to see the vote result on the BBC too ! :)
Printable View
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po...ng_ban_4709258
Very interesting to see the vote result on the BBC too ! :)
I must say I find that poll hard to belive, most of the people I know smoke and so there is a fair amount of people with a vested intrest in not standing in the English weather more than they have to on a night out.
I would be in favour of a partial ban, and Id like to see provisions made to have smoking areas in pubs and clubs, i dont see why you should have to go outside to stand in the rain or snow to have a cig. If you have areas with non smoking then people have a choice.
Dont like passive smoke, move to the other section of a bar.
i particularly see this as a problem in clubs because you tend to stay in there for hours, you cant leave without paying to get back in. So what I have to go without smoking for 4 hours to enjoy a night at the club that probably wont be so enjoyable thinking about how much I want a cig?
Some people may see this as selfish, I see it as lost revenue as I wont be going out anymore and instead shall just do parties. When i go clubbing, the proportion of smokers goes up from what i see anywhere else, based on what I have seen there is a majority of smoking clubbers and im sure this will impact the club industry. it could be argued that more non smokers will then want to go clubbing It would be interesting to find out but really I dont see why you cant have one area designated smoking ( and likely be rammed full of people) and a non smoking area( deserted).
edit : Also wanted to add that the hypocricy is really unreal, they say they are doing this for health reasons to encourage more non smokers to drink in pubs and clubs, not a contradiction at all is it...?
About time IMHO.
Don't often post in here BUT... look at Ireland - don't know how many people have been to Dublin, but it certainly hasn't done any harm over there. Looking forward to enjoying going to the pub again tbh :)
i cant wait to see the problems caused by people hanging around outside pubs/clubs drunk to have a cig.
i dont smoke myself but i think this law is ridiculous. more should be done to have separate smoking and non smoking areas and to protect workers I definetly agree. maybe they should also look at the issue of raise the smoking age for a start if they want to be more proactive..oh i forgot the great tax issue. I wonder if they will still sell them in the pub as thats just cruel :D ...
I'm a supporter of no change.
I am a fan of political debating and I watched this one online and thought it was great (particularly Steve Pounds humour :lol: ).
On a carefully considered note - A lot of people go out to pubs for a smoke, and do enjoy it. It seems a shame that we're being told what to do again. A partial ban is a good idea in theory but it would be difficult to work.
On a purely selfish note however - HOORAY!!! YES! THANK GOD FOR THAT! YES!!!!!!!!!
When I used to smoke I ageed with a blanket ban.
This is one of the few things I think labour got right. I dont see why everybody else sould have to put up with the stink and health risks smokers. 26% of people over 16 smoke right now. Hopefully that will go down further. Dont think they should ever ban it full stop though.
full ban without question is taking the piss - pubs yes, clubs no. I'd like to see clubs come back in a big way - even if they are smokier.
No, I don't smoke, but I do disagree that private clubs have to exclude smokers too.
Should ban smoking in a ALL public places. I have a right to not breathe some drug addicts fumes when I walk down the street.
Hang on, you are FOR the legalisation of ALL (currently) illegal drugs, but you think it's 'about time' that smoking is banned?Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBeeeenster
Huh? :confused:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big RICHARD
In that case, get out of your car, I dont want to breath in your fumes. I want a total ban on cars. Cars that cause more health problems than second hand smoke.
I can't read... Ignore this message sorry
So do I, because car drivers are not a miniority like smokers are.
hmm.. the thing is, a total ban DOES work - i've been to a few places with it implemented (among which, toronto) and the atmosphere in the clubs felt sooo nice.. it was different, but imo better. and they didnt appear to have any problems with people smoking outside, getting a stamp and coming back in.. i'm not a smoker (never have been) but dont have particularly strong views on this - however i'd like to see it happen, and i think its pretty much inevitable.
I agree completely with a smoking ban, i'll finally get an evening out where i don't have to look dissaprovingly at my mates that do smoke. Besides i don't understand why people smoke in the first place when there are all the health risks that go with it, and before anyone says anything i don't drink that much either, i don't see the need for drinking and getting wasted either to have a good night out, some of my best nights out have been when i haven't been able to drink because i've had to drive.
I think I picked a good time to quit !
It'll be nice not to have my clothes smelling anymore.
however I'm not a big of fan of it being mandatory - it should be up to the landlord.
I think that poll is correct. Every smoker I know agrees that Smoking should be banned in all clubs and pubs. And nearly all the smokers I know are either trying to quit or want to quit in the future - this ban might help.
The one thing that really gets to me is when I get home from a club and my clothes smell like I have been smoking a thousand cigs - that pees me off.
Sorry I thought it said "Cars cause more health problems than second hand smoke"
I think it's silly banning it in pubs... That's the most "socially accepted" place to smoke. But then again.. My clothes do stink of smoke after I've been to the pub :(
Ban it in high streets and other public places though, please!
Finally. It will be nice to be able to go to a pub, without stinking of fags when you leave. It will also mean that there will be no smoking in any restaurants now! Hurrah.
The reason you see more smokers in pubs than non-smokers is because a lot of non-smokers avoid pubs because they dont like the smoke!
The non-smoking pub in Norwich is always full, even throught the day when other pubs are half empty. Now thats saying something. The landlord was interviewed in yesterdays paper and said it was the best thing hes done, his takings have gone up as a larger proportion of non-smokers buy food.
I'll be happy being able to put my clothes in the laundry basket when I come back from a night out rather than straight in the washing machine.
I can't stand this bloody nanny state! It should be up to the landlord/business owner to make the decision whether to ban smoking in their establishment. Whilst I can see the argument from both sides why can there not be a compromise and say that all pubs/clubs must have adequate ventallation/air conditioning. I don't recall a mass demonstration by bar staff to ban smoking.
Having worked in bars I never found the atmosphere to be so bad that I had to complain/leave the job. Proper no smoking areas, i.e. totally separate from the smoking area is better.
As for restaurants I agree that it is anti-social to smoke at the table.
The worst thing i feel about going to pubs is coming home stinking of smoke! I really hate it!
Theres a couple of quite nice pubs in town one of which is fairly small me and my mates love to go there for a drink but in such a small pub with most of the people in there smoking, it doesnt make it very enjoyable for people who dont smoke.
So in my opinion a smoking ban is great but thats me being selfish because i dont smoke.
To smokers. When you go out with your friends and there is a mixture of people who do smoke and who don't. Assuming there is a place with a smoking and non-smoking area. What's going to happen? I guess women can be assertive and force everyone into non smoking area if they don't smoke and the smoker then will have to wonder off for a smoke occasionally. But imagine its a night out with the lads. How many non smokers will have the strength to say "guys, lets sit in non smoking area". And what will happen if they do? They'll get told "oh come on, I'll be breathing out away from you, there's aircon, blah blah blah". And i am guessing in 80% of the time a few smokers will be able to drag non smokers into the smoking area. It's simple smokers NEED a smoke and non smokers just WANT to be in a clean area. Need beats want, right?
And every time a smoker does the "i wont be breathing on you" thing they forget about it after a while and non smokers get their share of second hand smoke.
I think that ultimately there has to be a ban. Maybe some feel its too soon, but it has to be done, and hopefully it will discourage people from taking up smoking and the current smokers will hopefully find it easier to quit. At the end of the day if no new smokers take up the habbit in a couple of generations it will be greatly reduced.
I appreciate that many people dislike smoke, however under the current system people have a certain level of choice (not complete choice I admit), I don't smoke however on the whole if I go to a cafe I choose to sit in the smoking section. When EvilWeevil and I go to Nero during term time, we choose to sit there... it sounds weird, but it adds to the whole experience (and it's much less crowded in that area).
Since Italy banned smoking in public places (unless special dedicated rooms with ventilation - which is rather vague in its specification - are provided) the cafes and restaurants have lost a certain level of atmosphere.
If its less crowded in the smoking area then surelly people want more room in nonsmoking areas and are voting with their feet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt1eD
As for smoking atmospheer - i just about probably can see where you are coming from. But I think given a bit of time people can get used to the healthy non smoking atmospheer. If you never knew different it may take time to adjust.
I don't agree with banning everything left right and centre, and smokers should be helped and positively encouraged to quit, but as a non smoker I am looking forward to a breath of fresh air.
Fair enough, but then should the smokers be cramped into the corner?Quote:
Originally Posted by dkmech
Certainly agree with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by dkmech
Now all we need to happen is have smoking outside banned, only allow it in the privacy of someones home or their car (assuming their not driving).
Score 1 for people who don't like breathing in second hand smoke, this is what smokers forget. If your a non smoker, its akin to desiel fumes from the X90 bus (a somewhat delapidated bus in cornwall). Its fowel.
When should personal liberties start infringing on someone else, its the same as noise polution, smokers rarely ask to light up. Look at the small restraunter, they can't afford to go completely none smoking, they need the 20-40% of customers who smoke. They're too small to implement any effective non-smoking section (say they have 16 tables). This is just the legislation the rest of the 60% need, smoking when theirs food near by is just rank and frankly I have to mentally picture them getting kemo or something to make me not go up and make a scene.
Now clubs, i like the idea of only having beverages staining my shirt, rather than smoke, but then again i always wash a shirt i've warn out to a club before i re-ware it (seams quite a rare trait with my student friends).
The only place i dissagree is a coffee shop, purely because i know how much my smoking friends love the cig + cof.
As for freedom of smokers, what about freedom of non smokers? trying to get a group of people to meet at reading's first non smoking pub (Back of Beyound) is a mission if 2 people or more in the group smoke, even if the group is 10+ their that ****ing selfish.
If 80% of the population smoked, and only 5% disliked second hand smoke, oh, and it wasn't for the fact smoking is horifically unhealthy, the anti-smoking ban people might have a leg to stand on, the anti-nanny state argument is absurd, is it a nanny state that takes away our right to drink and drive?
In short, score one for the human race living in britain.
No, but lets say 70% dont smoke and 30% do. There should be 70/30 split in the area allocated, not 50/50. And if it is clear, as mentioned there that the smoking area is a lot less crowded that means that the distribution of tables doesn't correspond to the population using the place. Add to that that the two people (one of whom is writing the post) are nonsmokers themselves and only go there for the space and you have even more nonsmokers present.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt1eD
Also. Won't somebody think of the children!
http://www.ibiblio.org/dlucas/images/image_helen.gif
While you don't get many children going to pubs - cafes and restaurants are a bit different. Kids might not be drinking coffee but I am sure there's stuff for them in a coffee shop, like tea and cookies/muffins etc. I don't have kids yet, but when I do I know I will definately not want them breathing second hand smoke.
This is just a product of your demographic.Quote:
Originally Posted by G4Z
1/4 of the population smoke, 1/2 the pub going population smoke.
Make of that statistic what you will.
I get sick of people going on about having a right to smoke, fair enough, dont poison me though in the process, do it in your own home.
I really cant see what other option the government had when it actually came to the vote although in all honesty it probably would have been better to have a non smoking section in all pubs/clubs and have completely non smoking in resturants etc.
Another thing which noone has seemed to mention is that the all the health organistions on the news this morning were stating that hopefully this will cut down the smokers and reduce health implications (which I can see where there coming from).
However if the smokers slowly reduce (as most people think there will) where is all the extra revenue the government NEEDS for schools and the NHS going to come from, as lets face it the duty on tobacco makes a large portion of there budget on a yearly basis.
Ok so heart problems and cancer problems *Might* reduce slightly by people not smoking however there still going to need the funds so guess they shall have to raise taxes on other products (or massively increase the duty on the people still smoking after the ban is implemented)
What would happen if smoking were completely banned in public (ie outside aswell) then would binge drinking etc rise. It was a point raised in The Commons that sales in clubs have risen were As for clubs being allowed to smoke, smaller country pubs would lose out on business - so either it should be kept as it is at the moment, or like it will be in summer 07, not partial.
dkmech:
Cafes are the new pubs, as they are considered a social place. I go to school in Tonbridge, Kent. It would really not exist as it does without the three or four main secondary schools - the food & drink market within Tonbridge is 70% fuelled by students under the legal drinking age.
It should also be noted that part of the point is to escape school... I board at school, and the house I'm in is at the other end of Tonbridge from caffe nero. Part of the experience is escaping from an otherwise somewhat restrictive environment. Many students from my school go down there to smoke (whether over 16 or not) and the concept that this ban will stop young people smoking I believe is not significant enough. I'm for either keeping the system as it is at the moment or a complete ban - an I believe a complete ban is drastic.
I will however say, if people smoke then don't try and get your problems sorted on the NHS - go private, you took the decision to smoke (and I hold no prejudices) so pay for it. In Italy if you buy cigarettes and ID is used that data is stored on a government server, if you're admitted to hospital they are aware that you smoke - taking that a step further I believe on should pay for treatment if a smoker..... where to draw the line on what ailment is smoking related is another problematical debate.
Carlh:
Your points about tobacco money being required was one of the major arguments for not having an outright ban... the government need the money!
They are getting increased tax from the extended licencing hours, maybe not as much but itll help. Also if the NHS doesnt have to spend £2.7bn every year on smoking related illnesses that will sure put some money back into the system!Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlh
I'd bet there will be an increase in non-smokers going to pubs/clubs, I know a lot of people who dont go out much because they despise the smell and taste of stale smoke. And they are the people intheory with more money than the smokers...
All the smokers are going to realise that they are the minority these days and get with the change in the attitude towards their (death inducing) pastime.
The thing is that smoking brings in about £10bn a year in taxes - so the government is still up £6.5bn or so. I'm still not convinced that they'll be able to find that sort of short change down the side of the sofa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic
Also if you have fewer smokers , then people will doubtless life longer - which means they'll need supporting in other ways for longer.
Smoking is an addiction , you can make them as much of a social pariah as you want , but they'll still smoke. As en ex-smoker of 10 years I know giving up isn't that easy - althought I have to say spending a week in Ireland wasn't an issue for me ( I had already begun to cut down by that point anyway , so perhaps it was just a usefull catalyst )
I'm still not convinced that all of these millions of people will come out from what ever smoke free environment they've previousdly enjoyed , and fully ebrace our wonderfull binge drinking culture , simply because their coats wont small of smoke any more.
What we need is a nonburning addictive death delivery system. Then nonsmokers don't have to breathe in smoke. Smokers can suck a lollipop or somthing and still look cool and die young. If they are taxed the government will get their money. And they will not live long avoiding the need for expensive support.
Btw - if hospitals get freed up because less smokers have to be taken care off this should increase throughput of other patients, curing them sooner, reducing sick days, getting them back to work, strengthening the economy, bringing more tax money! How's that?
a complete day dream....Quote:
Btw - if hospitals get freed up because less smokers have to be taken care off this should increase throughput of other patients, curing them sooner, reducing sick days, getting them back to work, strengthening the economy, bringing more tax money! How's that?
If you have never had an addiction , I wouldn't expect you to understand.
By the way, considering many people have moaned about government thinking up new crazy ways to get tax, then surelly the fact that they propose something that will improve the health of the population even though its costing government money is to be applauded.
Is it not a duty for a government to do their best to make their nation healthier? Yes it will cost money, but what doesn't?
Erm, sorry. You made the point that if the smokers stop smoking even though the nhs will have to spend less there will be more money lost through tax lost. Lets assume what you say happens. Then my point is entirely valid. Addiction has nothing to do with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moby-Dick
remember coming home from sticking up skittles in local pub, stinking of smoke and being about 14, my mum thought id been smoking lolQuote:
Originally Posted by DeludedGuy
but you are not going to make up a £6.5bn shortfall This is why it is very much in the governments interest to keep people smoking , inspite of what image they like to cultivate - to take Ireland , its not going to make a huge difference to the number of smokers , and if it does then you'd better get ready for your wallet to be lightened in another aspect of your life.Quote:
Originally Posted by dkmech
This 6.5bn shortfall would only happen if every smoker stopped smoking, which I really doubt is gonna happen in any of our lifetimes!
I'm with dkmech - can't we just find a healthy way to ingest nicotine? How about a health y injection each morning, or spooning some in with your coffee? Is it possible to snort a line of nicotine?
It's time for a more modern approach to foistering addicition on our young - perhaps we just need more education in primary schools?
Not everyone likes needles. So injections may be unsuitable. Its good that there are already chewing gums and patches mind. Maybe sweets to start kids early? And then we can tax the nicotine delivery products. That'll be the income sorted. By the way its not just the nicotine, yes this is the addictive ingredient, but there's also all sorts of tar and particles to pollute the lungs... Maybe an aerosol? Like what asthma sufferers take? A gasp of that and you are golden for 30 mins!Quote:
Originally Posted by dangel
Genius! Once inhaling that actually gives you asthma you can then have a 2in1 aerosol that delivers asthma relief too. Both the poison and the remedy in one small convenient package. Will make it silver in colour too - people love silver. And some bright colours with disney characters for the kids! Brb, gonna go patent that. Don't spend all the tax money from this at once mind. We'll need some to invest into more brilliant ideas.
I do think Restaurants should ban Smoking, families with children are more likely to use Restaurants than pubs.
Banning fags from all pubs seems a bit silly really, they should leave it to the discretion of the Landlord so people have a choice of wether they want to go to a non smoking pub or not :)
Btw i don't smoke and i hate people smoking around me
any chance of getting this back on topic rather than promoting your lack of understanding for people ? ( not aimed at shelly.....)
Shelley,
What landlord is going to use his discretion to ban smoking in his pub. It may work now as a novelty thing when everywhere else is smoke free, but when more smoke free pubs will be available then the smoking ones would have advantage. And its not just up to landlord. Where will your smoking friends drag you? Smoke free pub? Doubt it.
I don't think that encouraging people to carry on smoking is sympathy or proof of understanding. I think that they should be given all the help they need to give up and all the encouragement they can get, and I did my best to be understanding to my smoking friends and help some of them give up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moby-Dick
I understand addiction, and I can see that while you are young and relatively full of energy it doesn't seem like a big deal and you want everyone off your back. But as a non-smoker trying to be sociable you end up reeking of smoke almost everywhere you go out. And its not just the matter of clothes smelling funny. So will someone understand me? Or because I am not addicted I don't deserve understanding?
And what about staff? Don't try to tell me they have a choice. If you need a job you take whatever is coming, and if you are a student then tending bar is one of the most available options. And you won't have smoking staff refusing work in a nonsmoking pub so that someone who doesnt smoke can work there. You'll have non smokers either work inhaling smoke or being unemployed. I think they should have their rights defended too.
however if a pub where to offer an outdoor covered area - then you have the best of both worlds - you can kick the smokers out for a fag , and still enjoy a smoke free drink out. If pubs in Ireland can do it , I see no reason why they can't here. Its an excellent way or preserving the status quo.
Oddly enough working in a bar as a non smoker actually started me smoking as it was the only way to take a break - nb this was 10 years ago where things where a little different HR wise. I suppose if other workers have the right to a smoke free environment , then pub workers ought to be covered for the sake of continuity ,but as has been mentioned in other forums , what about the health and safety implication of louad music in bars - dont bar workers have a right to go home and not have their ears ringing ? where is a sensible place to draw the line ?Quote:
Originally Posted by dkmech
That would be fine with me (i normally freeze outside) - only problem is that not many pubs have an outdoor area they can use.
I would love to have quieter music too lol. I mean there's loud and theres LOUD. And there far too much of the latter around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moby-Dick
Some of the "old bank" type bars might have a bit more of an issue , but most pubs outside town centres have a beer garden ?Quote:
Originally Posted by dkmech
A few landlords around my area have sucessfully banned smoking from their pubs, and who is it upto if not the Landlord??? not the Breweries? not the Government? not the Council?Quote:
Originally Posted by dkmech
All i'm saying is that people have the right ( it's a free country, well nearly ) to smoke if they wish, ok i don't smoke but i'm not going to condemn those that do, and i don't think it's fair to Ban them from smoking in Public, what next after youv'e banned smoking? your still breathing in fumes from cars and factories, i should imagine you breathe more of those fumes than fag smoke
I don't really care where people smoke as long as they keep their fags out of my house and car
That depends on whether you like the concept of the nanny state. Personally I believe in freedom of choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by dkmech
I suppose, given that we live in a democracy, and apparently 75% or more of the population support a total ban, that I can't get too upset about this- there are far more serious ways in which this government is trying to take away our freedoms. I also think it's fine to ban smoking in cafes and restaurants. However, I think banning smoking in pubs and clubs is mindless killjoyism. If (as is repeatedly claimed) lots of people avoid going to pubs because they hate smoke, why are there not more smoke free pubs? If non-smoking pubs took more money, then the big pub chains (like Weatherspoons, Yates etc.) would have made all their pubs smoke-free long ago. They're only answerable to shareholders, and it's their duty to make as much money as possible. The fact that they haven't speaks volumes IMO.
As for protectng pub workers- again a total non-argument. If you don't want to beathe secondhand smoke, don't work in a pub, it's as simple as that. I know that if you're on JSA you're not supposed to turn down job offers but there is no way that they would be able to force somebody to work in a pub.
Finally, when I gave up smoking, I found that I ended up drinking a lot more. My usual routine of drink, drag, drink, drag etc. turned into drink, drink, drink, drink.....just the job to solve the problem of drunken disorder eh?
fact is though, that pub work is all the work a LOT of people can get, and they might temporarily consider the risk worthwhile, but i know ltos of people who have suffered health problems due to 2nd hand smoke (not serious) and there are lots of documented cases of people dying. asbestos is banned because its dangerous, why shouldnt tobacco smoke be the same?
Well, go on the dole then. I have been for the last three months and it's not so bad. Lots of jobs have some element of danger- I personally wouldn't work as a doorman for example. Fine, that's my choice, I'm pretty certain that I wouldn't get my JSA taken away as a result.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5lab
Tobacco if it was "discovered" today would probably be banned due to all the problems it creates, but because its been around for years and is a good source of taxation I'm sure that the powers that be would not ban it outright just yet :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 5lab
I'll admit it, I smoke - see there, that wasn't so hard but I don't smoke when having meals with friends and when I'm out at the pub I go outside into the heated "patio" area for a smoke or two (plus theres more girls there :D)
Personally, I cannot see how nightclubs are going to cater for this. Are they going to allow all the clubbers that smoke free-flowing access in and out of the club when they need their nicotine fix, which they need more after a few shandies or they just going to do a hardline stance and then you'll get some smart-arse wasting more taxpayers money by whinging to the European court of human rights.
Surely if the goverment was really serious about getting people to stop smoking they would make cigerettes illegal......but that isn't going to happen as they have a vested interest, ie the revenue from the taxes on cigerettes, whats really needed is proper funding and help for people who choose to quit, as an example housem8 was diagnosed with cancer and decided he wanted to quit smoking and rang the number advertised in the adverts on tv/in the media and was told sorry cant fit you in for 3 months. As Rave says if the non-smoking pubs are the goldmines they are proported to be all the big chains pubs would be non-smoking, I am a smoker, but don't frequent pubs that often but going anywhere I'm not allowed to smoke dose not bother me, I just don't smoke, the fact choice and freedoms are taken away does though.....my fear is whats next.
Curly
No because smokers are drug addicts, as such their judgement is impeded, they will refuse out right to join the group to a non-smoking pub, using emotive tactics to get what they want like a small child. And when you do, as a group go to a non smoking pub, the two or three smokers moan endlessly about it, so the overall fun is decreased.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rave
Hopefully this way, they wont moan about it quite so endlessly.
Theres an intresting spin off the prisoner dilema, make one of them a drug addict, or like in the film das experment, someone lactose intolerant.
I must say, I am a little sick of the "clothes smelling of smoke argument" I get the feeling that this is actualy what most non smokers are bothered about rather than the heath problems. If they were that worried about health I dont suppose they would be drinking anyway as lets face it, booze is a drug, it causes violence directly and liver problems yet that is still acceptable?
I dont understand the problem with "smelling of smoke" I know the first thing I do when I get home after a night out is... GET BLOODY UNDRESSED AND CRASH OUT IN BED!
what do you do the first thing next morning? oh yeah.. take a shower...
When you go out, you dance, you sweat you will get somthing spilt on you. Even resting on a bar is usualy enough to soak your sleeve. So smoke or no smoke your gonna stink anyway, its a crap argument.
The heath problems I can agree with, I think its very rude to smoke while people eat and I would never do it, further I dont have a problem smoking in a designated area and keeping the smoke to a minimum. Any smoke you inhale in a bar for a few hours a week is really not gonna cause you any more of a problem than living in a city with car fumes. I read up on it and apparently you have a 25% increased chance of lung disease if you live with a partner that smokes. That study was done over 30 years. I think the chances that your gonna develop lung cancer from standing in a bar for a few hours a week are not very high tbh and could be reduced further by simple compromise on this issue such as mandating ventilation and having designated areas.
Also, DK, if your friends are forcing you to a smoking pub then I say its your choice and if your too weak to stand up and insist you go somewhere smoke free then thats your choice and your problem, it shouldnt be legislated for.
Also on a side note I find the timing very interesting, the day after the ID cards scrapes through this was tabled in, odd that isnt it?
The really controversial issue is being covered up by this.
The smelling of smoke thing is a crap arguement, but the health one isn't. Roy Castle anyone? Entertainer for years working in smoky clubs, dies of the form of lung cancer you get from smoking. Never smoked in his life! A ban is good, for health reasons mainly, but also that is will enhance the experience of those of us that don't smoke.
... and most of the people *I* know don't smoke. I don't think we can use either of us as a reference point.Quote:
Originally Posted by G4Z
Why should the smokers dictate where non smokers go by default?Quote:
Originally Posted by G4Z
Quote:
Originally Posted by G4Z
I admit that I haven't seen this done in the UK, but I've been to clubs elsewhere (Asia) and some places would just put a stamp on your hand/arm. Then you are good to go in and out for the remainer of the night. Not that hard to implement really, and you can do the same thing with tickets too (not as ideal, since people could potentially try to sell the tickets if they are not coming back). There are work around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee @ SCAN
Subtle difference: when someone drink, he is only killing his/her own liver (amongst other organs). Well, unless s/he start to get violent and start attacking others anyway. Honestly, I don't care if people want to abuse their health... but without harming the folks around thanks. Oh yea, for that reason, I am also totally against drink driving.Quote:
Originally Posted by G4Z
And calling booze a drug is kinda stretching it. It is not nearly as addictive as cigarette. The drinking culture here may dictate some folks to drink a lot, and often... But unless I am an exception to the rule (pretty sure I am not), I can easily spend months without a drop of alcohol in my diet. This normally happens when I am busy. I don't think smokers typically smoke less when they have pressure/more load than usual right? (I think its the other way round actually).
I guess its pretty clear where I stand ;)
[smoke all you want, but not in public area - until they invent some kind of private bubble to trap all the smoke around you and only you]
[drink all you want, but don't go picking fights/running over people]
PS: I think that the "clothes smelling of smoke argument", might weight more for some than others. I do find the smell really nasty. But if they ever make cigarette with the same smell/result for smokers as the current ones, WITHOUT the effect of damaging the health of everyone else breathing it... I am all for keeping things as they are now.
tell that to an alchoholic......drink does and can become addictive, this is comming from someone who watched his dad die from drinking/alchohol abbuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by TooNice
sorry for going off topic, Curly
once again whiney ass non-smokers get exactly what they want with blatant disregard for 30% of the population, personally im waiting for the no drinking in pubs law to come in, then we can all really let go and have fun when we go out.
And I have a right not to breathe in carbon monoxide when I walk through a town center, you don't see me pulling you out of your car and beating you though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big RICHARD
may i ask why you people smoke?
and of those of you that do, do you want to give up?
Because I enjoy it, no not really I have no reason to at the moment.
I was the same - no amount of bullying , price hikes , being made to be a social pariah etc. would stop or deter me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knoxville
You have to want to give up - without that desire you wont do it.
If you do ever want to , PM me and I'll send you a copy of the Allen Carr book - worked wonders for me.
Point taken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Curly
I don't have time at this very moment to search in as much depth as I would like on alcohol/tabacco addiction. So a quick quote from Wikipedia (I know, not the de-facto source of information, but feel free to find sources that dis-prove it if it isn't the case).
That suggest that 'non alcoholics' are unlikely to be physically addicted (I rule out society/drinking culture here) in their lifetime. 'Alcoholics' on the other hand must stay at all cost away from alcohol once they are identified as such. I have no idea what is the % of alcoholics & non alcoholics for a normal population, but is it reasonable for me to assume that non alcoholics outnumbers alcoholics? I'll leave this one in the air, but I'd assume so, otherwise the modern society would probably not be as it is now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
But it seems that no one, or only a tiny small minority of the population is immune to the addictiveness of nicotine.
So I'll take back what I said about alcohol not being addictive, but unless reliable sources states otherwise, it would appear that relatively speaking, alcohol is less addictive than cigarette.
Putting in another question into this debate... what counts as addiction? How does one define it? Does someone who gave up smoking having a fag every so often count as addiction and to what extent is the same with alcohol, is having a glass or two of wine with each meal an addiction? Or is the level the commonly accepted tolerance & dependance requirements? Just some thoughts!
We live in a democracy and the majority wanted this law to be passed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knoxville
How many smokers are being dragged out of the pub and beaten by non smokers? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Knoxville
The risk to health of driving is deemed accepatible.Quote:
Originally Posted by G4Z
I have never heard of 'passive internal combustion'.
The majority? I don't remember it being put to a public vote. As for smokers being dragged out of pubs, we're not being dragged or beaten, just forced out and being made to pay £2.5k.
By whom? who decides its ok to get killed by cars and not cigarettes? gotta love the double standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big RICHARD
Big Richard, I feel I need to correct you there, this is not a democracy its a 2 party sham of a democracy, there was no opposition to this bill as lets face it the 30% of smokers in this country are not represented in parliment.
Something like this should have been a refferndum because it directy affects a large majority.
We have representatives to do our bidding for us. They are called MPs. They voted for this law to be passed. It was passed, stop whining about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knoxville
But you want to drag people out of their cars and beat them in the middle of town?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knoxville
30% is NOT a majority. Had it gone to a public vote it would still have been passed.Quote:
Originally Posted by G4Z
By our representatives. Don't like it? Vote for someone else next time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knoxville
Maybe, maybe not, perhaps some non-smokers don't mind people smoking near them :surprised:Quote:
Originally Posted by Big RICHARD
As for it being voted for by our representatives, no-one in government today represents me, thats why I refuse to vote, politicians are great at keeping old people happy, and the odd home owner in they're mid thirties, but not anyone under 25.
and yeah, why not I may start pulling people out of cars and beating them for being so inconsiderate, maybe then they'll learn :rolleyes:
Guess what? I've never voted Labour in my life, so cheers for that helpful advice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big RICHARD
If car smoke was anywhere near the density of a typical boozer's cigerette smoke you'd drop dead rather quickly. It's not because you generally (unless you're quite depressed) don't run a car in a enclosed space. Silly analogy so let's just drop it m'kay? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Knoxville
As to who decides - well, that would be your government (who we voted in) and your mp's (who we voted in) who are there to represent your interests in the house of commons. Shocking. Not.
This whole debate is rather moot - none of the arguements given by those opposed to the ban hold any water with me (and I have smoked) especially the people who whinge about 'choice'. Choice is only viable when you're not harming other people by your actions, which unfortunately you are when you smoke and others have no choice but to inhale it. That fact is irrefutable, and that's why we must give _choice_ to those who _don't_ want to smoke. A smoker can always pop out for a sly one - as has been the practice in many workplaces for many years now - doing no harm to anyone but himself (his choice).
So, it'll happen, and it'll have to happen without expceptions to provide a level playing field for all pubs/clubs (who would hate a partial ban as it'd destroy business). We know already from our surrounding countries that a ban does no harm to industry, it certainly does no harm to health - so what's the debate? When and how I think.
Guess what? Plenty of others did. Get over it. I've never voted for them either FYI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rave
And in case you didn't notice, Labour wanted a partial ban, but MP's had a free vote and passed the complete ban by a huge majority. That is real democracy, rather than the party wranglings we usually see. The majority of people, very sensibly, don't smoke and therefore the opinion polls that showed 70% in favour of a complete ban is probably very representative. Giving up smoking is good for you, having worked as a doctor now for nearly 5 years you come to appreciate the pain and misery it causes in later life. My last 6 months working in a hospice has made sure I never smoke again.
LOL I've never heard so much rubbish in my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
I go to NON-SMOKING venues with my friends all the time happily as my housemate has a bad case of asthma. I never EVER use any secondary tactics like throwing rattles out of the pram to get them to go to a place where smoking is allowed.
If I need a nicotine fix I can nip outside while on the mobile, killing 2 birds with one stone :)
Well said tbhQuote:
Originally Posted by Lee @ SCAN
I would also agree with Lee on this one as my girlfriend doesnt smoke and when we go out to pubs etc I never go in smoking areas with her.
Also as she has just recently given birth I now dont smoke in the house as I dont want the child and her suffering due to my habits
Congratulations! i wish there were more people that were as considerate as this :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlh
Awww you Scan guys are so sweet :D
The main reason I'm all for the smoking ban is pretty selfish. I ahte coming home from the pub smelling of smoke (hair and clothes)...
Having said that, the smoking ban ain't gonna make my booze-breath get any better! :)
As I live in Scotland, the ban comes in on 26th March... so all you down in England and Wales should look to the North to see how the ban affects us! You might get the smokers going on "Smoking weekends" down to pubs and clubs in Newcastle or something!
personally I think children should be banned from all restaurants and pubs.Quote:
Originally Posted by shelley bda
on the smoking front - I've been working hard for the last 6 months to give up smoking, and as far as I can tell, I've succeeded.
banning smoking in pubs is a good thing, but allowing people to smoke and drink outside in the rain is a better idea - fine - if you want to smoke, do it elsewhere.
it works well in NZ, apparently works well in Ireland - and has the net effect of forcing people to reduce and rethink the habit.
the whole US system is bizarre and unworkable - i was at a pub in SF last year where they had an outside sectioned off area for smokers, but it turns out they weren't licensed to allow drinking in the beer garden after 5pm, the bar was fined for allowing drinking
Some interesting arguments here.
Clothes and hair - I am not that bothered (but i would prefer if they didnt smell). Breathing stinky smoke into my lungs in the pub is another matter.
Cars. I am ALL FOR BANNING CARS in restaurants and pubs. If there is ever a public vote send me a PM and I will make sure I vote to ban them.
On a slightly serious note - cars and other vehicles perform a service. People are "addicted" to cars, true. But there are many many things that have to be transported by road. You and your lovely cigarets included.
Jobs - seriously - don't give me that thing about rather staying on the dole than working in a smoky pub. Many people want to get a job. Many people moan about people who don't get a job and have to be supported by the government. So how about government giving people an insentive to work? Like making their work environment not full of poisonous smoke? Why, wouldn't you all be for it? If it was an industrial situation and fumes from some industrial process were filling the room to an extent that it does in some pubs I am sure the company would get sued/fined/closed etc. Just because this smoke gives an addict a kick doesn't make it right.
Whoever mentioned their asthma suffering friend. If your friend suffers from asthma its alright to be considerate to her and not smoke, but any other non smoker is fair game? Thats an interesting point. If as someone said you can go out and have a smoke while on mobile - then why don't you just do that anyway when the ban comes?
Less smoking more drinking argument - if you don't have the willpower or enough sense to drink responsibly - then what it matters to you what poison you use to kill yourself? But would you please kindly not shove that poison down my nose and throat? Thanks. Oh and btw - moderate quantities of red wine are good for you. Try that instead and switch to juice when you had enough.
The whole representation thing. Who here thinks that all of the MPs are nonsmokers. These are people whose age is generally higher than the average here I am guessing, raised before the widespread understanding of smoking's dangers. I am sure enough of them smoke to be representative of the generall population.
"my friends dont mind going to smoky places with me". Bull****. Don't ask them "can we go to a smoking place if you dont mind". Ask them this: "with everything else being equal - would you rather be in a smoky place or non-smoking place? and don't spare my feelings". If people at my table in a pub smoke - i won't stop them. Would I rather they didn't? Hell yes!
The nanny state? Its not outright ban. You are still welcome to smoke outside where it is not impossible for anyone near you to walk away far enough to be outside of your foul smelling area of effect. If smokers really are addicts maybe those without their judgement being fogged by the smoke should make a decision that would benefit the majority of the population and hopefully the smokers themselves, those who would like to quit anyway.
I was very unsure about the ban to start with, but the arguments a lot of the smokers give just make me feel more and more sure in my support for it.
Smokers - please realise that its not a sensible way to rebell against oppressive society. Its like protesting against something by harming yourself. None of us want to oppress you or persecute you. We would all much rather you quit, had a healthier life and didn't make others suffer too. And I am sure every nonsmoking friend of yours, if they are indeed a friend, would be happy to help you quit in any way they can.
Anyone complaining about lack of representation should get in touch with their MP. Regardless of whether you voted for them or not, they are representing the views of their constituents, especially in the case of a free vote as this one was. You can ask how your MP voted (and you can probably find out online too) and let them know your views. If your MP doesn't know your views then how can you expect them to represent you? If they disagree with your views, vote for someone who agrees. If you can't find any candidates that agree with your views, become a candidate yourself - if enough other people agree with you you will get elected and then you can use your vote in the commons.
now im a full time smoker....
you see this is where i LOVE the government especially Labour.......
They bring up Ani smoking campaigns saying "smoking Kills" and "Dont Stop Giving Up" etc...
and they place full bans on bars and Pubs....
when at the end of the day-their gonna damage themselves...
i'l ltell you why...
In 2002- i could get a 25g of Tobacco for £4.15-£4.25 at least in a shop
Now in 2006- tobacco prices are around £5.00+ in a shop for a 25g.... thats due to the Yearly budget.....
Now this bit confuses me- if the government hates smokers- why is it that at least 25% of the price of tobacco goes to the government.....?? this is the reason why Tobacco products Wont be banned ;)
Or the fact that the general public hates smokers? - The general public hates smokers cos they "it's disgusting,it tastes and smells horrid" -But it's like anything else in life- every human being IS addicted to at least ONE drug in their life- it can be any type of drug from Nicotine to caffinee to Fat and carbohydrates........ we're all in the same baot...
So why do us smokers get treated differently?
I'll tell you why- because of the Anti smoking campaigns plastered all over the UK from the TV to radio hell even to magazines-this passes on to the the average UK Joe Blogsg thats its bad to smoke....
When infact- The most worst chemical in the world is Alcohol....... Maybe The Government shoudl think what their doing and if this is how their handling smoking -how are they gonna handle Alcoholism and the damm right morons who ruin a ncie night out -when they only make it worse [the 24 Hour licensing act]....
Conspiracy over LOL
Right, theres been a fair few posts and quite frankly I can't be bothered to quote and reply to you all individually. First off, your clothes and hair smell of smoke? do you people never wash or change your clothes? you'll smell of alot more than smoke of you don't start lemme tell you, a lame excuse if ever I heard one, if thats all you have to say I'm suprised you have anyone willing to sit in a pub with you anyway.
Representation, I wasn't just talking about representation of smokers but ok, the people that represent us are older, so obviously they know more about life than we do correct? (I can smell something, can you?) and obviously they know what the younger generation want and don't want? (because they're so old and knowledgable? It really is starting to smell now) Perhaps something that affects nearly ever person in the country and is of such importance should have been put to a public vote, afterall its us it affects slightly more than most MP's who've never seen a haze of smoke like the one over the pool table in the nags head?
People not minding smoking in pubs? There are a helluva lot more than you think, a wetherspoons just down the road from me has recently opened and a few of my non smoking mates really hate the way conversations have to be split up because you can't smoke there and would far rather go to a smokier pub and enjoy a better atmosphere and night out.
Cars and vehicles perform a service? most smokers do aswell, we actually manage to hold down jobs despite our "harrowing" addiction and would be a damn sight worse at them if we didn't smoke, you'll also find that if you sit in a garage next to me while I smoke a deck of twenty you won't be nearly as dead as you would be if you left your car running.
You wanna send every smoker out in the cold and the rain thats fine, im sure you'll have no complaints when you catch all manner of colds/coughs/virus's off them because theres not a seperate room or ventilated area where they can smoke.
Put shortly I don't expect to be able to walk through a maternity ward puffing on a cuban cigar, nor do I expect to be able to smoke 20 Marlbro Red's in a restaurant, but I would like just a few bars where I can sit down in the warm and enjoy a smoke with my pint and I don't think its much to ask.
Oh and the next one of you to talk about smokers as if we're heroin addicts is gonna get a sleeve of 200 Ronson Full Tar rammed up a certain puckered orifice. Just because I enjoy a cigarette does not mean I deserve to be lookd down upon or treated with contempt.
Smokers perform a service. Smoking doesn't. They would perform the service just as well if they didn't smoke (we will discount any arguments that if they aren't smoking they are feeling bad and cant work properly). Please don't trivialise your argument by talking rubbish.
Reason I brought age of MPs up was because I think there is a good chance of them to have sufficient amount of smokers. Not because they are wiser or more experienced.
Your mates may prefer unsplit conversations in a smoky pub, but they would still prefer unsplit conversations in a non-smoky pub if you gave up smoking and gave them a chance.
I don't want to send every smoker in the cold. I would much rather they gave up smoking, stayed in, enjoyed the conversation and were all the healthier for it.
Car in a garage doing more harm with engine running. How is it an either or situation? It's never either I smoke or the car does. If the car needs to run in a garage - first of all there should be sufficient ventilation (see my point about industrial practices) and secondly your choice to smoke or not is independent of the car running or not and any smoke you produce will be in addition to it.
I am all for ecologically clean modes of transport. Don't try to divert the topic to things which are irrelevant to the debate.
Why not take an objective look at this habbit without comparing to what else it is that other people may be doing wrong. And think for yourself, not the person next to you (although if your partner doesnt smoke you can think about their feelings too) - what are the benefits of smoking for you, what are the drawbacks, and can anything be done to get the same benefits in some other nondestructive way.
Smoking is a disgusting, addictive habit. Should be banned completely, and logic dictates that eventually it probably will be. Along with caffine, sugar, and alcohol (amongst others). Mega City One will by then exist and we'll all be held directly responsible for our action by Judges.
However, when I smoked (for about seven years) I always said that I'd love a ban 'cause it'd help me give up. Fortunately I had a son four years ago, and that helped me quit very quickly indeed.
Smokers, you're right, it's all about an infringement of your personal freedom, but if you're stupid enough to be killing yourself with smoke and harming people around you, then you're obviously not responsible enough to have the personal freedom you currently possess and it should all be taken away from you. You can complain all you like, but the ban will go through, will never be revoked, and there's nothing you can do about it but b1tch, and b1tch, and b1tch...
:D
You put someone that smokes 20 a day on a customer services desk in tesco for 6 hours, see how well they do they're job then, its hardly a trivial argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by dkmech
You bat away many of my points by saying that it would all be easier if every smoker just gave up, your right, but I and millions of others enjoy it (not are addicted to it, enjoy it) if you don't enjoy it chances are you've quit already despite the addiction as paying 5 quid for a pack of something you don't enjoy is something not very many people would do.
Point is my basic human right to smoke should be observed just like the rights of non smokers, we should be given the oppurtunity to enjoy a trip down our local wether we smoke or not, yes smoking is harmful to those that don't smoke aswell as those that do, but so long as the pub is filled only with people that understand and accept the risk while also having the choice to drink elsewhere in a smoke free environment I see no problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibm
Something non-smokers have been doing for years, except they get laws passed and we loose more and more priveliges. Oh and just for calling me stupid and irresponsible im gonna have to insert half a kilo of golden virgina into your rectal cavity aswell as the usual carton of 200, is 2pm good for you?
Let me get right to the point........
Isnt this abit censorship ish?
that we all should be able to do wtf we want under the law?
aint we able to be free to destory our lifes slowly?
You see- Behind the smokers are humans- for whatever reason they take up the drug -mine was uncontrollable eating and stress
If they take the right away to public place- i dont mind- but it'll come to this...
You cant smoke in your own house-cos thats what it'll bowl down to within the years to come...
Yeh sure smoking aint doin us good we already know that i wouldnt be surprised that we see the "Rotting Teeth" method of scarying people to quit smoking....... [the US use it instead of having big bold letter on the packet that everyone ignores...]
Now answer me this question...
If Nicotine ISNT a drug- what is it?
If Caffinee ISNT a drug-what is it?
If you can give me a Intellectual answer that either is NOT a drug then i'll let u off other than that- Liek every single thing we eat,touch smell and inhale- is all Chemical.....
cos thats all a drug is- A Chemical- a part of that compound stimalates us liek with Fat,Sugar and other food chemical based drug.....
If you can tell me that you've NEVER in your life been addicted to at least one chemical then theres something wrong with your body.....
Quote=dkmech
They would perform the service just as well if they didn't smoke (we will discount any arguments that if they aren't smoking they are feeling bad and cant work properly).
How can this be then if their Aint any smokers?
How can NHS Smoking Cessation carry on being funded if their aint any smokers...?
Also people need to realise especially in todays Society that everythign we do slowly kills us- Drinking regularly can cause major Heart & kidney problems,too much daily intake or sugar can cause diabetes,too much fat can cause us obese,too much pollution [from factories] and Smog is bad for our lungs,too much stress from work and family factors causes Heart problems,too much TV or DVD or PC usage causes eyesight problems,
My opinion is...
Too much of everything these days Kills us slowly...... Without no shadow of a doubt....
I'm not saying Smoking is a good thing-but if your gonna dispute that Smoking aint good for your health then come to realise that everything we do too much of in life hurts us
I have a solution for this. We have special centres which will employ heavy smokers to smoke all day and use, unsuccessfully as we don't want to run out of this last resource of smokers, the NHS Smoking Cessation services to keep them in the job. Or maybe if people stop smoking the resources dedicated to helping them do that could be used to help people cope with stress or eating disorders or whatever else people need help with.Quote:
Originally Posted by vincent
Reading some arguments here it seems that life is a race to do bad things to your body. And that smoking is a convenient way to limit your life-span and should be encouraged. If someone drinks too much coffee maybe they should try to cut down if they want to live longer. Why point at someone who is addicted to coffee as an excuse for smoking?
Is banning smoking (not smokers) in pubs and restaraunts a good thing? I don't know. Non-smokers will enjoy it. Smokers won't. Would it be better if all smokers quit? Yes. For everyone. Will this ban help? It will probably help some people. Particularly those who look at it in a positive way and try to use it to their advantage.