Smoking ban in England

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Whats next, the smell of burger is irritating me? Ban all burger outlets, or have one section with neutral smelling burger and one section with traditional smelling? The person next door has a strong body oudeur and stinks, must he go now to a stinking section? Or maybe i am allergic to Gucci perfume, what then?

 

Can't say that i've ever heard of people dying from passive burger smells Viggen, but i will agree on bad B.O., people with bad hygene problems should be banned from ever leaving their houses!

 

Fast Food kills more people then then smoking, alcohol kills more people den smoking, weapons kill more people then smoking

 

Do you have any evidence of this?

 

Why is it so difficult to make a smokers only place/pubs/restaurants and leave us alone and you others can all die healthy... ;-)

 

I'm all for that, although i'm a big fan of banning smoking in public places i do think it's pretty harsh making you guys go outside to enjoy a fag, so yes , smokers only pubs would be a good idea, leave you guys to cough and splutter to your hearts content :pimp:

[WotWotius]

If the smoking ban is enforced, many of the bars I go to will, pure and simply, lose their character. I often go to bars crammed with old men smoking pipes because: a) I like the ales; and I love the smell of pipe smoke. The jazz bar that I go to will additionally be affected - how can one enjoy the delights of live jazz without the sight of pretentiously dressed students smoking cheap roll-ups? And what is the point of going to an underground music venue (i.e. punk clubs) without being presented with a vast cloud of smoke?

 

I myself do not smoke (and never intend to for that matter), but smoking just looks right in a lot of places. The whole point of going to a pub is to unintentionally inflict damage onto one's body - alcohol, not tobacco, it more likely to harm anybody in a bar.

 

However, I do agree that smoking in 'child friendly' establishments, as well as in those that serve food, should be discouraged.

Edited December 2, 2006 by WotWotius

[M. Porcius Cato]

Now, do it on your own private property all you want...but I like my beer, scotch, and other yum-yums smoke free, thanks.

 

But a bar, a jazz club, a restaurant--they ARE private property. If I want to make my house or my club smoking only--that's none of your business. If you don't want to eat at my restaurant because I want Viggen to enjoy a good smoke afterwards, take your business elsewhere. But to use compulsion to outlaw my contracts with Viggen so that you can enjoy MY restaurant on YOUR terms--that's unjust.

 

I really wonder where all this will lead. Gaius Maximus has already let the logic of the smoking ban lead him to endorse my hypothetical ban on small children and to endorse Viggen's hypothetical ban on bad smells. The Augusta suggested that the state really go for it and ban all tobacco products. Does no one recall the last time the health Nazis won their big victory of banning alcohol in the US? The result was a boon to organized crime, and no reduction in drinking. In fact, in many cities, the number of drinking establishments INCREASED after the ban on booze.

 

The dangerous hypocrisy here isn't the trivial matter of the state restricting a product they tax--it's that people fight for their own freedom like mad, but they have no compunction whatever about taking freedoms from their neighbors. It's shameful really.

[The Augusta]

If you don't want to smell like an ashtray, go to a non-smoking bar.

 

Unfortunatley there are no non-smoking bars in this country or at least non that i know of or would bother to frequent but there will be soon

 

Erm... there are quite a few in Manchester. And there's even one in Stockport! I had to laugh when I was in New York in 2001. In my programme from the Met there was an advert for a bar in Manhattan that actually had a huge advert saying 'Smoking allowed'!

 

I have two small children and take them to restaurants all the time, most of the time they are well behaved but on the odd occassion they can be right little buggers so yes what the hell ban the little blighters or at least make them sit outside until the grown ups have had a nice peaceful evening

 

Edit- but i wouldn't want them sitting there breathing in other peoples smoke either, children and passive smoke- not a good mix

 

I'm one of those really horrible women. I love my own kids but hate everybody else's!

 

 

I'm all for that, although i'm a big fan of banning smoking in public places i do think it's pretty harsh making you guys go outside to enjoy a fag, so yes , smokers only pubs would be a good idea, leave you guys to cough and splutter to your hearts content :pimp:

 

Yes, we're becoming a persecuted minority. Let's promote awareness of our plight! I'm phoning Bob Geldof right now!

 

For the moment - I'm nipping out for a fag.

[Ursus]

I have some sympathy for those who pointed out the hypocrisy of the government's war against nicotine. I remember sitting through endless government subsidized lectures in school on the dangers of smoking. And yet the government gives subsidies to tobacco farmers in North Carolina. What a charade.

 

And yet ... I am a non smoker and have zero tolerance for people and their chemical addictions. I consider it weakness. I am supervisor/trainer for my company, and my staff/new hires are always begging for extra smoke breaks to cope with the stress of my training classes. I feel like telling them they are one step removed from being pathetic crack addicts, but that would probably get me fired.

[Viggen]

@GPM

Do you have any evidence of this?

 

Well i dont have any numbers at hand right now, but how many people die on alcohol related accidents on the road vs. smoking while on the road? If you insist i will try to get the academic figures if available online...

 

Yup Ursus, working and smoking breaks is an issue i agree with you. In our company we have dealt with it pretty simple, there is a smoking room and if you want to go for a smoke (go as often as you like) you have to enter your electronic key to get in, that triggers the time stamp and you are officially on a break, once you leave the room you are booked in the system and you are working again. On average a non smoker has to work about 2 hours per week less because of fewer breaks. I feel a fair solution for everyone, if you want to smoke during work, well you pay for it with your time...

 

Dont get me wrong, people that smoke near childrens or light up a cigarette in public next to a non smoker without even bother to ask if he minds i dont have symphaty, but what is a public place? A bar? My dingy on the lake when i fish, my car while i am driving on the road?

Finally the biggest thing that makes me want to beat these people with an asparagus stalk is this, these were the same people that fought for free speech, no vietnam, right to smoke weed, and other things and now they are turning around and saying don't smoke because of a medical study.....funded by the government? Holy *****! The hipocrites have taken over....hmmm...hippies=hipocrites....kind of fits, same first three letters.

 

In conclusion, get a life and let people do what they want. No more smoking bans, no more fat-free, non-dairy, low-carbs, protein-free, carb-friendly, lactose-free, bullsh*t please. Let everyone do as they please with their bodies...because the fact is, if you have something to live for, no disease on the planet will be able to stop you. Smoking is not stronger than that, nothing is stronger than that....well except maybe running into a brick wall doing 120mph, but you get my point.

 

The final word is this folks, you don't like what someone is doing, great, shut the hell up, don't do it yourself, and don't worry about it. Smoking is going to happen, just like weed, alcohol, and Britney Spears - even though we might not like what other people do, we have no right to influence them or make descisions for them.

[CiceroD]

And yet ... I am a non smoker and have zero tolerance for people and their chemical addictions. I consider it weakness. I am supervisor/trainer for my company, and my staff/new hires are always begging for extra smoke breaks to cope with the stress of my training classes. I feel like telling them they are one step removed from being pathetic crack addicts, but that would probably get me fired.

 

I agree with you there!

 

I had to drive my roomate last year to the store and back at any hour of the day or night just because he couldn't ration his cigarettes and forgot his ID at home!

 

Then again I didnt want to deal with him without Nicotine!!!

[Princeps]

I had a discussion about smoking in public on another forum a few days ago. I think it's a tad hypocritical to ban smoking in public but still allow all of the other nasty stuff that adversely affects the health of others (driving being a major thing).

 

As an ex-smoker that occasionally relapses, I am all in favour of this ban. It is usually on a night of drinking that my willpower crumbles and I buy a packet. Doesn't happen too often these days, but hopefully it won't happen again after July.

[docoflove1974]

If the smoking ban is enforced, many of the bars I go to will, pure and simply, lose their character. I often go to bars crammed with old men smoking pipes because: a) I like the ales; and I love the smell of pipe smoke. The jazz bar that I go to will additionally be affected - how can one enjoy the delights of live jazz without the sight of pretentiously dressed students smoking cheap roll-ups? And what is the point of going to an underground music venue (i.e. punk clubs) without being presented with a vast cloud of smoke?

 

If this statement is made tounge-in-cheek, hehe.

 

If not...it's utter bullpucky, and is the constant 'excuse' used by bar and restaurant owners. This was a very common response in Austin when the issue was being debated--a very large portion of the tourist money in Austin comes from the entertainment 'district', as every bar, pub, and hole-in-the-wall has a stage of some sort for musicians. So the city of Austin made a deal: if you want to have smoking at your establishment, you can either make it a "smoking bar/restaurant" (and pay for permits), or have a seperate smokers-only room with ventilation (again, more permits). Turns out that most pub/bar/restaurant owners, when they asked their regular patrons, didn't find much resistance to being smoke-free...oh, there was some, to be sure, but voters and people-on-the-street sided with being smoke-free. And this is deep into smokers-paradise, or so they say...not quite Tobacco Row, but of the same persuasion.

 

As for the comments regarding smoking vs. drinking and fast food...hey, in some places in the States there are cities passing "trans-fat free" ordinances, so it's a start. Not saying that it'll work, but it's a start. Drinking? Bartenders are constantly being mussed about by the Alcohol and Beverage Coucils of the individual states for not taking someone's keys away...so no doubt there needs to be more restrictions. But what can you do?

 

Public vs. private establishment...private is meant to be a home or dwelling (apartment, condo, house, etc.), and public is meant to be of commercial or retail use. So, a pub/restaurant/bar is public, not private. A privately-run business, yes, but not a private establishment.

[WotWotius]

If the smoking ban is enforced, many of the bars I go to will, pure and simply, lose their character. I often go to bars crammed with old men smoking pipes because: a) I like the ales; and I love the smell of pipe smoke. The jazz bar that I go to will additionally be affected - how can one enjoy the delights of live jazz without the sight of pretentiously dressed students smoking cheap roll-ups? And what is the point of going to an underground music venue (i.e. punk clubs) without being presented with a vast cloud of smoke?

 

If this statement is made tounge-in-cheek, hehe.

 

Yes, I was being facetious, but I do love the smell of pipe smoke.

[Moonlapse]

$0.02 --> There's a very fine line here. For instance, I enjoy bowling as much as the next person, but I hate having a sore throat or a cough the next day from sitting in a smokey bowling alley for several hours. If there was such a thing as a smokeless bowling alley, I would go there. I also value individual rights, especially property rights. However, I do feel an aversion to giving superior individual rights to non-individual entities such as corporations. Ultimately, I agree with MPC.

[Primus Pilus]

Any such ban on the rights of individuals or dictation of rules for privately owned establishments is simply ludicrous. Supporters of such tyranny should be ashamed.

 

(Coming from an ex-smoker who is largely indifferent to the habit of others).

[docoflove1974]

Yes, I was being facetious, but I do love the smell of pipe smoke.

 

Whew...for a second I thought you were being serious about your earlier comment...I've heard it quite often from others!

[M. Porcius Cato]

Whether WW was being facetious or not, I know of several establishments--late night coffee shops, cigar and martini jazz clubs, even neighborhood taverns--that were completely changed after the ban on smoking. When the smoking went out, the joints started closing earlier in the evening--no more 3A/coffee-and-nicotine fueled impromptu philosophy symposia -- they were less busy overall, and during daylight hours they started to get invaded by those armored-infant-vehicles that suburbanites like to carry in their oversized SUVs (shudder). Plus, you couldn't smoke in those places any longer!

 

You might like to think that privately-owned property that is open to public admittance somehow becomes public property, but it's not. If I own a restaurant, it's just as much my private property as anything else I own. These smoking bans use government power to reduce the value of private property--without compensation -- and they should be regarded as the type of confiscation that (in the US anyway) is banned by the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.

[CiceroD]

I, for one, think that it all hangs on whether or not second hand smoke is as bad as they say it is. As I understand it hasn't caused a health crisis so lay off the owners of establishments! But I could be wrong.

 

But I'd like for them to stop the truth ads they've been showing in the States.

 

with very few exceptions they are extremelyannoying.

what does shaving hairy backs have to do with smoking and lung cancer?