Smoking ban in England

[Lost_Warrior]

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.

 

I'm convinced that second-hand smoke has affected me adversely because I grew up in a house with a LOT of cigarrette smoke. I mean, there was a perpetual blue cloud in the living room of my house. I could not get away from it. Now I can't stand to be around cigarrette smoke, because it burns my throat and nose. I have no problem with pipe smoke or cigars, so I think it's just all the junk that they put in cigs. I think that they ought to get rid of the nasty extras in cigs first of all. (besides, then everyone would smell better.)

 

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? unsure.gif

 

OMG I'm SO glad I am not the only one who didn't understand/hated that commercial. LOL

 

The "this is your brain; this is your brain on drugs" one with the frying pan was kind of cool.

 

I still think that the best antidrug slogan ever would be "Don't Poke Smot. It'll Brain Your Damage."

[Julius Ratus]

I am totally against a smoking ban in bars. My hometown just passed such an ordinance and I find it idiotic. Restaraunts I can see but bars!?!?!? I don't smoke and don't appreciate smoke when I eat, but at the bar I expect smoke, noise, bad light, and after a few drinks I don't care. Furthermore, if they can ban cigarettes, I wish they would ban small children in restaraunts. They annoy me far more than cigarettes do. Besides, I liked there being a smoking section in restaraunts because since prudes don't sit there, there were always open seats for me. Anyway, this is just one more instance of our freedoms being chipped away little by little.

[spittle]

It occurs to me that cannabis is slowly being legalised whilst tobacco is slowly being criminalised.

Will the day arrive when the police arrest people for the tobacco in their joints rather than the hashish?

 

Or, even more bizarely, dealers get arrested for using imperial weights and measures when they sell an undercover copper a half ounce (rather than 14 grams) of the old red Leb!

 

But I do support the ban despite being a smoker. I watched my grandad die of lung cancer and would not want to contribute to anyone developing that. Although my families history of working down coalmines seems to have more to do with resp[iratory illness than smoking....

Edited December 4, 2006 by spittle

[Moonlapse]

Well, prohibiting something always makes it more desirable and valuable. I'm the kind of person that thinks that trying to change people's minds by creating laws is absurd. Not wanting to contribute to someone's disease is much more gratifying when you guide your actions by your own principles. You do it because you respect life, not simply because you are required to. Too many laws like this eliminate the need for anyone to feel anything.

[CiceroD]

It occurs to me that cannabis is slowly being legalised whilst tobacco is slowly being criminalised.

Will the day arrive when the police arrest people for the tobacco in their joints rather than the hashish?

 

Alas perhaps that is true in Britain but not in the U.S.!

 

Mind you Im not a pothead

 

It remains the scourge of God to American law enforcement.

All of this was because of the puritanical zeal of some Government agencies during prohibition.

 

P.S. watching reefer madness is an absolute hoot

[P.Clodius]

Fascism

[Kosmo]

Why they do have to put a ban on smoking? Because even when people can choose between smoking and non-smokings bars they usually choose the smoking ones. If so many people would feel disgusted by staying in smoke and smelling bad, than non-smoking bars, restaurants, clubs etc would be the booming majority and not a rare thing.

Forcing me, either with ban or taxes, to do something or to refrain from something legitimate it's tyranical.

Of course, nobody should be forced to accept others people smoke, but no one should tell adults what to do and to force them on the right way.

I smoke heavily and I try not to disturb others with my smoke, but I have the same right to enjoy myself in a bar like the rest of people.

I agree with the ban on smoke in places where people are forced to stay like workplaces and public transport. In the rest of situations special zones should be created, or at least smoking places.

But to stop me from having a cigarette or a pipe in a place where I'm supposed to have fun it's unfair and takes away the pleasure from everybody. I dislike to drink without smoking so I would just not go to bars anymore.

 

We should organize and create smokers-only bars. At the entrance you must inhale some burning tobacco product. And no kids alowed, of course.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Fascism

 

Yes! The very essence of fascism. State-sponsored propaganda against smokers is already a reality. The ghettoization of smokers has already begun. What next, re-education camps? Signs outside private homes warning neighbors that smokers are present? Prohibition and criminalization?

 

The fact that otherwise liberal-minded and intelligent people can find so many excuses for the naked use of majority power demonstrates what little resistance our culture would provide to more far-reaching fascist reforms. Of course, no one thinks their minority (gays, atheists, "illegals") will be targeted until it actually happens to them--and then it's too late.

 

The whole thing is just sickening.

[P.Clodius]

What's next, "Quit or be euthanized"?

[CiceroD]

What's next, "Quit or be euthanized"?

 

I think you and Cato see slippery slopes where none exist!

 

Yes there is state sponsored propaganda. But there always has been state sponsored propaganda!

It doesnt matter if the message is 'dont smoke kids'

or 'duck and cover'

 

Also the US has far too many illegal drugs to be worring about policing tobacco!

 

I'm a college student. I rarely go three days without someone asking for a smoke!

hardly a minority

 

I think politicians remember Prohibition enough to not deprive nicotine from the masses!

[M. Porcius Cato]

I think you and Cato see slippery slopes where none exist!

 

Really? Libertarians like me used to make a reductio ad absurdum argument that if the state could ban smoking in public places, there was nothing logically stopping them from banning fatty foods too.

 

Yesterday's headline from the New York Times:

New York Bans Most Trans Fats in Restaurants

 

No slippery slope, huh?

[The Augusta]

In England we have had a ban in all primary (elementary) and high schools on 'unhealthy' snacks in the snack machines. OK, so I have always tried to limit my kids on fizzy drinks but I don't see the harm in them having an odd coke as a treat. All the snack machines have been removed from my kids' school now, and they even have their lunch boxes examined to see that there are no forbidden items! I am not joking. It is really happening. I have always cooked healthy meals for my two, but they did use to enjoy a bit of junk now and again at school lunch-time. They never abused this, so I didn't see the harm. Now, of course, the choice has been taken away from them altogether. Fascism is a good word.

[Rameses the Great]

Really? Libertarians like me used to make a reductio ad absurdum argument that if the state could ban smoking in public places, there was nothing logically stopping them from banning fatty foods too.

 

Yesterday's headline from the New York Times:

New York Bans Most Trans Fats in Restaurants

 

No slippery slope, huh?

 

Cato, the government banned trans fat on everything now. I think it is good because it was very bad for you and living in a cholesterol society it can only help.

[The Augusta]

Really? Libertarians like me used to make a reductio ad absurdum argument that if the state could ban smoking in public places, there was nothing logically stopping them from banning fatty foods too.

 

Yesterday's headline from the New York Times:

New York Bans Most Trans Fats in Restaurants

 

No slippery slope, huh?

 

Cato, the government banned trans fat on everything now. I think it is good because it was very bad for you and living in a cholesterol society it can only help.

 

I agree that these things are no doubt good for us, Rameses, but I think what Cato was saying - and certainly what I am saying - is that choices are being taken away from us on what are very personal things. We are treading a very fine line here, with the infringement of an individual's civil liberties at stake. Of course you are right: fatty foods are bad for us. Smoking is bad for us. But I want to decide that myself and reach an informed judgement on it. I don't want some politically correct trendy politician in Whitehall telling me what to do with my private time, my private life, or my own health.

[CiceroD]

I think you and Cato see slippery slopes where none exist!

 

Really? Libertarians like me used to make a reductio ad absurdum argument that if the state could ban smoking in public places, there was nothing logically stopping them from banning fatty foods too.

 

Yesterday's headline from the New York Times:

New York Bans Most Trans Fats in Restaurants

 

No slippery slope, huh?

 

Sorry to play the devil's advocate Cato but take a closer look at the article you cited.

 

"Trans fats are the chemically modified food ingredients that raise levels of a particularly unhealthy form of cholesterol and have been squarely linked to heart disease. Long used as a substitute for saturated fats in baked goods, fried foods, salad dressings, margarine and other foods, trans fats also have a longer shelf life than other alternatives."

 

Chemically modified food ingredients

 

This doesnt mean that they are banning bacon or big macs. New York has simply banned a food additive that is detrimental to public health. There has to be some point where public health concerns outweigh one's personal freedom. We can argue around in circles about where that point is.

 

was it fascism when lead based paints were banned?

is it fascist to require a building owner to remove asbestos?

was it fascist that T. Roosevelt pushed the Pure Food and Drug Act?

 

All this is besides the point. For the reasons I stated in my last post I dont think that a ban on smoking, such as the one happening in Britain can happen in the US.

Edited December 7, 2006 by CiceroD