England Smoking Ban

[Poppy Lou 0]

Whilst I agree with this in many respects, I am concerned about the detrimental effects this might bring about. It would be much nicer - and healthier - to live in a smoke free environment, but far less pleasant to be surrounded by people who are anxious, depressed, miserable and totally stressed out.It's easy to say that all one needs to quit smoking is willpower. Maybe for some strong minded people it is, but what about those who don't find it so easy. Let's not forget that nicotine is a very powerful drug, some say even more potent than heroin.What about thoses individuals whose quality of life is already poor and who have an obsessional addiction to cigarettes. Even with quit smoking aids, the process of giving up the cigarette is going to be touching impossible, there is an undeniable need to replace the cigarette with something else but if you have little else in your life how do you achieve this?And what about those smokers who's only source of interaction with others take place in pubs, clubs etc. Should we be easy in the knoowledge that they may become totally isolated. Wouldn't it have een better to have a mixture of smoking/non-smoking venues. A non-smoker would always have the choice of whether or not to frequent these establishments, either as an employee or patron.I only hope that when this comes into force, my predictions don't come true.And how are they going to police it anyway.

[electriic ink 1]

Wouldn't it have een better to have a mixture of smoking/non-smoking venues.

I agree with that. Maybe the government should set-up "smoking booths" similar to those of the public telephone points.

 

And how are they going to police it anyway.

Send police into pubs and other public places where people will be highly inclined to smoke and then collect lots of revenue.

 

Being a non-smoker and not having the intention to smoke, I'm in full favour of the ban. It'll take the awful smell out of places where many people have smoked and it'll be a strong deterrent for those who start.

 

Moving to Regional Affairs > UK

[jlhaslip 4]

The Province (State) I live in banned smoking from Public Establishments (including Work sites) several years ago and all the same concerns were raised at that time. However, each Public Establishment was allowed to create a 'smoking room' so long as they maintained a suitable and approved ventilation system. The traffic to and from the Smoking Area during busy periods is quite considerable. And the volume of people visiting the Establishment actually increased because all the non-smokers are now able to go to the Club and not come out smelling like second-hand tobacco and in need of their clothes being cleaned. Providing they allow for the Smoking Rooms, not much will change except perhaps the spot for your favouite chair.

[gaea 0]

Wow, this is the first time i've heard of this. Was it actually inacted? Or just a current suggestion. I find it hard to believe that it'd actually get passed.Regardless, outlawing something is not a good way to get rid of it...it'll only drive that thing underground and help me more "shady" pieces of society. Look at abolition. It didn't get rid of alcohol...it just supported the mob. Or look the fact that marijuana is illigal in the US but not in amsterdam. Did you know that in the US there ammount of teenagers to try herb is almost double that of amsterdam? (sorry for the lack of actually stastics...im in a huge rush. I'll try and come back and edit this later).

[brainless 0]

Something alike has already been passed in Ireland (Republic of; not the northern part) where smoking is banned in buildings supposed to be entered by the public (city halls, museums, pubs [!]); it's allowed on the streets (and every couple of meters/next to the entrance of a building, an ash tray is mounted on a wall). This seems to work fine, I've been in an overcrowded pub (according to a sign on the door, it was licenced for up to 1,254 people --don't ask me how they get those odd numbers--) and it was pretty easy to breathe, it was even fresh air. It's hard to get 1,000 people in one house without anyone smoking in Germany...anyways, as a non-smoker I'd be fine with banning tobacco just like cannabis is banned (look up some info on the tobacco industry and you'll get an understanding why I wouldn't oppose banning tobacco, even though I share gaea's opinion on outlawing something).Here in Germany, it's only obligatory for employers to provide smoke-free rooms if the non-smokers among the workforce demand so, most restaurants are divided into smoking and non-smoking sections...

[Earths Daughter 0]

Here in the US, they tried smoking and non-smoking areas in restaurants for years. Eventually the non-smokers demanded that all restaurants ban smoking. Smoking was already banned in various places like libraries, book stores, clothing stores, most retail establishments except grocery stores, movie theaters only allowed it in the lobby, etc. Then factories started banning smoking on the property except in one designated smoking area or outside. Then the factories often decided after a while of that, to only allow smoking outside - even if it was raining or in the winter. Many other businesses no longer allowed employees to smoke anywhere indoors on their breaks anymore. They required smokers to go outside to smoke. Many of these companies did not provide any sort of shelter for smokers outside from the weather. When the wind chill factor makes it bitterly cold, and there's no shelter, many smokers still go outside to smoke. The US Government banned smoking from all government buildings, even prisons. Eventually, smoking was only allowed indoors in bars (pubs), nightclubs and smoking sections of some more tolerant restaurants. it was up to a restaurant owner whether or not they provided a smoking section or not. Then my city decided to outlaw smoking in all publically used areas, including bars, restaurants and nightclubs and even outdoor areas like parks. Ironically enough, local governments often added new taxes to tobacco products to build new outdoor sports stadiums. Then they outlawed the very product which paid for those stadiums from being used in them. I have been to an outdoor stadium in the past and saw people several rows away from a smoker doing fake coughing and waving their hands around their faces as if they were choking every few minutes. They would glare at the smoker as if he was an enemy. And the whole time, they were upwind of the smoke, and it couldn't possibly reach them. The smoker pointed that out to them, and said their loud fake coughing and frantic fanning was disturbing a lot more people than his smoke was disturbing them, since they couldn't even smell it. They said he was being rude, and he asked them if only non-smokers were allowed to be rude, since he wasn't disturbing anybody and they certainly were. They summoned an usher and complained that the smoke was bothering them. The usher saw for himself they were sitting several rows below the smoker and the wind was carrying the smoke away from them, and pointed that out to them. They got mad and started causing a loud scene. The other people sitting around them then complained about them disturbing the game since it started, and the usher asked them to leave. They got louder and refused, they had to be escorted out of the stadium. Now smoking is not even allowed in that stadium. More business for the sports bars, which allowed smoking. Then it was outlawed in the sports bars in my town.Now more people throw sports parties in their homes, and friends gather to smoke and watch the game. Less business for the stadiums and the sports bars. I remember seeing a picture of a bunch of people in jail in the Phillippines several years ago. They were there for smoking in their own cars, since it had been outlawed in the Phillippines. It's probably only a matter of time before non-smokers demand smoking be banned in private vehicles in the US, as well. In the US, anti-smokers are very vocal, and those who do not smoke but don't mind if other people do are not. Most smokers in the US are not very vocal, since their families or friends usually have an anti-smoker amongst them. Most smokers don't want arguments, they just want to be left alone to smoke in peace. The government spends a lot of time and money inconveniencing smokers that it could put into fighting illegal drugs. But it is easier to pass a new anti-smoking law and please a vocal minority than to do something effective about illegal drugs.I have had many a meal or movie partially or completely ruined by people talking loudly through it, or using their cell phones right next to me, or loud crying babies or children throwing temper tantrums in public places. I have even seen 3-8 year old children throwing food at other diners, and the parents just told them to stop it, and did not do anything when the children did not stop. The other patrons had to complain to the manager who had to come tell the parents if the children didn't behave they would have to leave. The worst part of it was the parents got mad when he told them that. If they had any consideration for others, they would have told the children that themselves already, and taken them outside if they didn't start behaving.I think these things are all part of the same problem. People in the US feel entitled to do various things. People with disruptive children feel entitled to have a meal in a restaurant with them acting up because they paid for the meal. They do not think that a larger number of paying customers are entitled to having a pleasant undisturbed meal. The same thing goes for watching movies, shopping, etc. Manners and any sort of public courtesies have decreased in the US over the years. People are selfish and loudly demand whatever they want be done, without any thought of accommodating others or compromising.There's an old saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." Meaning whoever makes the most noise get what they want. It's pretty much true here in America. The lessons of loud minorities from the Communist Revolution or the Nazi party getting what they wanted have not been learned here in the US by many. Indeed, there is a group in America calling itself the "Moral Majority" that is using the same tactics as the Russian Communists or Nazis who were in the minority but named themselves the majority and were louder than the quiet majority. The "Moral Majority" want to have evolution stop being taught in schools, and all forms of entertainment they consider immoral to be outlawed. The head of the Moral Majority considers the Smurfs to be demonic, and the Teletubbies to be immoral, and says the purple Teletubbie is gay since it carries a purse, and the show is promoting homosexuality. If it was up to him, we would have a lot of government censoring, and public book-burnings, just like the Nazis. The scary thing is thousands of people here in the US would see nothing wrong with burning books, in spite of a reasonably good education in history. I have heard about there being a lot of public cameras in England. I wonder if George Orwell's book "1984" was read very much over there? It seems Big Brother is already watching people in England, and the US government would like him to be watching people in the US, as well. This is very disturbing stuff. President Roosevelt couldn't force the country to get into WWII because the government was concerned that public opinion was against it. But Bush forced the US into a war that a lot of public opinion was against. Not to mention world opinion. Maybe the US government doesn't care as much about public opinion as it used to. That is scary, too. The future is looking more and more bleak. The New Millennium is not looking like it's progressing towards anything good here, more like the US is sliding backwards towards a totalitarian state ruled by politicians catering to big business.

[Kim 0]

Did you know a piece of cigarette contains arsenic (rat poison!) among other things, including nicotine of course? What's worse is that tobacco companies executives knew that nicotine was addictive, long before the public figured it out, but they kept it to themselves. As much as 50% of smokers eventually develop lung cancer. It's like flipping a coin. Why take that chance with your life?What's especially repugnant is that the tobacco industries target young people to be long term consumers to replace those that die from lung cancer from smoking. Ever since the state and federal government in the US starts warning people about smoking, these companies have marketed their ads abroad, especially to developing countries, robbing them of what little money they make and killing them gradually. How do these executives sleep at night? How many charities do they donate to to wash away their sins?Each person who is of age has the right to smoke, to hold a cigarette, because it's her liberty, and she is entitled to do whatever she wants as long as she doesn't harm anybody. From that perspective, I can understand why some people oppose smoking bans. "It's my body. I'll do whatever I want with it, as long as I'm not hurting anyone." But from the public health perspective, smoking causes lung cancer, and smoking is preventable, so the government has the ethical responsibility to stop its citizens from killing themselves. This must be their rationale for banning drugs like marijuana, cocaine, etc...So why not tobacco? Why not nicotine? I know..well, I guess I don't, that it's very very hard to quit smoking. I have several friends who tried, and it took a lot of determination. As hard as it may be though, it's possible, and it's worth it. There should be better things in life besides smoking. People should have other interactions besides those made in pubs. I don't believe that quitting smoking will cause depression. If anything, it should add to one's quality of life.

[rvalkass 5]

I am wholly in favour of the ban of smoking. I know some people will say it's unfair etc. but is it not unfair to me that I am getting my lungs damaged, and I have no choice in that matter?

It would be much nicer - and healthier - to live in a smoke free environment, but far less pleasant to be surrounded by people who are anxious, depressed, miserable and totally stressed out.

Personally, I would rather be surrounded by anxious people, rather than get lung cancer and other respiratory problems. Then again, the majority of smokers would probably stay at home and smoke if they were that stressed.

No-one is asking them to give up smoking and stop harming their own body, but we are just asking them not to annoy and damage those around them. People can still smoke in their own homes and some other places.

Perhaps specific venues of smoking and non-smoking would work, but we do have a similar system at the moment, and it doesn't really work. People still go into non-smoking venues and smoke becuase they are unaware of the rules. There would be a similar problem if this was made law, rather than the choice of the owner.

It could be policed by landlords etc, who could ban people who smoke or alert the police.

[brainless 0]

Earths Daughter wrote:

 

[...] I have been to an outdoor stadium in the past and saw people several rows away from a smoker doing fake coughing and waving their hands around their faces as if they were choking every few minutes. They would glare at the smoker as if he was an enemy. And the whole time, they were upwind of the smoke, and it couldn't possibly reach them. [...]

and those people probably got into their cars right after the game and did not complain about traffic noise and smell... if banning smoking ledas to this kind of behavior, I'd probably join a campaign to legalize smoking ... hey, with a well-planned ventilation system, it might even be ok to let people smoke indoors...

[martin 0]

Whilst I agree with this in many respects, I am concerned about the detrimental effects this might bring about.
It would be much nicer - and healthier - to live in a smoke free environment, but far less pleasant to be surrounded by people who are anxious, depressed, miserable and totally stressed out.

It's easy to say that all one needs to quit smoking is willpower. Maybe for some strong minded people it is, but what about those who don't find it so easy. Let's not forget that nicotine is a very powerful drug, some say even more potent than heroin.

What about thoses individuals whose quality of life is already poor and who have an obsessional addiction to cigarettes. Even with quit smoking aids, the process of giving up the cigarette is going to be touching impossible, there is an undeniable need to replace the cigarette with something else but if you have little else in your life how do you achieve this?

And what about those smokers who's only source of interaction with others take place in pubs, clubs etc. Should we be easy in the knoowledge that they may become totally isolated. Wouldn't it have een better to have a mixture of smoking/non-smoking venues. A non-smoker would always have the choice of whether or not to frequent these establishments, either as an employee or patron.

I only hope that when this comes into force, my predictions don't come true.
And how are they going to police it anyway.

Hey,

I have actually written an article about the smoking ban for my MA and as it tuns out the council will have to set up a type of smoking police that will inspect pubs and bars on a regular basis. This in return will cost lots of money which tax payers will have to pay. In addition the mst effective way of policing the ban will be by having landlords and pub owners enforce the ban. They will risk losing their licence if they let people smoke. In Scotland however many people were found dodging the ban and continue to smoke, particularly if the landlord doesn't enforce the ban. That's why there is need for someone to police the ban otherwise people will just continue to smoke . I love smoking.

[Jyoko 0]

I agree with that. Maybe the government should set-up "smoking booths" similar to those of the public telephone points.

Doesn't smoke travel through the air? Second hand smoke is more dangerous, you know. But an enclosed booth could severely harm people that were in it.

Maybe, they could have enclosed booths with TONS AND TONS of Air Filters xP

[grnjd 0]

That is not a wise move by England. They should just pass gradual laws instead of going all out like this. People are more accepting is you slowly faxe out something instead of just plain out banning it.

[PsyberMind 0]

Here in the US, they tried smoking and non-smoking areas in restaurants for years. Eventually the non-smokers demanded that all restaurants ban smoking. Smoking was already banned in various places like libraries, book stores, clothing stores, most retail establishments except grocery stores, movie theaters only allowed it in the lobby, etc.

You sound like you are from California LOL

Seriously.. I used to live in California, and I think that the Statewide Smoking Ban was the worse thing that could happen. Now, people walk down the street and are afraid to smoke, because they are concerned they are offending someones delicate sensibilities. Now I'm not saying that smoking is.. a good thing. I'm a smoker, I have been since I was 16. But dangit, The foundations of this country were based on certain freedoms, and when my freedom to enjoy a cigarette while I'm bellying up to a bar enjoying a cold beer is my god given right.

The Anti-Smoking act was brought up by a group of waitresses and bartenders who said their health was suffering from smoking. Let me ask you this.. Was a gun held to their head forcing them to work there? No. They chose to work there, just like I choose to smoke. So what, because I like to smoke, I'm being subject to the whiny ones who obviously dont know how to say "Ok well maybe I should look for another job?" is that fair to me? Is that fair to any hard working citizen who enjoys a puff of tobacco now and again? I dont think so. So what I think I'm gonn have to do is.. if I ever move back to California, is open a resturaunt that is SMOKING ONLY! See, that can still be done. You just can't have a smoking/non-smoking section..

As far as enforcement from another post.. what they do in California, is leave it up to the Cops. Police make periodic checks in bars and resturaunts, etc... and cite people for Smoking, with a Fine as hefty as 100 bucks for the 1st offense. Yet another infringement on my rights.. the right to have a padded wallet!

Ok that last part was acenine, but you get my point?

[Hakkera 0]

Well well well, this all seems to be getting pretty damn well heated. I live in the UK, and that's what this is about right? I also smoke, not chain smoke, but I do smoke. I enjoy smoking when I am out and about, as I don't want to smoke when I am in my house as it would stink it out. I think the idea of smoking in pubs is a good one, I do go to pubs, and I do smoke there. I enjoy it as it is part of the general atmosphere of being in a pub. Pubs would loose so very much business if they did not allow smoking as it is the reason that many people do go to pubs. I dont think, ooh, lets go to the pub for a drink, and a drink alone, I could have that at my house. I go to the pub and have a drink, a smoke, listen to some music in the background, and have a chat with my mates. I think that it all contributes to the atmosphere of a pub; take one element out of the equation, and it is imbalanced, you see. I do however think that smoking should be confined to certain areas, like pubs, smoking in coffee houses, resterants, places where it isn't part of the atmosphere, like family arenas, or where food is being consumed etc. should be off limits to smokers.

[johnsmith 0]

Well... from my experience of Scotland, the smoking ban is a TERRIFIC idea, that was, mind you, implemented with the least problems possible, and highly successful!

http://www.gov.scot/About/Information/ArchivedWebsites

I am too pitying the smokers that have to go outside in the blistering cold and smoke, their frozen hands trembling, but I prefer this indefinitely to having to go home every single night reeking of second hand smoke and having to inhale ALL that stuff. Yeah, I know that in some places (like California) the legal attack against smokers is unreasonable, but I believe that the thing that smokers dont realise is that smoke has this... penetrating effect that tends to annoy, and make health worse for others.

I wont disagree of course, that most pubs and bars could have INFINITELY superior ventilation systems... most bars in Scotland STINK and people dont even smoke in there... makes you wonder what a decent vent system would do, and if the ban would be really necessary then...