Gareth Thomas MP is presenting a bill to ban smoking in all public places. I'm over the moon....what do you all think?

I'm sick and tired of selfish people who think that they should have the right to practically gas me and my asthmatic daughter when we are out and about. Our movements are restricted by whether smoking is allowed or not...this is not fair :( :(

If people want to smoke fine but they should be restricted to their own homes where they will only give themselves cancer.

I can't bother people with bonfire smoke, emmisions from my car are now monitored, I can't burn coal unless it's smokeless etc etc but smokers can pollute my breath quite freely........discuss.

Originally posted by "Mo"

Gareth Thomas MP is presenting a bill to ban smoking in all public places. I'm over the moon....what do you all think?

I'm sick and tired of selfish people who think that they should have the right to practically gas me and my asthmatic daughter when we are out and about. Our movements are restricted by whether smoking is allowed or not...this is not fair :( :(

If people want to smoke fine but they should be restricted to their own homes where they will only give themselves cancer.

I can't bother people with bonfire smoke, emmisions from my car are now monitored, I can't burn coal unless it's smokeless etc etc but smokers can pollute my breath quite freely........discuss.
I'm all for this to be honest!
As a doorman and working in a smoky club, I dread to think what my lungs are inhaling.
OK it's part of the job, but as human rights we should all be able to 'WORK' in a safe environment (and I feel a smoky one isn't)!

I truly hope that the Bill is passed and that this ban is enforced!

With you on that one Mo. I'm looking forward to being able to eat a meal in a restaurant without other people smoking at the next table. Also, being able to go to the pub without having to wash my hair and clothes afterwards.

Just seen your comment DaBouncer and that's the main reason for Gareth Thomas' bill; to protect workers from inhaling smoke.

My points will be just nice side effects.

:roll:
There are smoke free pubs. Smoke free restaurants. Smoke free areas in most of the others. You cannot smoke in most workplaces. You cannot smoke on the bus. You cannot smoke on the tram. You cannot smoke in shops. Or many trains. Or many/any? aeroplanes.
The one or two restaurants that I go to that allow smoking do not insist on people eating there and nowhere else, and as smokers themselves would prob'ly not be terribly happy about big bro telling them they cannot smoke or allow smoke in the restaurant that they own. Same with the pubs.
By all means there could/should be encouragement for more places to be smoke free, but passing laws/banning smoking in public...that strikes me as prescriptive to say the very, very least.

How about banning obnoxiously strong perfumes/body sprays and aftershaves in public. They make people wheeze, are ecologically and environmentally unsound, and smell at least as bad as ciggie smoke. :lol:

Laura
hoping she didn't leave America's big brother behind only to find he's followed her here.

Originally posted by "senseofplace"

:roll:
There are smoke free pubs. Smoke free restaurants. Smoke free areas in most of the others. You cannot smoke in most workplaces. You cannot smoke on the bus. You cannot smoke on the tram. You cannot smoke in shops. Or many trains. Or many/any? aeroplanes.
The one or two restaurants that I go to that allow smoking do not insist on people eating there and nowhere else, and as smokers themselves would prob'ly not be terribly happy about big bro telling them they cannot smoke or allow smoke in the restaurant that they own. Same with the pubs.
By all means there could/should be encouragement for more places to be smoke free, but passing laws/banning smoking in public...that strikes me as prescriptive to say the very, very least.

How about banning obnoxiously strong perfumes/body sprays and aftershaves in public. They make people wheeze, are ecologically and environmentally unsound, and smell at least as bad as ciggie smoke. :lol:

Laura
:roll:
I have to disagree, how can Smoking compare to Perfume?
Smoking SERIOUSLY DAMAGES Health. Perfume doesn't... plain and simple really!

If people want to smoke in bars and restaurants, then give them a seperate room (nr the back) for those people to indulge in this behaviour.
I don't feel that I should have to be subjected to possible future serious health problems, just so people can light up a ciggie and smoke it! If people want to kill themselves by smoking, FINE, I'm all for it, but just don't drag me down with you!

:lol:

Originally posted by "senseofplace"

:roll:
There are smoke free pubs. Smoke free restaurants. Smoke free areas in most of the others. You cannot smoke in most workplaces. You cannot smoke on the bus. You cannot smoke on the tram. You cannot smoke in shops. Or many trains. Or many/any? aeroplanes.
The one or two restaurants that I go to that allow smoking do not insist on people eating there and nowhere else, and as smokers themselves would prob'ly not be terribly happy about big bro telling them they cannot smoke or allow smoke in the restaurant that they own. Same with the pubs.
By all means there could/should be encouragement for more places to be smoke free, but passing laws/banning smoking in public...that strikes me as prescriptive to say the very, very least.

How about banning obnoxiously strong perfumes/body sprays and aftershaves in public. They make people wheeze, are ecologically and environmentally unsound, and smell at least as bad as ciggie smoke. :lol:

Laura
hoping she didn't leave America's big brother behind only to find he's followed her here.


Sorry Laura but this won't wash. My child never had an asthma attack because somebody overdid it on the old aftershave.

I don't visit pubs in the town centre any more but if the number of smoke free pubs in the suburbs is anything to go on then there aren't very many.
The designation of non smoking areas just does not work as smoke cannot read and drifts where it will. This idea is nothing more than a token gesture.

You never know, the smokers pubs and restaurants you frequent might just see an upturn in business if they went smokeless. :)

Laura, I'd be interested to know where these smoke free restaurants are. In my experience the majority allow smoking and a few have non-smoking areas. To re-iterate a previous poster's point non-smoking areas are a waste of space.

If after-shave and perfume upset you then start up a pressure group and lobby your MP for a ban on wearing it in public places.

Originally posted by "Mo"


The designation of non smoking areas just does not work as smoke cannot read and drifts where it will. This idea is nothing more than a token gesture.
I think that for a start a smokers room (with a door that closes, and lots of Air Con') would be a good idea.
Make it small too, so smokers are either crammed in, or they get used to the idea that smoking will no longer be tollerated! :lol:

BAN ALL SMOKING... BAN IT!

yup, im all in favour of a ban from smoking in public places :)

but not a total ban on smoking full stop, why? because the taxes generated are huuuge! :D

Originally posted by "RPG"

Not a total ban on smoking full stop, why? because the taxes generated are huuuge! :D
Where are these taxes spent? On Cancer research and Cancer Treament with the NHS. The money it generates goes directly back into fighting the disease(s) it causes!

it more than likely lines the pockets of mr blurgh but it saves us non-smokers from having to pay it :)

How true that is! If it doesn't directly line his pocket, it goes to Limo's to the Airport, Holiday's, Social Gatherings, Premier Class Flights to other countries. I once heard a story at school that the taxes we paid still have a %age that lines the Queens pocket.

How true is this?

probably not much truth in the queen thing, last time i heard she was fairly self sufficient now, other than what she pays herself to attend things.

plus, with the money brought into london directly from the queen it far outweighs her spending :)

americans dont come to the UK to see "Mr Blair" :p

The Queen pays taxes but does not declare her income. She was probably the first person to use self assessment. Her family, however, do draw from the civil list.

To find out how much she and her hangers on cost us go here:

http://www.theinternetforum.co.uk/rf/queen1.html

This is a digression from the real point. Smokers pay a lot of taxes, true, but the cost to the taxpayer of the hospitalisation of cancer sufferers far outweighs that. Include cost to business of lost days through ill-health as smokers generally have poor atendance records.

We have a smoke cabin at work (where we do the kippers) for smokers. There is a small coterie from my immediate vicinity who go together at least 5 times a day. They take 15 mins per ciggie which is at least 1 1/4 hours a day they each owe the company. Think of this happening in thousands of work places across the country and go figure.

Who's going to lobby for all motor vehicle use to stop asap then? And I mean a government stop to all cars, buses, etc within two years. Cos it's killing me, everyone else, and the world too.
Fumes from cars is just as if not more harmful. Certainly on a worldwide scale far more harmful.

Anyway, this is an argument which cannot be won. Not by me anyway :lol:
So I'm off home to make sure my lovely man has a lovely bday.

Laura

I have to agree with the majority here. I hate smoking full stop! Fair enough, don't ban it all together but ban it in public places. I once remember going into a restaurant with my parents and there being no where to sit in the "No Smoking" part. This resulted in us either having to sit in the "Smokers" bit where people were puffing away or go to another restaurant. We chose the latter one. I remember my dad saying "What would that do if I went and sat on their table and 'passed wind'?!" It gave me a laugh anyways.

Also, someone said that perfumes cannot kill you from the smell. But in one of the papers today, I think it was the Sun or the Sheffield Star... a woman in America was charged with trying to kill her husband by spraying herself with a full bottle of perfume that she knew he was allergic to! What's the world coming to, hey?! :wink:
:D
Chloé

One hundred per cent in agreement with you Mo, I feel sorry for the children of smokers who are subject to these cancer causing fumes twenty four hours a day.

I will not breathe these filthy cancer chemicals and will not go anywhere near, either in a shop, restaurant, pub, place of entertainment, I move away even if I am on a public seat and someone lights up, it should be a criminal offence and a term in jail for offenders.

Why must I have to breathe someone else's filth and get cancer, heart disease, asthma, have to have my legs and arms cut off because others want to smoke?

Ban Chewing gum. It is bad manners to consistently chew like a cow. It sticks to the pavement and takes years to rot. I saw the council workers scraping it off the pavement outside Sheffield city hall, with the aid of a steam cleaning machine. But the government could always put tax on it to encourage people to stop chewing it. Think of the extra revenue ! Then in five years they could ban it and tell us how detrimental it is to our health. :oops:

You jest Muggins (at least I think you do) but not 6 months ago Tony Blair was making noises to that effect :lol:

Originally posted by "Muggins"

Ban Chewing gum. It is bad manners to consistently chew like a cow. It sticks to the pavement and takes years to rot. I saw the council workers scraping it off the pavement outside Sheffield city hall, with the aid of a steam cleaning machine. But the government could always put tax on it to encourage people to stop chewing it. Think of the extra revenue ! Then in five years they could ban it and tell us how detrimental it is to our health. :oops:
I dont think there is ever a time when I DONT have a pack of Chudz in my pocket. Although I fing it terrible the way people spit it to the floor! I ALWAYS make sure it goes in a bin of some sort, or stuck to one of those chewing gum signs! To me, dropping gum on the floor or tab ends is as bad as litter bugs throwing wrappers all over the place! People should be on the spot fined for such actions!!!
:lol:

Originally posted by "DaBouncer"

Ban Chewing gum. It is bad manners to consistently chew like a cow. It sticks to the pavement and takes years to rot. I saw the council workers scraping it off the pavement outside Sheffield city hall, with the aid of a steam cleaning machine. But the government could always put tax on it to encourage people to stop chewing it. Think of the extra revenue ! Then in five years they could ban it and tell us how detrimental it is to our health. :oops:
I dont think there is ever a time when I DONT have a pack of Chudz in my pocket. Although I fing it terrible the way people spit it to the floor! I ALWAYS make sure it goes in a bin of some sort, or stuck to one of those chewing gum signs! To me, dropping gum on the floor or tab ends is as bad as litter bugs throwing wrappers all over the place! People should be on the spot fined for such actions!!!
:lol:


They can be on-the-spot-fined for it. Question is, who's going to do the fining? There have been a couple of fines handed out, but unless you have a dedicated litter-spotting team, it's a problem. Those given the task at the moment (rangers, street rangers, etc) either have too much on to spend ages with a litterbug, or they don't want to risk their skin for the sake of a piece of chewing gum or a ciggie butt.

Laura

OK it's part of the job, but as human rights we should all be able to 'WORK' in a safe environment (and I feel a smoky one isn't)!


Human rights??? Don't quote human rights when you will specifically discriminate against a large amount of the population with your BAN ALL SMOKING.

Also there are no 100% certain links between cancer and smoking. Cancers and tumours have been found on arcaelogical digs of skeletal remains. Also there is a link between cancer and the increased longevity of the modern population and it possible mutation of normal genes due to this excess living.

It is very nice to find a scape goat for a horrible diease when the public affects are not very pleasant on those that do not indulge.

BTW I do not smoke.

Generally I agree that smoking in some areas should be restricted but to ban it completely is surely an infringement of smokers human rights??

They tried it in London. It worked sort of - the smokers ended up buying those nicotine smoking things that are supposed to help you STOP smoking. It gave them their fix and gave their companions a smoke free zone.

Moon Maiden

Originally posted by "Moon Maiden"

OK it's part of the job, but as human rights we should all be able to 'WORK' in a safe environment (and I feel a smoky one isn't)!


Human rights??? Don't quote human rights when you will specifically discriminate against a large amount of the population with your BAN ALL SMOKING.

Also there are no 100% certain links between cancer and smoking. Cancers and tumours have been found on arcaelogical digs of skeletal remains. Also there is a link between cancer and the increased longevity of the modern population and it possible mutation of normal genes due to this excess living.

It is very nice to find a scape goat for a horrible diease when the public affects are not very pleasant on those that do not indulge.

BTW I do not smoke.

Generally I agree that smoking in some areas should be restricted but to ban it completely is surely an infringement of smokers human rights??

They tried it in London. It worked sort of - the smokers ended up buying those nicotine smoking things that are supposed to help you STOP smoking. It gave them their fix and gave their companions a smoke free zone.

Moon Maiden
WOW... you've got a bee in your bonnet!!!

I feel that smoking should be banned... it seriously damages health... it says so on the packets! Don't need any more evidence.
As a basic human right, I have the right to work in a safe zone where other people smoking ISN'T contributing to my own demise!

This may sound harsh coming from a bouncer who puts themseves at risk by simply doing the job in the first place.

If people want to smoke... fine... smoke in your own home, one your own time and away from me. If you want to kill yourselves by smoking... great... don't subject me to it!
Herion is a class A drug... it's banned, it kills you.... due to Human Rights should people be ALLOWED to use HErion for there own use? No... whats the difference with smoking? Because it's NOT a class A drug, gimme a break... whats good for one is good for the other! Both drugs are addictive, both drugs can kill you, in fact both are drugs plain and simple.

Lets just say that generally we follow the Yanks. You are an alien if you smoke in a public place in the US.

Therefore in 5 to 10 years it will be the same here.

BTW
Smoker for 20 years, just trying to stop, done 18 days now. The only reason I want to stop is health reasons.

Originally posted by "mikey"



BTW
Smoker for 20 years, just trying to stop, done 18 days now. The only reason I want to stop is health reasons.

Good luck mate. My better half stopped in February... and she hasn't had another ciggie since.

You can do it mate... good luck! :D

As a smoker myself you'll probably be very surprised to hear I'm all for a complete ban on smoking.

The reason cigarettes are not banned despite health warnings being issued about them since the 16th century - is because the government found a way to make money out of them.

Until you find a way round the country and governments dependancy on cigarettes then smoking will continue to be a part of our culture.

Bee in my bonnet no - I just love to see people branding do gooder slogans about without any actual thought about what they are saying.

Yes it is your right to work in what you percieve to be a safe environment, yes it is right that Mo and her daughter should not have to endure a smokers residue and fear an asma attack shortly after - but it is also the right of a smoker to indulge in their vice.

Did you know that if you filled up a jug with butt ends and then filled it with boiling water - the water conatins pure nicotine and kills very easily???

Perhaps what is needed is simple common courtesy. The people I know who smoke generally keep their smoke out of the way of people they know don't and have always extinguished if asked. However I do know of people who have bitten someones head off for asking.

Moon Maiden

This is going to sound a little stupid.
I don't agree with a ban on smoking in public places, but I'm all for banning smoking altogether.
Let me explain.
I am myself a smoker, and as a smoker I feel it my right to be able to have a cigarette when I go out for a pint, but if smoking were banned altogether it would give me no option but to stop. I have tried on many occaisions to stop smoking, (personal best - 2 weeks :cry: ) but my wife also smokes, and this makes stopping twice as difficult. A total ban would rectify this, and be better for me, my wife and every smoker out there, but as it stands with smoking being allowed, I feel it a bad move to ban it in all public places.

Nice to hear from the minority Hixxy but could you please give us your reasons for not banning it in public?

Originally posted by "maxt"

Nice to hear from the minority Hixxy but could you please give us your reasons for not banning it in public?
I don't so much disagree with banning it in public, just pubs and clubs. How many smoke free pubs do you know of that do better business than pubs that allow smoking? None. People go out for a drink, and it is expected that they will also smoke. I know quite a few people who 'only smoke when they've had a drink'. I think the pub and club business would suffer if a public ban was enforced.

I disagree with the idea that a pub's business will suffer if you ban smoking. Most surveys have shown that more people would go into pubs if there were a ban on smoking. The only ones which come up with the alternate view are those conducted by the smoking lobby and their militant wing, FOREST.

Go here for a report:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,2763,949191,00.html

The Cask and Cutler on Langsett Road has a smoke free room which is usually full. They also have an excellent selection of beers.

Interesting to see how this thread is going. If we are a representative sample then Gareth Thomas's bill should suceed. I don't know if any of the tabacco companies have made donations to Labour, it would be interesting to know (isn't this type of info supposed to be public knowledge? If so does anybody know how to find out? ) Call me cynical but it would be bound to have a bearing if donations had been made :(

If we banned everyone from doing anything at all either harmful to themselves or potentially to other people, small though the risk may be, we'd all be sitting at home with our hands on our laps worrying ourselves to death. Or we'd be dead.
Smoking. Driving. Eating anything but organically grown/produced food. Crossing the road. Drinking (anything but water from a very remote mountain spring or organic fruit juice.) Handling money (all those germs). Using computers. Watching tv. Using detergents to wash anything at all. Having pets. Going out in the sun. Having a refrigerator. Using a mobile phone...etc etc
Of course we should respect other people, and do our best not to cause others unnecessary discomfort. But let's please be realistic and reasonable about this. Trying to legislate for everything under the sun could only ever mean trouble. I value freedom too much to want to go around demanding bans on everything I personally dislike. Instead, if I feel that something someone is doing is bothering me, I either ask them politely to stop, or I go elsewhere.

Laura

Originally posted by "senseofplace"

If we banned everyone from doing anything at all either harmful to themselves or potentially to other people, small though the risk may be, we'd all be sitting at home with our hands on our laps worrying ourselves to death. Or we'd be dead.
Smoking. Driving. Eating anything but organically grown/produced food. Crossing the road. Drinking (anything but water from a very remote mountain spring or organic fruit juice.) Handling money (all those germs). Using computers. Watching tv. Using detergents to wash anything at all. Having pets. Going out in the sun. Having a refrigerator. Using a mobile phone...etc etc
Of course we should respect other people, and do our best not to cause others unnecessary discomfort. But let's please be realistic and reasonable about this. Trying to legislate for everything under the sun could only ever mean trouble. I value freedom too much to want to go around demanding bans on everything I personally dislike. Instead, if I feel that something someone is doing is bothering me, I either ask them politely to stop, or I go elsewhere.

Laura

I understand what you are saying but without legislation against smoking in public places there would be fewer and fewer places to go where you could escape from it. It would then be the majority who end up staying at home as that would be the only smoke free environment. I'd much prefer that the smokers stay at home.

Remember, it only takes one selfish smoker to fill a room with smoke.

Originally posted by "Hixxy"

This is going to sound a little stupid.
I don't agree with a ban on smoking in public places, but I'm all for banning smoking altogether.
Let me explain.
I am myself a smoker, and as a smoker I feel it my right to be able to have a cigarette when I go out for a pint, but if smoking were banned altogether it would give me no option but to stop. I have tried on many occaisions to stop smoking, (personal best - 2 weeks :cry: ) but my wife also smokes, and this makes stopping twice as difficult. A total ban would rectify this, and be better for me, my wife and every smoker out there, but as it stands with smoking being allowed, I feel it a bad move to ban it in all public places.
I agree with this post 100%. This mirrors my sentiment.

Originally posted by "senseofplace"

If we banned everyone from doing anything at all either harmful to themselves or potentially to other people, small though the risk may be, we'd all be sitting at home with our hands on our laps worrying ourselves to death. Or we'd be dead.
Smoking. Driving. Eating anything but organically grown/produced food. Crossing the road. Drinking (anything but water from a very remote mountain spring or organic fruit juice.) Handling money (all those germs). Using computers. Watching tv. Using detergents to wash anything at all. Having pets. Going out in the sun. Having a refrigerator. Using a mobile phone...etc etc
Of course we should respect other people, and do our best not to cause others unnecessary discomfort. But let's please be realistic and reasonable about this. Trying to legislate for everything under the sun could only ever mean trouble. I value freedom too much to want to go around demanding bans on everything I personally dislike. Instead, if I feel that something someone is doing is bothering me, I either ask them politely to stop, or I go elsewhere.

Laura

Laura, I really think that you are taking the argument to a ridiculous extreme and you are certainly not being realistic. This is not about merely disliking something though for some it could be. It is about being made physically ill by being subjected to peoples smoke or being prohibited from having the same access to places as everybody else.

You can hardly equate smoking to using a mobile, handling money, drinking water and so on. Smoke stinks, is dirty, is harmful and its anti-social.

I still maintain that my daughters right to breathe, overrides your right to smoke.

Yes, I admit to taking it to an extreme. To illustrate my point. :)
However, I will back my point up this far - the things that I wrote down are not merely disliked. They are harmful. Or are believed at the moment to be harmful.
Yes, some experts would say that your daughter IS safer occassionally breathing in cigarette smoke than talking a lot on her mobile. So yes, I can equate the two.
My partner has a nearly fatal reaction to cat fur, even if the cat itself is not around - definitely and immediately harmful, but I am not demanding the removal of cats from all public places (at this time :wink: ).
I'm actually quite concerned about the quality of the water we all drink and the evil bits and pieces it has in it (heavy metals, hormones, pesticides) and their long-term affect on us and our children.
I might have gone overboard on the money, but driving is definitely harmful in many many ways (including exacerbating asthma).
Going out in the sun, using detergents, most foods we're given - I stand by them all causing a significant amount of threat that we should be at least concerned if not worried about.
And cigarettes. But I stand by my right to smoke in the open air if I so desire, and in any other public place where I am specifically invited to by the owners - AND believe it or not, as long as I feel that it won't be harming or bothering people who have no choice but to stay there.

Laura

Personally i don't smoke but i read in the press recently about a possible public smoking ban and i was wonderin what other people think.?

erm - it doesn't affect me directly because I don't smoke but the whinging and whining we get when we go to Meadowhall 'cos the hubby canne have a smoke where he likes is unreal.

It makes shopping a chore - which is NOT good.

Generally I don't care - my husband stated he was fully prepared to sign one of those health contracts (in a thread not so long agao) to stop smoking and then he would stop paying tax and national insurance.

Moon Maiden

People have a RIGHT to smoke if they wish, however I do object to having to breathe others tobacco smoke. I don't allow smoking in my home, or my car, I refuse to go anywhere where there is tobacco smoke, clubs, pubs, restaurants, any public place and that is MY right.

Whilst I live, I want to be able to breathe and walk about and enjoy my life, not having to lie in a hospital bed gasping for breath or have my limbs amputated caused by passive smoking, ( yes really, that is what passive smoking causes .) ask any medical specialist.

It has been said, well, why do they allow the maqnufacture of cigarettes then? why don't they ban them? well, it's not going to happen, is it? So, it is up to the individual, it is their choice, I don't care who smokes, but I do not intend to breathe the killer blue haze!!!

Originally posted by halevan
People have a RIGHT to smoke if they wish

What about my right to breathe clean air?

Its horrible for non smokers to have to breathe in that foul smelling smoke. We choose not to smoke for a reason and they inflict their choice TO smoke upon us. They make pubs into horrible stuffy places that would be much more pleasant without them.
Anyone out there who smokes should realise that the smoke travels quite a long way and stays in the room for a long time after youve finished. Its not pleasant and its not fair on people who dont like it.
We shouldnt have to avoid going public places cos of it and we shouldnt have to make D-tours round people to avoid breathing it in, THEY should be the ones going out of their way, not us.

How right you are Kittykat, I am with you 100 % on this. non smokers have put up with breathing this filth for far too long, I cannot go in a place of entertainment because of it, on holiday, we will not go into the concert room for a drink at night due to the room being full of smoke. So we have to either go out of the hotel or sit in our room to avoid it.

And what about the little children of smokers? they are helpless and have to breathe it, having no choice, people should be prosecuted for imposing this on their children.

Nobody has mentioned this yet. What about banning smoking on TV? It wouldn't surprise me if the powers that be had not already considered this.

Originally posted by Lickszz
Nobody has mentioned this yet. What about banning smoking on TV? It wouldn't surprise me if the powers that be had not already considered this.

A very good point, Lickszz. Sadly, product placement is very lucrative for film and movie producers. Did you really think those Marlboros that Louis Lane was smoking in Superman II were simply a happy coincidence...:x

Originally posted by Lickszz
Nobody has mentioned this yet. What about banning smoking on TV? It wouldn't surprise me if the powers that be had not already considered this.

Instead of banning it, it could be made a rule that only the bad guys are allowed to smoke... that should put "good people" off smoking and encourage the bad guys out there to smoke themselves to an early grave. ;)

Going back to halevan's point about "people having the right to smoke" ... well, they only have that right because we've not taken it away. If I wanted to go around Meadowhall naked, I would get arrested because it would offend people... so why not ban smoking...?

(Being naked isn't a danger to other people's health either... well, not really... unless they have a heart condition :lol: ... erm ... I've said enough already I think.)

News today that doctors are calling for a public smoking ban. Apparently voluntary measures in pubs etc has failed, so to reduce the risks from passive smoking a total ban in public places is being proposed.

What do you think?

Depends on what they mean by 'public place'... if that's anywhere outside then I think 'no' quite strongly. If they mean pubs and clubs then it should be up to the owners, not the government. And what would a total ban really do? It would cost millions to enforce, create a mountain of extra paperwork and remove a highly lucrative source of tax from the government's coffers...!

I voted yes because I feel it is my right to breath clean air and not other's pollutants. Why should my health suffer because someone who has no regard for their own life is selfish enough to light up in the same room as me. Before you all say it, yes I could easily walk out and go elsewhere, but why should I?!

Awaiting the backlash from all the smokers now ;)

I should think that most companies would be in favour of this as it would reduce the risk of litigation by staff who were subjected to passive smoking. I'm in favour of a complete ban in indoor public places even though I do have the odd rollie now and then.

As to policing such a ban I should imagine it would be just as easy as policing the compulsory wearing of seat belts. There isn't a policeman in every car and yet 90+%(a guess) of drivers and passengers wear their seatbelts.

I'm all for a ban.

I hate smoking, nasty habit.

How about if there was a blanket ban, and pubs, etc were able to apply for a smoking licence after say 6 months from the start of the ban?

Would that give them a chance to make it work?

From : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3235148.stm

Doctors urge public smoking ban
=======================
Doctors say passive smoking kills 1,000 adults a year
The Royal College of Physicians and 17 other medical colleges have called for a ban on smoking in public places.

In a letter to The Times, they warned there was now compelling evidence about the dangers of passive smoking.

They argued the system of voluntary self-regulation in bars and restaurants had failed, and called for legislation.

The tough stance reflects a growing international concern about the harmful effects of passive smoking, which doctors say kills 1,000 adults a year.

The Irish Republic and Norway are on course to ban smoking in public places in the New Year.

Doctors' leaders says Britain's voluntary route, where bars and restaurants are encouraged to introduce no-smoking policies, is simply not enough.

They argue that passive smoking not only causes 1,000 deaths in adults each year, but is also responsible for asthma, lung infections and ear problems in children.

Professor Carol Black of the Royal College of Physicians told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that evidence from the World Health Organisation, the UK Committee on Carcinogenicity and the government's own Committee on Science and Health all showed the need to introduce a public smoking ban.

"In 1998, the government said there was no doubt smoking kills and suggested progress could be achieved by working with [the tobacco] industry rather than to enforce a public ban. That progress has not been fast," she said.

Professor Black said only 36 pubs in the country had enforced their own smoking bans.

She added voluntary bans had not worked well, but an enforced public smoking ban could save about 160,000 lives per year.

Health Minister Melanie Johnson agreed the rate of progress over voluntary bans had not been good, but denied there was a need for a public ban.

"Smoke-free places are the ideal, but the evidence is that public opinion remains divided," she said.

"There is also cost and a difficulty involved in enforcing a no smoking ban."

She added there was a lot of room for the hospitality industry to enforce their own smoking bans, adding they had so far been slow to respond to demand."

Meanwhile, the Mayor of London is consulting on what Londoners think about where people should be able to smoke, and other cities such as Sheffield, Birmingham and Brighton are considering bringing in more restrictions.

In the summer, restaurant chain Pizza Hut claimed to be the UK's first nationwide restaurant chain to introduce a total smoking ban.
============== End of quoted Article ===============

"She added voluntary bans had not worked well, but an enforced public smoking ban could save about 160,000 lives per year." - that's a lot of lives!

I have mixed feelings about this. I smoked for about 20 years and have only recently given it up (just over 6 months now). As most of my friends still smoke if there were smoking and non-smoking pubs I'd end up going to the smoking one as that's where my mates would go.
As a compromise I'd suggest encouraging better/more efficient vertallation systems which would extract the smoke more readily and don't leave it lingering in the air.

Nomme

Originally posted by Dick Dastardly
Awaiting the backlash from all the smokers now ;)

Ahem... cough... ok then!! I think if you're worried about pollution there are much worse things!!! It's been said before so I won't harp on about it. I think there should be designated smoking areas in public instead - then you really would have the choice of where to go... How does a cigarette outside pollute anyway???

I would much rather Fireworks be banned from public sale.
However, I would settle for a public smoking ban... for now!

Originally posted by Agent Dan
Ahem... cough... ok then!! I think if you're worried about pollution there are much worse things!!! It's been said before so I won't harp on about it. I think there should be designated smoking areas in public instead - then you really would have the choice of where to go... How does a cigarette outside pollute anyway???

Ok, It was a little ambiguous when I stated that I agreed that smoking should be banned in public places. This was a bit of a broad statement to say the least. What I really meant was that I agree that smoking should be banned from pubs and restaurants etc, but as for outside then that's taking it too far. Maybe the way forward is to compromise and create a smoking zone in a separate room in such establishments.

I think a separate smoking area is a good idea and to be honest most pubs have them. The Wetherspoons group has a no-smoking area which is good but small. I think they should subtley change it to a smoking area so the non-smoking bit is bigger.....

Some restaurants have had smoking areas for years, but not all...Pizza Express being a good example...Exapnding on this and enforcing it as mandatory for all public places can only be a good thing, as it will eventually lead to smaller and smaller smoking areas in pubs/rastaurants, which assists in phasing out the whole smoking thing. For instance; you cant get into your fav curry house cos all the smoking tables have gone what would you be inclined to do?......go somewhere else, not on your life if its the local, you just wouldnt smoke for a few hours then before you know it....Bingo! more and more people acclimatise to not smoking in restaurants and so dont.....

I used to smoke and if people want, or rather NEED to smoke, then its a nice touch to give them a specific area in which to do so, remember all you never smoked types, its more a NEED than a want, its an addiction remember.

Don't see how this is related to Sheffield, so moving.

Originally posted by Sidla
Don't see how this is related to Sheffield, so moving.

Fair enough but you may have overlooked this from the article I quoted :

" Meanwhile, the Mayor of London is consulting on what Londoners think about where people should be able to smoke, and other cities such as Sheffield, Birmingham and Brighton are considering bringing in more restrictions. "

Nomme

Ah right. Well it's a bit of both then, so doesn't really make a massive difference.

Originally posted by nomme
Fair enough but you may have overlooked this from the article I quoted :

" Meanwhile, the Mayor of London is consulting on what Londoners think about where people should be able to smoke, and other cities such as Sheffield, Birmingham and Brighton are considering bringing in more restrictions. "

Nomme

Originally posted by Sidla
Ah right. Well it's a bit of both then, so doesn't really make a massive difference.

Ahhh the war of the MODS kicks off! :D

The husband reckons the only way to get people to stop smoking is not by decreasing the amount of nicotine in cigarettes (which has recently occurred) but by bumping it up to disgusting levels.

That way smokers would puff have a damned good choke and refuse to light another one.
Instead the government has decreased the amount of nictoine thus smokers are buying more.

Is the government backing the Dr's on this one?? It doesn't look that way does it? Too much money to loose.

I am not sure about a ban. I enjoy a smoke with a pint, but when I am not drinking the smoke does my head in at the moment.

Moon

I as a bad giver uper have gone back to smoking recently, and a s nomme has given up I have kept our house non smoking and go into the garden to have a cigarette. The car is also non smoking.

When i go out I smoke, but would appreciate much better ventilation in pubs, as sometimes it is so bad even I can't stand it. I also find it so funny that most pubs i know of with a non smoking area are packed and there is noone sitting in that area. Why should it be kept empty?

In restaurants I am bad at smoking between courses, but if someone near me says would you please not smoke that is fine I won't but when people are sat there waving arms and coughing I think that is so rude and why should I not smoke, it is a smoking resaurant. If they wanted non smoking they should have asked for it. Just a polite request works in both cases.

And people that do it in the street, like at the bus stop, are really annoying, again they only have to ask. Have they not realised it is only me lighting my cigarette that makes the bus come anyway.

Most people that go in pubs smoke, and those that don't are usually with someone that does. I think that if you ban it i think you will find a lot of businesses will suffer as people won't go.

Anyway rant over, I don't mind a ban might be good it may help me give up again, but it won't stop me going outside if i want to have one as at the minute i am a considerate smoker to polite people.

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
The husband reckons the only way to get people to stop smoking is not by decreasing the amount of nicotine in cigarettes (which has recently occurred) but by bumping it up to disgusting levels.

That way smokers would puff have a damned good choke and refuse to light another one.
Moon

Unfortunately increasing the nicotine would only increase the addiction. It is also a poison so increasing it too much would actually create more illness and waste more NHS money (which is the real reason the doctors are complaining) and wouldn't make anyone choke as the smoke inhaled would still be virtually the same... a friend of mine once got nicotine poisoning - you turn yellow and throw up a lot, wasn't pleasant!!

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
The husband reckons the only way to get people to stop smoking is not by decreasing the amount of nicotine in cigarettes (which has recently occurred) but by bumping it up to disgusting levels.

That way smokers would puff have a damned good choke and refuse to light another one.
Instead the government has decreased the amount of nictoine thus smokers are buying more.
Moon

There's good evidence to show that tobacco companies have had tight control over the amount of nicotine in cigarettes for some time, and have increased it over time. If you de-nicotinised cigarettes, people would not get addicted to it in the same way. By increasing the quantity of nicotine, they ensure stronger cravings.

Used in much higher quantities, especially with more 'shamanic' subspecies of tobacco, like 'Nicotiana Rustica' (most cigarettes use 'nicotiana sylvestris'), nicotine becomes a powerful psychotropic drug. Vomiting usually signals the start of the experience.

The difficulty with using nicotine as an exploratory psychotropic is the relatively fine line between effective ad lethal dose.

Does anyone actually believe the government will back a total ban?

Originally posted by Agent Dan
Does anyone actually believe the government will back a total ban? I don't think they will. But they should.

They should ban smoking in all indoor places where people work (which includes pubs, restaurants, shopping centres, etc - which I think covers most places). Outdoor, it's not as bad as it will drift off into the atmosphere.

Maybe places should get a license to allow smoking - like they do drinking. Now that's an idea!

Originally posted by Tony Ruscoe
Maybe places should get a license to allow smoking - like they do drinking. Now that's an idea!

... and a good one too! I'm all for stopping passive smoking, even though I smoke myself. It was never my intention to harm others (well, with the smoking at least!!) - having designated, licenced smoking areas would be a good compromise...

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
There's good evidence to show that tobacco companies have had tight control over the amount of nicotine in cigarettes for some time, and have increased it over time. If you de-nicotinised cigarettes, people would not get addicted to it in the same way. By increasing the quantity of nicotine, they ensure stronger cravings.


Well then my husband and most of his relatives are contradictory to the evidence because since nicotine levels in cigarettes has been reduced - just over a month and a half ago, they have all started smoking more to get the normal amount of nicotine that they are used to.

But there is always one isn't there :)

Moon Maiden

Not keen on smoking and never smoked but I don't think I would support a ban to such a magnitude.

No way should there be a ban.

Respect for non-smokers, better ventilation etc etc is a better way to deal with it.

People should have the right to smoking areas just as much as people should have the right to have a non-smoking area.

The Government doesn't want people to give up smoking, be realistic, it makes too much money and all you non-smokers benefit from it so stop complaining. So what was the statistic...1000 die a year from passive smoking was it? Ok, that's not good but can that justify all the fuss? If we really want to get into this, I get public transport to work, I am a pedestrian, how many people get knocked over and killed by cars a year? I get splashed with rain by inconsiderate drivers and breathe in the exhust fumes everyday from all the drivers out there. Why do smokers get picked on in particular?

What's next.....first the pubs and restaurants, then clubs, then CTV cameras installed everywhere monitoring people smoking and when spotted getting a fine....CTV cameras in the streets with the power to detect smoking like a speed camera, what then, the thought police arresting you for thinking about smoking? Big Brother is watching you!

How much money would all this cost? You have to justify this ban if it happens.

I don't see what traffic pollution has to do with banning smoking in restaurants, pubs and other public places.

did you read my post!!
It has everything to do with it, people want smoking banned in these places because it annoys them or endangers their health.
Well traffic pollution is bad for your health, environment and endangers lives. I'm not asking for traffic to be banned, I'm making a valid point that there are many things in life that annoy people and endanger people but we don't harp on about it we avoid it where we can.
As I said in my previous post "Respect for non-smokers, better ventilation etc etc is a better way to deal with it"

"People should have the right to smoking areas just as much as people should have the right to have a non-smoking area"

Smoking wouldn't need to be banned in restaurants if there is a well ventilated separate area. Then everyone is happy. Why should smokers suffer?

Separate areas never work, in my experience. There's always a smoker who sits/stands right at the edge and thinks it's funny to blow smoke into the no smoking area.

As I said in a previous post having a non-smoking area is like having a non-peeing area in a swimming pool.

Originally posted by Foxxx
Why should smokers suffer?
Because it's about time that they know how it feels!!!!!!! :thumbsup:

Originally posted by max
As I said in a previous post having a non-smoking area is like having a non-peeing area in a swimming pool.
or a car-free pedestrian precinct for example?

Ultimately I think the ban will come, even though the treasury will lose out to the tune of about £1000 per year per smoker (estimated tax revenue). That's about £12.8 billion pounds a year (£1.28e10) or about one third of the total defence budget.

But it is the biggest killer of all the commonly available drugs, debilitating those it does not kill.

And the profits go towards making Mr Kenneth Clarke et al very rich indeed.

Why do Doctors etc always say things like "it costs the NHS..." x amount of money each year?

Think about the actual amount in tax and excise which goes into Government coffers each year - many, many times the cost of hospitalisation. And costs of hospitalisation should be taken from that. NHS gets all its funds from taxation anyway.

Pubs and Clubs in Victoria, Australia were forced to have non-smoking gaming rooms and restaurants last year, and clubs all put back money into the local communities. After the 'ban', profits went down by an average of 40%.

So, clubs had to have smoking and non smoking areas, costing them money to set up, communities lost much needed revenue from cluibs, and governments lost a great amount in gaming taxes.

But all for the public good?

Originally posted by Tony
News today that doctors are calling for a public smoking ban. Apparently voluntary measures in pubs etc has failed, so to reduce the risks from passive smoking a total ban in public places is being proposed.

What do you think?

Smoking should be banned in public places, although I beleive people should be able to smoke if they wish, as long as I don't have to breathe their smoke, because that is depriving me of my right to clean air.

I cannot go anywhere I want because of tobacco smoke, so I am restriced as I have to stay away or breathe it and I am not happy about the situation. One example was when I used to go hosteling, the main room where everyone used at night was equipped with T.V. Hi-Fi a fire and where one could eat ones food but smoking was allowed and the atmosphere was thick with tobacco smoke.

So I would not go in and had to sit in another room without T.V. or fire and shiver on a very cold winters night. Discrimination or what?

Originally posted by halevan
Smoking should be banned in public places, although I beleive people should be able to smoke if they wish, as long as I don't have to breathe their smoke, because that is depriving me of my right to clean air.
Cars deprive you the right to clean air, as do factories, power stations, aircraft, etc., etc., etc. Should all these things be banned too?

I voted 'yes' BTW, but not because I believe people should be allowed 'clean air'. Cars put far more harmful gasses into the air than cigarettes ever will. I think if it was banned in public places it would encourage more people to quit.

Originally posted by Sidla
Cars deprive you the right to clean air, as do factories, power stations, aircraft, etc., etc., etc. Should all these things be banned too?

I voted 'yes' BTW, but not because I believe people should be allowed 'clean air'. Cars put far more harmful gasses into the air than cigarettes ever will. I think if it was banned in public places it would encourage more people to quit.

I don't think it would necessarily encourage people to quit. Ok, yes, some will, but a lot of people don't want to quit, and what you will find happens is that people stay in more and drink. Bit like people have to stay in to smoke dope, they will stay in so that they can enjoy cigarettes. Most of my social group of friends are smokers and I know that they wouldn't give up because of a ban. If they can't go to a pub and enjoy a cigarette with their drink then they will go elsewhere. The pubs will start losing out bigtime, profits will go down and ultimately thats more money lost as there is tax on beer.
I don't think people realise the knock on effect of banning smoking.
A friend of mine made a valid point recently, look at all the air rage on aeroplanes, this increased a lot after smoking was banned, mostly caused by people withdrawing from cigarettes!

Hmmm...I've read some interesting views here...as much as I loathe smoking, it generates over £9bn a year in tax for the govt.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,2763,1100787,00.html

If that stops, where's the govt gonna raise finance from?

I'm absolutely against smoking in public, or near any non-smokers, especially children. If adults want to smoke in private, let them grant themselves a slow, painful death.

Just don't push the queue when we all need heart and lung transplants at 50 ;)

And stop smoking in bus shelters just 'cos it's raining

Originally posted by Abby

If that stops, where's the govt gonna raise finance from?



The petrol pump + an abundance of new stealth taxes?

Even so, would be a big hole to fill wouldn't it? :confused: