At last some sense re the smoking ban in Britain

[lozzyloz]

It's just a wind-up doing the rounds on various chat rooms. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to believe it. It has started an interesting debate though. As a recent ex-smoker I'm quite pleased that pubs and bars are smoke free. Much the same as I was pleased when trains, planes and cinemas went smoke free and I was a 40+ a day smoker in those days. the freedom to smoke is not being denied but it does mean that those who don't want to breath it, especially people who worked in smoky bars have the freedom to a healthier environment. How can you deny anyone that?

Having a separate smoking bar space within a bar or restaurant doesn't work either. It's expensive to maintain (extractors, cleaning, space cost) and it stinks. Everywhere I've seen it tried its been abandoned shortly afterwards. The problem now of course is enjoying a drink in the sun outside a nice pub with young kids in tow, because now the density of smokers has increased. Perhaps the ban should be modified to ban smoking within a 50m radius of ANY public building!

Rubs hands in ex-smokers glee!!

[macroban]

> problem now of course is enjoying a drink in [...] a nice pub with young kids in tow

Note the edit.

This problem is yet to come - banning alcohol in "pubs" because there are young children present.

[KalamityKel]

And reading in libraries...

[atila the gooner]

Marmora Man says "freedom of choice is a key right, but only as long as your decision has no negative impact on others."

You could argue that people who eat too much, drive too fast, drink too much, take part in contact sports, claim benefits from the state, have too many children, have too many electrical gadgets etc. etc, are all having a negative impact on others, and some far more negative than smoking. But as usual our poxy nanny state bows to pressure form Brussels and does as its told. Pretty soon we aren't going to be able to fart without asking permission. F**king politicians and nanny state drive me mad. Why don't we all just live in sealed cocoons all or f**king lives, that way we'll all live to be 120 years old and have the most painfully dreary lives imaginable.

[KalamityKel]

and then have a negative impact on the rest of the world? noooo ATG that's just silly! :p

[atila the gooner]

This debate reminds me of my younger son being told a few years back when he was at primary school that he couldn't run during play time, becaue of Health & Safety issues. For fecks sake, we've got thousands of obese kids who could do with some exercise, and the powers that be actively discourage physical activity. And then we wonder why we, as a nation, are so shit at every sport!!!!!! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

[MelbourneGr]

To be honest, I prefer going outside.

I hate inhaling other peoples smoke, and that's one thing I don't miss since the smoking ban in pubs and clubs came in.

[*Bob*]

The worst thing about the smoking ban is that you can smell those other 'pub and club odours' all too clearly.

You know the ones I mean.

[Cassius]

atila the gooner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You could argue that people who eat too much,

> drive too fast, drink too much, take part in

> contact sports, claim benefits from the state,

> have too many children, have too many electrical

> gadgets etc. etc, are all having a negative impact

> on others, and some far more negative than

> smoking.

Not in the same way as smoking though. If I drink too much then there might be an indirect effect on you via higher taxes to pay for my treatment if I become ill from alcohol abuse, or possibly a direct effect if I caused you or a loved one physical harm whilst under the influence. However if you smoke a cigarette near me then you will directly harm my health from the secondary smoke.

However I do agree that we live in a Nanny State. These EC directives are issued to all member states, but most countries just nod and grin - whilst the UK seems to take great pleasure in obeying even the most obscure.

[atila the gooner]

If I drive too fast and knock you down, that's pretty direct!

[Cassius]

atila the gooner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If I drive too fast and knock you down, that's

> pretty direct!

Good point well put - however ALL smoking harms other people around them - every single time a cigarette is lit; whilst the fast car knocking you over is a one off (one hopes)

[KalamityKel]

Certainly would be if you're killed!

[Jah Lush]

I hope this happens. I'm sick of having to go out in the freezing cold every time I fancy a cigarette when I'm trying to enjoy my drink. The whole experience of going to the pub has been ruined for me. A drink is fine but he's nothing without a cigarette alongside him.

I too am sick to death of this nanny state we find ourselves living in these days. There are plenty of countries in Europe who have already adopted this idea of a smoking room. It's a fair and sensible otpion and gives people a freedom of choice. If you don't want to breath our smoke then don't go into the smoking room.

[Gerrard]

Smoking room with an air lock perhaps Jah? It doesnt work and it never will. I smoke but hate breathing in other peoples fumes. Pubs are far better places to be these days, nanny state or not.

[atila the gooner]

Pubs aren't better places at all, they've been sanitised beyond recognition and are fast turning into clones of cafe/bistros from the continent. The public house is or was, a distinctly English, not British, phenomenon. I say continue smoking chaps, I'm not a smoker myself, but enjoy the odd cigar. People smoking around me has never bothered me, if it did, I'd find other things to do in other places. It seems to me non-smokers think theirs is the only point of view. Guess what, it ain't!!

[Cassius]

If there was a way to have smoking and non-smoking establishments then that would probably be the best way forward - the number of bar staff that I see outside having a cigarette, rather than at the end of the bar, makes me think that the ban has done nothing for them. I personally like being able to have a drink without secondary smoke and the smell that lingers on my clothes and hair - however if others are happier smoking..... However I am not sure that practically this would work....

[atila the gooner]

What makes me smile about this debate is the fact that everybody seems to pay no heed to one of the biggest killers on the planet, cars. They are being driven all day every day, killing the planet and most people are more pre-occupied with smokers. If we are so worried about the threat to our health and the planet, why isn't everyone making every effort to get rid of cars from our roads???? Let's get our priorities sorted people.

[Cassius]

Maybe because cars and other road vehicles are a necessity whilst smoking is a habit.

[KalamityKel]

Some could argue that to the reverse tho :)

[Brendan]

You can?t seriously think you can compare the 2. Cars are integral to transport strategy and therefore the economy, industry and commerce. They may not be the best solution but they serve a purpose.

Tobacco is not necessary to anyone. If it had never been discovered our day to day lifestyle would not be any different today. In fact if its production was totally stopped life would carry on much the same as it did before. Except that a whole bunch of African farmers would start growing the food their countries need instead of tobacco.

Get rid of cars and entire countries? economies will crumble.

[atila the gooner]

A neccessity? So we kill the planet we live on and is home to our nearest and dearest because we're too f**king lazy to find alternatives. Like I said, priorities people!!

[Cassius]

Smoking could be eradicated today with the will-power of smokers. I am sure that we need to find alternatives eventually to cars and their ilk, but its not going to happen today or tomorrow and needs a lot more than just will-power.

[*Bob*]

We don't need cars. We could all trundle round in bicycles with a little trailer on the back in a happy rainbow world.

Come on everybody! "Eeema-gine all thu pee-puu-uu-ulll..."

Oops.. sorry about that.. I dozed-off for a minute. Back to reality.

[Brendan]

I didn?t say they were the best solution but human civilization is heavily reliant on them as we stand at the moment, whether you like it or not.

Living in a city like London it is easy to be self-righteous and go on about how unnecessary they seem. In other parts of the world they are integral to keeping local economies running or even just basic survival.

[Cassius]

Even in London items that are large have to be delivered somehow. Two or three carpet fitters on bicycles just wouldn't be able to take an entire hall carpet!! or John Lewis delivering white goods......