Smoking ban

[lnr]

Lots of people are talking about the UK plan to totally ban smoking in enclosed public places which was voted through yesterday evening. Most of my friends list who have commented seem keen, though some have reservations. I'm curious as to what those who've not said anything yet feel. Do propogate this as widely as you like. Personally I think it's a good move, though I would have been as happy with the amendment which allowed smoking in private clubs. I do think a total ban in pubs is an excellent step. And no, I don't smoke, though I have in the past been in the "Well... a bit " category. - oh yeah and just to add I am still occasionally tempted if I'm out with one of the few friends who smoke. [Poll #673518]

Comments

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

Smoking was banned in pubs, bars and restaurants here a few years ago. The trade predicted doom and disaster but it didn't happen. The bars are as busy as ever but much more pleasant places to be. If people want a cigarette they step outside for one just like at work.

[aldabra]

Let's hope they ban that too; I'm fed up of having to hold my breath through a cloud of smoke on my way out to lunch just because we've got a sheltered doorway...

[dwagon.livejournal.com]

For the last question, I wanted to select all of the first three :)

One thing to bear in mind re private members clubs is that student unions are private members clubs, and as someone who spends at lot of time in the IC Union I'm very glad it'll finally be totally smoke-free next summer.

[artela.livejournal.com]

The thing is, with a private members club there is nothing to stop the members of that club voting it in for themselves...

Other:

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

A nagging unease as to what they'll ban next.

When they came for the foxhunters I did not speak up, because I was not a foxhunter.
When they came for the smokers I did not speak up, because I was not a smoker.

Re: Other:

[beckyc.livejournal.com]

Yes, me too. I don't like the government's nanny state attitude and generally disagree with banning things.

But this case? Well, smokers are harming lots of other people, and I will like the end effects so it's a tough call for me.

Re: Other:

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

They aren't banning smoking. They are banning inflicting your smoke on people who don't want it. It's more like banning drinking and driving. You can drink all you like just don't put me in jeopardy by driving.

Re: Other:

[glamwhorebunni.livejournal.com]

*agrees*

Re: Other:

[artela.livejournal.com]

Absolutely... what's next? Alcohol? Fatty foods? Being out in public unaccompanied by another adult?...

Re: Other:

[pippaalice.livejournal.com]

But I don't agree with smoking in clubs and bars or ripping foxes to bits. I do agree with smoking on streets/outside places/in private. I do agree with being able to drink as much as you like as long as you are not dangerous. These are things I will stand up for, I will not stand up for smoking or foxhunting and I resent the idea that just because I don't somehow it will be 'told you so' if they ban something I agree with.

[pir.livejournal.com]

I've lived in two cities where smoking has been banned (Boston and Dublin), exactly as chickenfeet2003 says all the doom and gloom sayers came to nothing. Life went on as usual, except I could breathe better when I went out for a drink. Those who wished to smoke just went outside briefly (and believe me, during a Boston winter you've got to be a pretty dedicated smoker to go out in -5C/-10C for a cig).

Smoking in pubs was one of my reservations about moving back to the UK, when I visit London for a weekend and go out with people for a couple of nights I'm coughing my lungs up for most of the rest of the week. Much happier about moving now :)

[artela.livejournal.com]

Public houses in cities/ large towns are quite a different matter to small rural public houses though. Our small rural local has just about enough trade to keep it from shutting. The landlady smokes. Her staff smoke. About 85% of the people using the public bar smoke. There are two bars, so it would be easy enough to have a smoking one and a non-smoking one, but instead smoking will be entirely banned and some of the already dwinding clientele will stop going. In this particular case where is the justice and fairness for any of those people?

[artela.livejournal.com]

By "mixed opinions" I mean that I favoured the "partial" option - I believe in choice and the rights of both sides here - it should have been perfectly feasible to cater for everyone in some way :-(

[emperor]

I think it's an excellent thing. I really hate smoky rooms, I hate the way all my clothes stink afterwards, I hate the "smoke in your face" effect when you shower in the morning, and as an epidemiologist I'll be glad to see the back of so much passive smoking.

[claroscuro.livejournal.com]

I'm an ex-smoker - a year and a half now, and heading on for two years, it's been. I've seldom had the desire to have a cigarette since I quit.

My mixed feelings? Well, I guess it'll be nice not to have to breathe other people's smoke in the pub, but at the same time, I'm really wary about banning smoking on other-people's-health grounds, or unpleasant-for-non-smokers. I'm terrified of dogs - largely because I've been bitten, the dog concerned being on a lead and apparently well behaved before that - so can I have a 'you should not be allowed to walk your dogs in public places because they may damage my health' campaign? - why should I suffer because you want to have a large and dangerous predator in your life? Why should you be able to make my bus reek of wet dog?

But if we ban everything that might impact on someone else, pretty soon, we'll be locked in little coffins, because that's the only way to be completely 'safe'. Hmm.

I'm incoherent, but that's kind of it...

[pippaalice.livejournal.com]

the smoke that fags pump out = dangerous to health of others. smell of wet dog = not dangerous.

I also imagine that more ppl die of passive smoking than dog related iccidents.

[ms-saffie.livejournal.com]

Like many other things in life, I believe that people should have a choice. I think that *some* pubs becoming non-smoking is a good idea, to allow people to go and have a drink in the atmosphere they like.
However, I disagree with the total ban. I think people should have a *choice*, and that should mean that people have to option to smoke if they wish when having a drink. People say that they don't like not having the choice to avoid secondary smoke. Well, how about other people's choice to smoke in a designated pub? What about *smokers'* rights? Smokers have stopped smoking at work, public transport and so on. I think one institution that allows smoking is not too much to ask.
I think one of the most concerning aspects of the ban is the imposition of the government on non-government premises and the public. They are telling people what they must do, they are telling *private* businesses what they HAVE TO DO. I think the government has intruded on the populace's life quite enough.
I like to think of myself as a responsible smoker. I don't smoke in restaurants, even in the smoking section, because people are eating. I sit away from non-smoking sections. I don't smoke at work, on public transport and so on. But I do think smokers deserve to have the opportunity to go into an environment where they can smoke. Just as others should have the chance to go to an environment without smoke.

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

If I may:

Like many other things in life, I believe that people should have a choice. I think that *some* pubs becoming mixed-race is a good idea, to allow people to go and have a drink in the atmosphere they like. However, I disagree with total integration. I think people should have a *choice*, and that should mean that people have to option to be in a whites-only environment if they wish when having a drink. People say that they don't like not having the choice to go to all pubs regardless of their race. Well, how about other people's choice to drink in a whites-only pub? What about *racists'* rights? Racists have stopped discriminating at work, on public transport and so on. I think one institution that allows segregation is not too much to ask. I think one of the most concerning aspects of the ban is the imposition of the government on non-government premises and the public. They are telling people what they must do, they are telling *private* businesses what they HAVE TO DO. I think the government has intruded on the populace's life quite enough.
I like to think of myself as a responsible racist. I don't believe in segregation in restaurants, even in transport cafes, because people are hungey. I sit away from black customers. I don't discriminate at work, on public transport and so on. But I do think racists deserve to have the opportunity to go into an environment where they can be with their own kind. Just as others should have the chance to go to a mixed-race environment..

[simont]

I have to confess to being terribly selfish on this issue. Normally I like to take a balanced view of almost everything; in a case like this I should be thinking about the passive-smoking harm to customers, their choice to be there or not, the passive-smoking harm to employees, their choice to be there or not, the general ethics of the State dictating what we should or shouldn't do and the question of whether any given harm is bad enough to make it worth having a law, the question of enforceability, and probably nine or ten other factors which have momentarily slipped my mind. I generally find it easy to see both sides of an argument, and often find it rather more difficult to make up my mind into a clear opinion one way or the other.

But in this particular case, I find my lungs outvoting my brain two to one. I'm very fond of breathing, and in spite of all the potential objections to a ban I simply cannot find it in me to disapprove of a measure which will allow me to do so more conveniently in a wider range of places.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

I do have a slight discomfort about broad-brush bans. Perhaps more so when the effects are skewed towards particular socioeconomic groups, though I don't think this case gives much to worry about there upon a full consideration.

But, well, it's not a harmless pleasure (even ignoring the effect on the smoker): as such I don't think it's unreasonable to regulate it to reduce the harm it causes. I think time will tell whether the decision here was a good one or was heavy-handed.

[catyak]

You could argue that the groups most affected by the ban are precisely the groups that need help and encouragement to stop smoking. Although if you're in a pub in Glasgow and an inebriated local lights up, are you going to ask him to stop or just leave?

D

[knell.livejournal.com]

The government does a lot of telling private businesses what they "have to do", a lot of which is in the interest of health and safety. Mine owners have a statutory duty to protect their employees from dangerous fumes which may present a health hazard, after all.

Without legislative activity in this area we'd still have four-year-old kids crawling around under running mill looms and workplace accident statistics which would make anyone used to things as they've been since government started involving itself in these areas turn green.

Most things like this have come about after industries have been warned and given a chance to clean up their act, and haven't because ultimately it might cut into the bottom line. Publicans have had many years to fit efficient smoke extractors (you can really tell when a pub has'em) to avoid exposure to second hand smoke, but most haven't even bothered to install an extractor fan.

[karen2205]

My libertarian ideals tell me I should be opposed to a smoking ban and that it's up to non smokers to avoid putting themselves in smoke filled environments if they want to avoid smoking related illnesses. But my libertarian ideals also say that we shouldn't force employees to breath smoke at work. I can't help thinking that there should be some way to protect employees without banning smoking entirely (eg. use of extractor fans, only allow smoking in a separate room that employees only enter when not in use + when it's been properly ventilated with clean air).

But personally, I'm glad that pubs will become non-smoking. I rarely go to pubs because of (a) the drinks' prices and (b) the smoke. When they're non-smoking I'll probably go more often.

I do hope that the ban on smoking indoors doesn't result in the smokers taking over the pub garden in the summer.

I also wish they'd banned smoking outside when in a queue or at a bus stop. I cannot avoid being at a bus stop if I want to get home, yet I've no effective way to avoid the smoke.

[catyak]

I also wish they'd banned smoking outside when in a queue or at a bus stop. I cannot avoid being at a bus stop if I want to get home, yet I've no effective way to avoid the smoke.

Just have a prolonged and dramatic coughing fit whenever someone lights up and they're upwind of you.

D

[marnanel.livejournal.com]

Eating in smoke-free atmosphere

...and drinking and dancing and so on. When Fin was in England we could hardly go out anywhere because of everywhere being smoky (she has asthma).

[lusercop.livejournal.com]

and what about this (http://syndicated.livejournal.com/lightfoot_links/179737.html)?

[lnr]

Does he really think inviting a friend into his house is inviting the public in? Or does he mean he does things like the exhibition open house thing that some of Cambridge's artists sometimes get involved in? It must be the former since he states every normal house counts - in which case I think he must be wrong, though I'd be interested to see proof.

And I don't think your house becomes someone's "place of work" just because they're fixing your phoneline. Even if it did it would presumably only apply while they were there.

[ms-saffie.livejournal.com]

On a side note, I have been thinking of giving up smoking. However, this ban infuriates me so much it actually makes me *want* to continue to smoke in pubs.
Don't want an argument, just observing :)

[pir.livejournal.com]

For anyone who thinks that a smoking ban will affect trade in pubs or reduce the number of people going out, the Irish smoking ban has found that these fears there were entirely unfounded there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3763471.stm

[infinitarian.livejournal.com]

I commented on this (http://infinitarian.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_infinitarian_archive.html#112411638328079812) last year on my blog. I think it's intrusive, patronising and unnecessary, and (while for the sake of honesty I clicked "Well... a bit"), I really don't think of myself as a smoker.

[infinitarian.livejournal.com]

Should add that, thanks to my miserliness in not paying HaloScan for permanent archiving of my comments, the rather lively argument which ensued has now been dissipated on the cyber-winds. The point about bar staff having to work in smoky environments was made, though, and my response was that working in a pub isn't actually compulsory, and that people enter such work aware of the conditions it requires.

Further discussion turned up the contention that some economically disadvantaged people are unable to find alternative work, and I suggested that an adequate governmental response to that would treat the cause (lack of employment opportunities) rather than the very indirect symptom (the presence of smoke in certain workplaces).

[mtbc100.livejournal.com]

I should add that I think that the ban goes a little too far, but only a little.