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

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

You can't argue against making something illegal on the basis that it's currently legal! Racism is legal in private, just like smoking will be soon.

[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.

[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.

[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..

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.

[artela.livejournal.com]

?
I'm not on about making something illegal - I'm on about members of a club choosing for themselves whether or not they allow a legal pursuit to take place in their club or not, as per the wish of the membership majority.

[artela.livejournal.com]

Your argument is spurious.

[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]

How DARE you compare me to a racist. That is completely out of order and will be asking LNR to delete your comment. It is completely offensive, and if I hadn't already heard of your aggressive reputation, I would probably be even more furious.
You have compltely missed the point that I am rather liberal, am trying to reach a sensible balance between both parties' rights, accepting non-smokers' rights.
I think you missed all of that in *you're* bigotted opinion.
Don't drag everyone down to your level.

Re: Other:

[bellinghman.livejournal.com]

It's pretty much an averages thing.

If you were on an aircraft back then full of smokers, then it was worse than today, even with the better ventilation.

If you were on an aircraft that had no smokers on board, then it was definitely better.

These days, it's more consistent. And I suppose that the seat fabrics no longer smell of smoke.

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

Yes, and 'being a racist' is perfectly legal. But we do not allow members of a club to allow it to take place in their club, regardless of the wishes of the membership majority.

Re: Other:

[pippaalice.livejournal.com]

ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!

Why can't you be against a ban on ONE THING and for a ban on ANOTHER thing that is DIFFERENT?

Jesus...

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

How DARE you compare me to a racist.

Because your argument is completely analogous. It doesn't make you a racist, but if you believe people should be allowed to do a thing which is bad and harmful by shared consent, you need to explain why that liberalism applies to some bad things (smoking), and not others (racism).

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

Because.........?

[pir.livejournal.com]

Life isn't fair.

In many of these cases it's been found that although you lose some people who smoke you can also gain people who can't stand the smoke and attendance doesn't really change.

However, in any change of reasonable complexity there are always edge cases, you can't make everybody happy. Banning smoking in public places is an important issue on so many fronts, including health, that I think it should happen anyway. An increasing proportion of the developed world is agreeing.

Re: Other:

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

At work I have to deal with the consequences of other people being inconsiderate all the time. I agree that the pub shouldn't be like work. I want to not have to waste my friend-designated leisure time dealing with the consequences of people who know they're making other people ill, smelly and itchy and continue doing it anyway.

[ms-saffie.livejournal.com]

I don't think they are in anyway comparable. I am talking about a matter of health, which I believe is a perfectly acceptable justification for offering some kind of choice for people. Racism has no logical basis. Offering separate accommodation does.
I'm not imposing any value judgement on who is 'better', smokers or non-smokers, which is the case with racism. If smokers were able to smoke in a pub, that doesn't affect their behaviour outside of it, or how they view non-smokers. I doubt there are many 'smoker driven' beatings and killings.
Hope this clarifies things for you.

[beckyc.livejournal.com]

Smell of wet dog, or dry dog for that matter, is plenty dangerous to some people with breathing problems, just as cigarette smoke is :-(.

[ms-saffie.livejournal.com]

Actually, I don't think it would be justified to delete your comment. You have the right to free speech, and to wilfully misunderstand a valid, considered, and fair arguement.

[ms-saffie.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, non-smokers would obviously be welcome in a smoking pub, if they so chose!

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

Racism is being prejudiced about a property that isn't a bad thing and that people can't choose whether they have or not. Smoking is a bad thing and people can choose whether they do it or not. I think it was unreasonable to make the comparison.

[ms-saffie.livejournal.com]

I think you're using the analogy of racism, to minimise the fact that you don't really have a balanced view-point on this. It's embarassing for people to be (sort of) likened to a racist because they express a certain opinion, based upon certain beliefs - such as the freedom of choice.
Maybe if you explained your opinion/arguement in a less emotive manner it would be more interesting/compelling?

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

Sure, I'm not arguing about whether one is better than another. I'm arguing about whether people who want to do a harmful and unacceptable thing should be allowed to do it in clearly designated premises.

I'm yet to understand why that differs from racism - it's easy to construct a similar argument in the other case. For instance "if racists were allowed to drink in whites-only pubs, there'd be less racial violence caused by forcing people who hate each other to get drunk in close proximity to each other".

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

Alright, replace the segregated pub with the pub that just coincidentally happens to be where the local BNP, football hooligans and so forth happen to drink. Ethnic minorites are completely legally allowed to go there.

Re: Other:

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

Because once the mechanisms are in place to start banning stuff, each ban gets progressively easier to implement.