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

[pippaalice.livejournal.com]

This is true. But in general you are less likely to be in a place with little ventlation (as far as I am aware, people with breathing problems don't tend to have much problem in say, a park that has a dog in.) with a dog than you are with someone smoking. In fact the only places now are public transport and a few pubs.

[lnr]

I'm sorry jdc but while I see the point you're trying to make several of your substitutions are not even vaguely like-for-like: "I sit away from black customers" and "I sit away from non-smoking sections" for example: a courtesy to others being turned into a statement of aversion.

I'm not going to delete any comments, because I don't believe that helps, but I'd appreciate it if you could apologise for upsetting saffie - at least make it clear you don't believe she's a racist or similarly bad.

We've all seen people use nazism as an analogy in the same way you've just used racism, and I doubt you think that's appropriate. Or do you really think smoking is as unpleasant as racism?

[mobbsy.livejournal.com]

A smoker or non-smoker could go into a segregated premesis simply by modifying their behaviour, if only for a short time. Racial segregation has no such analogy.

Re: Other:

[pippaalice.livejournal.com]

By that logic we should never ban anything...

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

Hang about. I'm not comparing being a smoker to being black, I'm comparing allowing smoking in private businesses because people can choose whether to go there with allowing racism in private businesses because people can choose whether to go there.

[aldabra]

And we already ban dogs which have no reason for existence other than killing things...

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

I've done the arguing blandly about it to death though, really. Basically in my view smoking = physical aggression which harms me. It should be banned in public just like walking up to people and slapping them.

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

Re screening: I could but I have to be on a train. Please cut and paste my reply for me...

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

No, you're comparing being a non-smoker to being black. You wouldn't play the "you're just like a racist" card unless your side of the argument was represented by the less advantaged group.

[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.

[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).

[ms-saffie.livejournal.com]

Harmful, yes. Unacceptable, no. Making non-smokers breathe in your smoke may be considered unacceptable because you are imposing something on them that is detrimental. As a by-product, you can also argue that making their clothes smell of something they don't like is also unpleasant.

It does differ from racism in so many fundamental aspects, that I'm surprised you can't see them. Secondary smoke in closed areas does cause harm. Therefore it is fair and reasonable to provide a choice for non-smokers to enjoy an evening in smoke-free surroundings. However, I think it is fair to provide facilities in which people can smoke, if they so chose. As I mentioned before, it's not keeping anyone out of either facility - smokers can go and not smoke in non-smoking pubs, and non-smokers can come into smoking pubs. You are arguing that they are *completely* segregated, with no exceptions.
You see, it's a matter of choice whether to smoke, whereas the colour of your skin is not a choice. There are good reasons not to smoke, whereas there are not good reasons for racism.
I think you're getting mixed up in the 'hate' aspect. Smokers and non-smokers don't hate each other as people, and don't look down on each other as human beings. The only reason for a choice of facilities is just that - to provide a *choice*. It doesn't impinge on normal social interaction, and as for the example of violence, that really is spurious.

[lnr]

[I posted a version of that comment, then deleted it, jdc replied to the earlier version too quickly though. I've screened that reply as it was dangling. He's asked me to repost his reply here as he has to catch a train]

I'd appreciate it if you could apologise for upsetting saffie - at least make it clear you don't believe she's a racist or similarly bad.

Of course I don't, I'm sorry if it appeared that way. I was engaging in the normal philosophy undergraduate pastime of constructing a logically similar argument to one which appears acceptable in order to explain why I don't consider it valid.

Or do you really think smoking is as unpleasant as racism?

It depends what racists do. I'd rather sit next to a table of racists than a table of smokers, but evidently beating someone up for being black is worse than blowing smoke on them.

[lusercop.livejournal.com]

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

[beckyc.livejournal.com]

Yes, I imagine that the statistics for dog related breathing trouble are much lower than those for cigarette related trouble, because fewer people will have dog trouble than cigarette trouble and there are generally more smokers than dogs in a pub!

I can't speak for others but, as a rule of thumb, if I can't smell something, it's probably not going to trigger my asthma (so dog in a park, or cigarette in a park = not big deal). But if I can smell things (strong perfume, smelly animals, cigarettes), there's a jolly good chance it will make me ill.

[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

[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

[ms-saffie.livejournal.com]

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.

You could move :)

[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.

[lusercop.livejournal.com]

I don't see how one differentiates where the private members club is concerned. If these rules apply to them, then they must apply to your house.

The place of work section presumably does apply if you're primarily working from home. I'm not sure about the other part.

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how correct he is. But if it's a possibility, and something that they're "never going to enforce", then I don't like the sound of that at all, especially with this government. They have a track record of going back on this kind of thing...

Re: Other:

[catyak]

In theory it's already an offence to serve alcohol to someone who's too far gone. It's rarely enforced though.

D

Re: Other:

[catyak]

I saw some figures once that the air in an aircraft is refreshed more often than the air in a typical office.

D

Re: Other:

[catyak]

Ban bans! That's the obvious answer.

[artela.livejournal.com]

Banning smoking in public places is an important issue on so many fronts, including health, that I think it should happen anyway

And little by little by little the rest of our freedom of choice is removed... what will you support them stopping next? Alcohol consumption (it is bad for you in the quantities normally imbibed by people going to pubs)? Fatty food consumption (it's for your own good you know)? Where does this nanny state end?

[catyak]

Dogs are already banned from many pubs.

D