lnr | Smoking ban

Entry tags:

poll,
smoking

Smoking ban

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]

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

That's entirely hyperbole.

They're not banning smoking. They're banning it in public places. If they were banning it entirely then I'd agree, it would be bad and taking choice away, but they aren't.

People can smoke as much as they like. Just not around other people inside the pub.

Long time since I've been in a Glasgow pub. But yes, if it encourages some people to stop then that'd be a positive side-effect.

I'd hope so. A full aircraft is considerably more crowded, and needs more frequent air changing.

I do that *anyway* - and it's normally real coughing, rather than extra special dramatic coughing. Maybe that's the problem.

The comment just illustrates that everyone seems fine with banning stuff... right up to the point where it affects something *they* don't want to see banned because if affects *them*.

...even if every single other person in the place would also be smoking in there if it wasn't banned... which is the stupid bit.

So if one person who didn't smoke walked in everyone could stop smoking and remove all the second hand smoke from the room instantly ? Yeah, that would work so well.

If you have some venues that have smoke allowed and others that do not then you limit the places where non-smokers (particularly the ones who have medical reasons for not coping with smoke) can go. Is that fair ? No. If you allow some venues to have smoke and others not then all the smokers go to that place and nothing changes. is that safe ? No.

Life isn't fair. Deal with it.

I understand the comment. But I *actually* believe that banning fox hunting and smoking in pubs and killing people and various other things are CORRECT! I don't believe banning smoking in the street or indeed completely or eating fatty foods or doing drugs ARE correct. Many of these things barely affect me BTW but I would defend to the death ppls right to do them because I believe those things are actual RIGHTS.

Yep, that should be the default position - with bans on anything only deployed when the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour.

Yeah, I know. I always thought they should have that in restaurants too, for the obese. "I'm sorry sir, I think you've had quite enough."

Life isn't fair. Deal with it.

You intimate that life wasn't "fair" before, but were you prepared to deal with it and leave it as it was? No. At least you had a choice in that there were *some* venues you could go to to socialise in the way you wanted to, and the "middle ground" proposal would at least have tried to cater for everyone in some way. It strikes me that some people are only too happy to accept these things as long as it is in their favour, and everyone else can go hang. No thought of compromise appears to have entered your head at all - it's all or nothing.

You have your views, and mine vary.
Personally I think the next thing all the vehement anti-smokers wil be complaining about and trying to get banned next will be the gaggle of people outside the front doors of public houses (i.e. outside) meaning that people have to walk through that fug to get into the pub in the first place.

So we should reintroduce smoking in hospitals, cinemas, planes etc then?

My point isn't that our views vary. It is that one can wish the banning of one thing without being a mental anti smoker or anti everything kind of person!

You are cute and fluffy! :P

OK, people go to pubs to eat and drink; to enjoy food and beverages. That would suggest that they might like their senses of taste and smell to be unimpaired. What interests me here is that all the same arguments for not banning smoking were deployed when smoking was banned in hospitals but I have yet to find a single person now who seriously argues for its reintroduction.

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 :)

I think Chris' point is that it's very broadly drafted; the magic word is "premises". "Premises where a person has his home" is listed as one of the categories that may be excepted. Premises definitely includes tents (12.1). "Vehicles" seems to include private vehicles, which makes sense as most public transport and taxis has been smokefree for a while. Additionally section 4:

"The appropriate national authority may make regulations designating as smoke-free any place or description of place that is not smoke-free under section 2."

I've not yet worked out who this means by "authority". It's part of the general trend of arrogating large chunks of potential power from Parliament and moving them to Statutory Instrument or executive Order.

Personally, I prefer it, and think the time is now right for it, but it's clearly the last step before a total ban on smoking everywhere. I'd give it 10-15 years before tobacco is a class C drug.

Any "compromise" still affects the health of people in those venues or affects the business of venues that cannot go non-smoking.

The example of a small village has already been given: if you had a pub and a private-members club as the only facilities in a village and one is allowed to keep smoking then all the smokers will go there and negatively affect the business of the other. Is that fair ? No. Every example you can come up with there is a counter-example to how it does not work in a slightly different situation.

As I said before, you cannot please everyone. No one solution will fit all requirements. Life isn't fair. The "middle ground" proposal would have tried to cater for everyone and it would have caused more problems than it solved.

The bottom line is that this is a health issue, for workers, for the public, for customers. The only reasonable way to solve this issue is to ban smoking in all those places. Full stop. If you disagree, then I suggest you write to your MP because whining to me will get you precisely nowhere.

Case 1. In a special smoking room with proper air filtration and extraction I see no problem with this - and with proper air filtration and extraction if you have a designated slot where it is "out of use", half of which allows any remaining smoke in the air to get processed, the other half of which allows any cleaners in to the place... well, it's not even a H&S issue as there is no smoke exposure to cleaning staff
Case 2. Our local cinema until very recently allowed smoking upstairs only (on the grounds that this didn't affect the people downstairs)... until some local busybody anti-smoker who doesn't even use the cinema found out about it and decided to get the local council to prohibit it in there - people came from miles and miles around purely because it was a cinema that they _could_ smoke in - they are now on the verge of shutting (small one screen place run by the villagers for the villagers) due to the drop in turnover from the "out of village" trade meaning they now can't afford the upkeep
Case 3. see case 1 - if it is done in a way that allows non-smokers to travel without being affected and so that staff can be sure of clean air when they need to enter between flights, then I see no problem with a small area being sealed from the main passenger deck as an inflight smoking room - I also see no problem with charging smokers for this facility (as there would be a cost associated with it)

All these "black and white" cases could actually be turned grey with a little bit of thought...

And every example that you come up with has a way around it to make it fairer all round. By the way, I already *have* written to my MP about many matters this week - let me know when you've written to yours on the more important issues this week like the ID cards fiasco and the regulatory bill due to be discussed tomorrow :-)

(PS. I really don't expect to get anywhere in this "discussion" with you. You've already shown your true colours as a dogmatist so there isn't much point in hoping for a change in your opinion :-))

I'm not currently a UK resident (and haven't been since 1997) so I don't have an MP to write to.

Oh yes? And when the *only job opening in the surrounding 20 miles* is at a smoke filled pub... is that a *choice*. Yes, you chose to go to a pub as a customer, yes, as a customer you could chose to frequent only smoking (or non smoking) pubs and do what you like and yes, that's better for the *customer*. However *someone* is selling you those drinks, *someone* has to be in that pub all *day* (opening hours as aplicable to pub) breathing in the customers' smoke. And *no* people do *not* allways get to work in the job they most want to have, and *no* you do *not* allways get to say 'no, this job is not for me' if it is available.

People *work in pubs*.

And so the landlord refuses to hire me because I don't smoke?

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 4 of 5

Smoking ban

no subject

no subject

Re: Other:

no subject

Re: Other:

no subject

no subject

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

no subject

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

Re: Other:

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Other:

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Other:

no subject