Smoking Banned in England

[Diego Varen]

This is for people who live in the UK (mainly England). Smoking has finally been banned here in England (it has already been banned in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland).

 

I think banning smoking was a good idea, since it is bad for people, it will make the world a cleaner place and it makes places smell inside.

 

So what do you think of the smoking ban?

[The Doctor]

What are we talking about, a total ban, or just a ban for public places?

[HerbieZ]

All i have heared this week is the ranting about how it takes away our civil liberties, destuction of humanity etc etc. Thankfully, i have the tact not to dance in their faces due to the fact i don't smoke and now don't have to put up with others in pubs anymore. Yay!

[Sabretooth]

About time. Smoking is dangerous to health - perhaps milder than other drugs, but dangerous nonetheless. Someone out to start comparing it with other drugs.

 

I think it's a good move, though I wonder if it will be enforced properly.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

What are we talking about, a total ban, or just a ban for public places?

'Enclosed public spaces', excluding hotel rooms, oil rigs, and prison cells.

 

Good of them. The employees of the 'enclosed public spaces' deserve a healthy work environment without. Indoor smoking carries with it a significant risk of lung cancer for those subjected to it over time.

[igyman]

I think banning smoking is a great move. Why? Tobacco is simply a legal drug - it causes addiction, it's bad for you and if you do it too much it will kill you sooner than you realize.

[Aash Li]

What next, banning alcohol? Banning kissing? Banning eating off someone elses plate? Where does it end? Banning sex? Banning cars (global warming Oh no the climate elevated .05% in the last 100 years!)? All those things except the global warming nonsense, and perhaps eating off anothers plater, are just as dangerous as smoking if you think about it.

 

Yes, smoking is bad for your health, but I dont think governments should be banning stuff like that as a matter of federal law. Its just bringing you one step closer to communism. And dont tell me it wont, because it happens just like that. They start with the little things, guns, hunting, smoking, tobbacco in general, then its unhealthy foods, then they go up to things like free speech, gathering peacably in public... until you end up with the government owning everything and youre executed if you dare speak against the dictator.

 

No thanks, while I dont like being in smoke filled rooms or work places, I also dont like governments telling me what I can and cant do (with in reason its ok)...

[Pavlos]

'bout time, too. Honestly, the rest of the union has had this for ages and it will be nice to be able to walk into a public place and not get suffocated.

 

What next, banning alcohol? Banning kissing? Banning eating off someone elses plate? Where does it end?

 

Maybe they'll ban people from emptying their chamber pots on the street below, or something insane like that . If you want to talk on civil liberties then what about a non-smoker's right to walk into a bar and not be suffocated?

[coupes.]

The big problem with smoking, is that you're not the only one smoking your cigarette. You mighit have the right to smoke, but everyone else also has the right not to, and since a majority of people don't smoke (and that smoking is more dangerous to your health then not smoking obviously) it's olnly logic that they ban smoking in public places.

 

I worked as a waiter for a while a couple years ago, just imagine how much smoke you can inhale during a 12 hour shift. A similar law has been in application for over a year now over here, and I con only imagine all the difference this makes for restaurant, bars and pubs employees and non-smoking clients.

 

This has nothing to do with communism, but everything to do with health and respect.

[The Doctor]

See, we've had a ban here in good old Ontario for as long as I can remember. At least 8 years, it must be. Maybe longer.

 

To be honest, Aash, you're kind of taking this to an extreme. It's not like if England goes Commie, the world will look back and think "Ooh, they really shouldn't have banned smoking. That's when it all started". By your logic, banning drinking and driving is also a step towards communism. You're just being silly.

[Diego Varen]

See, we've had a ban here in good old Ontario for as long as I can remember. At least 8 years, it must be. Maybe longer.

 

This is why I was annoyed that the Smoking Ban in England wasn't going to take place until the 1st July. If it had already been forced in the rest of the UK and Ontario before, why did we have to wait until today to get the ban?

[igyman]

What next, banning alcohol?

Hopefully.

 

But, your questions can go the other way around: What's next, legalizing drugs? Legalizing prostitution? Trafficking? Where does it end?

 

global warming Oh no the climate elevated .05% in the last 100 years!

Even though you choose not to admit it, global warming is a very serious matter and it's effects can actually be seen today. I remember when I was a kid I used to have an actual winter - snow during most of January and February, but now we have a few days, a week of snow tops. Now, since this is off topic, I'm ending it. I'm sure there are other threads where this issue can be discussed in detail.

[Pho3nix]

I don't think banning everything which is considered "unhealthy" leads anywhere.

I mean, what's next? (as others have said) banning alcohol, sex, kissing in public places? ****ing ridiculous.

 

It's going too far in my opinion. And igyman why would you ban alcohol?

[The Seeker]

The way I see it with current legal substances, if the person who's using can regulate it, then there shouldn't be a problem. Alcohol can be moderated by the consumer. If the consumer gets bleeding drunk, hops in his/her car and kills a family, they should be punished for involuntary manslaughter at the least.

 

Smoking on the other hand, cannot be moderated by the person using it. If you smoke in a room, you share that lovely addictive carcinogenic smoke with everyone around you. I fully agree with and appreciate the ban in public places. Now, if they banned in private places, that is when I would line up behind Aash Li shouting "dictator" Otherwise, it's just finally bowing the the majority that doesn't want to be exposed to cigarette smoke.

[Emperor Devon]

Yes, smoking is bad for your health, but I dont think governments should be banning stuff like that as a matter of federal law. They start with the little things, guns, hunting, smoking, tobbacco in general, then its unhealthy foods, then they go up to things like free speech, gathering peacably in public...

 

How you inferred the UK's government is planning to become a communistic dictatorship by banning smoking I'm not quite sure.

 

While there are plenty of reasons to ban people from smoking that have already been discussed, I've not noticed anyone bringing up the topic of second-hand smoke. It's common knowledge that thousands of people, who may or may not be smokers themselves, die from it each year. Whether you think smokers have the right to trash their bodies with nicotine or not, they do not have the right to trash other people's bodies with it.

 

Personally I think the hundreds (if not thousands) of lives that will be saved in the UK from second-hand smoke is more important than smokers having some extra places to open a pack of cigarettes. That's my $0.02, anyway.

 

(In case anyone hasn't gathered, I wholeheartedly support the ban)

[Totenkopf]

The whole banning mentality is taking root throughout the states as well. Bloomberg in NY, the state of MD (where even smoking in your own home is regulated), and various others places throughout the country. While I don't begrudge people their smoking, I don't have to hang around them when they're doing it. Banning in govt offices and places like hospitals makes perfect sense. It should be left up to the individual biz owner whether they want a smoke free environment or not. Nobody is forcing you to go to those places. Let the market work before you resort to the more draconian solution of bureaucratic responses. Having said that, I won't miss the smoke if/when it's gone.

[GarfieldJL]

Well it wouldn't surprise me if those states end up facing lawsuits soon. In comment to banning Alcohol, it has been done before and it quite honestly didn't work.

 

The idea of banning smoking in public places is actually not an infringement on freedom. Secondhand smoke has been proven to be even more dangerous than actually being the smoker. So it's the health, safety, and rights of the majority being weighed against the rights of the minority.

[King Dando]

I'm all for it, since I don't smoke, I don't see why I should have to put up with it. I mean it's ok for them to want/need to smoke, but they've no right to poison my air, well, in a public place anyway.

 

Same in the workplace, most employees want a comfortable working environment whether they smoke or not, but it isn't fair for smokers to make everyone else's air unpleasant.

[stoffe]

I don't think banning everything which is considered "unhealthy" leads anywhere.

I mean, what's next? (as others have said) banning alcohol, sex, kissing in public places? ****ing ridiculous.

 

That comparison would only be valid if drinking alcohol automatically caused everyone in the same room to get alcohol poured down their throats, or if kissing someone in a public place caused everyone else nearby to get kissed as well.

 

I don't have a problem with people smoking as long as they do it when there is nobody else around that have no choice but to inhale the smoke or die of suffocation. When it only affects themselves it's just their own problem. Making it other people's problem as well whether they want to or not isn't very respectful.

 

Just as smokers should have the right to smoke if they want, non-smokers should have the right not to be exposed to passive smoking.

[TK-8252]

I find it amazing how so many people can disregard the minority in this case so openly. "Well since I don't smoke, I'm all for the ban!" If the government banned something else a minority of people do, such as practice a particular religion, I SURE HOPE that the majority wouldn't say similar things. "Well since I'm not a follower of <banned religion>, I'm all for the ban!"

 

But don't mistake my opening rant for a disagreement with this particular smoking ban. From DE's post, it looks like this is in no way a ban on smoking across the board (which makes the thread's title very misleading). Banning smoking in "enclosed public spaces" doesn't sound too bad to me, as long as private places still have the choice to allow smoking, or have smoking sections and non-smoking sections (which is how it is in the U.S.). Putting the health concerns aside, smoking in enclosed places like a room just makes the place smell entirely like smoke, and generally degrades the quality of the room.

[Rogue15]

 

This has nothing to do with communism, but everything to do with health and respect.

 

 

QFE.

 

I don't smoke, but i do feel sorry for the people that have to work in it constantly.

[Trex]

Went to my local pub this evening. Warning signs against smoking were posted up. It was...odd.

 

Can't complain too much since I don't smoke, but like I said. Odd.

[Totenkopf]

A pub w/o smoking? Isn't that like a rock concert w/o weed? (legality issues aside)

[Prime]

I live in Ontario now, and I used to think so. I was in England recently and went to pub that allowed smoking. I was amazed at how badly it affected me. Once it is gone, you'll never want to go back

[spinkle]

I'm a smoker, and very strongly opposed to the banning of smoking in *most* public places.

 

I vastly prefer the idea of having non-smoking bars and non-smoking restaurants for those who prefer them and smoke-friendly bars etc. for those who who prefer them. Making it mandatory for public establishments to ban smoking is absolutely ridiculous. It's just recently become law in Philadelphia (USA) as well and is pretty likely to become a statewide (Pennsylvania) issue in the very near future.