What does everyone think of the new smoking laws

[Paranoid Android]

I think in Scotland smoking in any enclosed public space is to be completely banned from May next year. The debate currently happening affects England and Wales and I don't think the Labour cabinet even understands what they're actually going to do yet.

Also the "If I want to smoke then I should be able to smoke" argument is pretty weak, it seems to suggest you should be able to do anything that you want to do, that's why we have laws because there are somethings that you shouldn't be able to do, you would be better off arguing why smoking in a pub is not one of them.

[Guest *alex*]

As much as I don't have a problem with people smoking around me... I think it's a very good idea.

It'll be nice to not receive cigarette burns from drunks bumping into me. And I can't wait to go home without smelling of smoke. Also, there'll be much less passive smoking which is always going to be a good thing.

It'll make life annoying for smokers though, unless they use the ban to their advantage- quitting smoking would probably be far easier if they can't smoke when they're out.

[Val]

I do.

Parents frequently take young children into the smoking sections of restaurants. What choice do they have?

If you are refering to smoking parents' date=' then obviously the children will endure the smoke at home much more frequently, and that is an entirely different problem.

If you are refering to non-smoking restaurants, not go to the restaurant. Simple.

Complete bollocks. Having worked in a pub which supposedly had ventilation systems and a 'no smoking at the bar' policy, I still got really sore throats and stank of smoke at the end of every shift..

Fair enough.

The reasoning you use above could equally be applied to underage drinking' date=' should we just allow teenagers into pubs and clubs as a rule because the enforcement mechanism is not absolute?.[/quote']

We'll it's not quite the same, given that bouncers are there to id. They are not there to check your pockets.

Yes' date=' but if I stand next to you and drink ten pints, I'm the only one who gets drunk.[/quote']

And then if you go out onto the street, and randomly attack me, someone else, or someone's it may well become my problem. Let's not forget that 33 000 people die and 76 000 are injured facially every year as a result of alcohol misuse.

Could someone please explain; is it the smoker and/or the establishment who gets fined?

[Paranoid Android]

I believe it is the establishment.

[Guest Jake Wifebeater]

It'll make life annoying for smokers though' date=' unless they use the ban to their advantage- quitting smoking would probably be far easier if they can't smoke when they're out.[/quote']

Fair point, but I don't go out a great deal and I'll probably go out even less when this kicks in. I smoke far too much, at least 20 a day, and I don't really want to be a heavy smoker all my life. However, if and when I do quit, I want that to be my decision, not some bureaucrat's.

[Fast Caz]

So you people who approve of the new smoking laws ... Would you rather people went outside most likely is big broups and all smoke thus helpig to pollute the atmosphere?

Or

keep the smokers inside but increase the risk of heart/lung disease from second smoke but also destroy your insides from copius amounts of alcohol intake week in / week out?

[Edgar Graham]

A pub with no smoking is like a swimming pool with its own urinating section............

No, other way round.

[Camie]

Im a smoker so i may be biased but i cant see how the government can totally ban smoking without interfering with peoples rights....

Same could be said about cannabis then...

[Cloud]

So you people who approve of the new smoking laws ... Would you rather people went outside most likely is big broups and all smoke thus helpig to pollute the atmosphere?

Or

keep the smokers inside but increase the risk of heart/lung disease from second smoke but also destroy your insides from copius amounts of alcohol intake week in / week out?

The effect on smoke on the atmosphere is likely to be minimal - heck, a million smokers together probably wouldn't output a fraction of the smoke output by one power station. So for one, your argument is unfounded.

Why do you assume that people who want to ban smoking also destroy their insides with drink? Some people go to the pub and don't drink, and it's hardly unknown for people to go to clubs and not drink.

Don't you understand the simple concept that smoking harms other people, while drinking doesn't?

[DrTchock]

This is from the benevolent anti-smoking, puritanical, health-gods, Health Canada:

"This segment will be the most difficult to persuade. They are die-hard smokers who are less likely to believe smoking will

affect their health or to believe in the health benefits of quitting. They enjoy smoking and do not really want to give it up.

They are also less likely to think they would be successful if they tried to quit. Hence, they are not very open to accessing

information on quitting smoking. The price of cigarettes seems to be the only way to motivate this group to consider

quitting."

So, the neo-puritanical, quasi-fascist anti-smoking movement taking place in the world appears to be about some sort of social engineering project, attempting to force adults to modify their behavior and alter personal lifestyle choices.

Of course, anti-smoking fascists try to justify their activities by claiming they are protecting non-smokers from second-hand smoke. There are simpler and more logical ways of doing so that are guaranteed to please 100% of the population. The technology is readily available to provide a comfortable environment for all.

What kinds of "arguments" do those pushing for the outlawing of "public" smoking advance? These people complain because they cannot "enjoy" a meal if someone is smoking near them in a restaurant. They object to the "inconvenience" of having to specifically seek out eateries that do not allow smoking. Beyond that is the horrible problem of clothing that smells of cigarette smoke. The waiters and cooks who work in restaurants that permit smoking claim they should not have to inhale second-hand smoke while performing their duties.

What do these claims boil down to? Apparently, these zealots believe there is:

* A right to eat or drink in any particular restaurant or bar.

* A right to a job in any particular business establishment.

* A right not to smell something a person does not like.

* A right to personal convenience.

A right to impose one's personal preferences on other people.

What these notions actually reveal, of course, is the degenerate understanding that holds sway among too many people of what the concept "public" means, the abysmal ignorance rampant among us of the true meaning of property rights, and, of course, an astounding arrogance regarding the nature of rights of any kind.

Imagine the breathtaking implications of fully implementing these "principles."

Travelling to school inconvenient? Make your teacher come to you. Commuting proving irritating? Force your employer to set up a branch in your back garden. Crying children on public transport getting you down? Kick them off the bus. If you had a right not to smell certain odors, you could prevent others from wearing perfume and cologne. You could force someone to bathe if he sweated too much and had terrible body odour; you could stop your neighbour from planting flowers whose aroma overpowered your delicate nasal passages.

You see where this is going?

What about the evils of second-hand smoke? No credible evidence exists for any long-term negative effects of casual contact with second-hand smoke. Yes, the smell can be unpleasant or worse. But as noted above, such proposals border on the ridiculous. Yes, a small number of people have allergic reactions to such smoke. Yes, if you live day-in and day-out with a smoker, you might be more prone to develop infections. But passive smoke never killed anyone. After all, active smoking requires decades and decades to "kill" the smoker and sometimes not even then. None of these problems justifies the draconian measures advocated by the anti-smoking gestapo. A handful of dubious surveys and studies proves nothing whatsoever.

Here's a lesson for you in the scientific method. Watch carefully, children:

# 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

# 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

# 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

# 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

# 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

There is no DIRECT observation of passive smoking resulting in death. If you ask me, you're all a bunch of hypochondriacs. Oh no! Here comes the bird flu...!

There is no logical stopping point once we abandon our respect for private property rights. However, those who know "better" have already begun arranging such measures. Forcing a private property owner to cease the usage of the property in the manner he decides is the essence of fascism.

Of course, none of these dramatics have been about ill-health, or smoking for that matter. No more than the plentiful crusades the do-gooders have and will continue to inflict upon the rest of us. This is a battle between coercive power and personal rights between self-righteous zeolots and responsible citizens, between insidiously imposed control and explicitly acknowledged freedom.

And for the record, I don't smoke.

Some links that some of you may find interesting:

http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name_three.html

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

[DrTchock]

heck' date=' a million smokers together probably wouldn't output a fraction of the smoke output by one power station.[/quote']

You've just shot yourself in the foot there, laddie.

[BlackFrancis]

More often than not I choose to leave the pub/club i'm in for a cigerette. I find it's far preferable to sitting inside which is allready dense with smoke and actualy taking some time out to enjoy it. In fact I look forward to having some company other than the bouncers when the ban is implimented.

[dolf]

is it not going to be that you can still smoke in a bar that does not serve food?im not sure.i am hoping to use the ban to stop smoking.

[Cloud]

Not in Scotland, it's a total ban. It's likely to be a total ban in Northern Ireland and Wales too, but England will have the ridiculous semi-ban.

[DrTchock]

Why "ridiculous"?

[Camie]

Ridiculous because having exceptions contradicts one of the reasons for the ban in the first place-to try and help cut down smoking.

[Cloud]

spot on camie.

I did read somewhere on the BBC that someone reckons that the semi-ban in England is a stepping stone to a full ban, but why not get it over and done with now?

[Duma]

Possible death of a social life!

All i can say is that i hardly go out on the piss much as it is... but with a smokin ban in place i dont think ill be goin out much again, id sooner be sat at home on my arse bored of my very existance than end up having to speak to pea brained, hot tempered and pished people who think they have somethin in common with me coz i happened to be outside havin a fag at the same time they were.

Its a good idea but personally speakin and perhaps selfishly so, i hope it doesnt last.

[Guest tv tanned]

And then if you go out onto the street' date=' and randomly attack me, someone else, or someone's it may well become my problem. Let's not forget that 33 000 people die and 76 000 are injured facially every year as a result of alcohol misuse. [/quote']

Yes, but people who do not drink are just as capable of violence as those who do.

Unless you are suggesting every act of violence committed is a result of alcohol.

Conversely, it is impossible for a non-smoker to create the same problems as a smoker vis a vis passive smoking.

[Paranoid Android]

passive smoke never killed anyone

There are plently of reports and expoerts that would tell you differently.

[Scootray]

I'm glad the new laws are coming into force. If someone wants to kill themselves or at least damage their lungs with smoking that's up to them. I certainly don't want my lungs to be clogged up with tar from passive smoking.

Those who want to look after their health should have priority when it comes to public places such as pubs and restaurants, so it's right that the smokers should go outside. Anyway, it's a good excuse for some people to stop, 'cos I can't imagine there are a lot of people who didn't start smoking because they thought it was "hard" when they were younger.

[Guest tv tanned]

But passive smoke never killed anyone.

I am pretty sure Roy Castle's widow, for one, would beg to differ on that issue.

[Guest bluesxman]

As an ex-smoker i'm happy not to have to go home stinking of smoke and wake up with a sore throat when the smoke level in the pub reached ridiculous levels. I go to the pub to socialise with friends and see smoking as a presently unavoidable downside of doing so.

[Snowball]

There are some anti-ban people here that seem to be saying that if the government really cared about our health then they'd just ban it outright, and the ban is just a way of keeping the tax rolling in. While I see the point, I bet if the government *did* decide to ban it altogether, there would be an outcry, against civil liberties, denying us our human rights, blah, blah. They would probably find that they don't get elected for another term, and the majority of the country wouldn't support the introduction of such a ban. As it is, they have enough support to justify a ban on smoking in oublic places (depending on who you listen to), they'll still get some taxes and hopefully the health of the nation would go up. So using the argument that "the government doesn't really care" to continue lighting up doesn't really ring true to me. Especially since people say that this ban is edging us closer to a "nanny state", which they don't approve of. Conflicting arguments there.

I don't understand why people smoke. I've tried asking the people I know who smoke why they do it, and at best got that they "enjoy it". So, after balancing the taste and feeling it gives you with the fact that it causes all sorts of unnecessary illnesses, costs a bloody fortune, makes you stink, turns you into an addict and can ultimately kill you, they still decide to do it? Sounds like it must be better than sex.

[Ch Black]

Really? Bizarre....this post really did make me speechless' date=' it is so braindead on every level.[/quote']

I thank you not to drag us all down to Craigs level.