Smoking Ban in the UK. Accept or Avoid?

[GilGrissom]

Well the smoking ban in public places has finally reached England. To be honest overall I think it's a good thing, knowing full well I'm probably going to be bombarded by an angrey mob for saying so.

But my point with this first post is how certain places are trying to use the smoking ban to try and not stop people smoking by promoting it. Which makes me laugh so much.

For example.

A pub not far from me obviously has a dedicated "smoking" area where smokers are allowed to smoke outside, but all through the building, on the walls, hanging from the ceiling, on the doors, are directions to this smoking area with the catch line "Dedicated Smoking Area This Way...Don't Miss Out!".

Hmmm...I don't know about anyone else but this made me laugh and is more proof of our backward thinking society!

I guess you can see the reasoning behind it, but it's still going against the whole idea of the ban.

...Just made me laugh!

 

[MalcolmJID]

Didn't this happen on July 1st?


Anyway, I definately accept. It was grossly unfair on non-smokers to breathe in the smoke. A club that I occasionally frequent is much better now with the smoking ban!

 

[FleurDuMal]

I've been through this on another thread on here somewhere.

I've literally just come back from the pub now, and have been to the pub a few times since the ban. Smoking in pubs never really bothered me. Most of my friends smoke, especially when the drink, so nowadays we mostly sit outside. I dunno what we'll do in Winter. I still think this is a cheap and easy PR coup for the government more than a genuine attempt to improve the health of British citizens, or an attempt to save the NHS money. The obvious white elephant in the room is that alcohol is the most detrimental drug in British society. Not only is it bad for those who drink, but also for society as a whole in its external costs (take a trip to any British town centre on a Friday and Saturday and you'll see what I mean). Why not ban alcohol? Obviously because it's more popular than smoking and so it'd make the government unpopular. But if its more popular than smoking - and thus more detrimental - then surely thats more reason to ban it than smoking?

 

[FleurDuMal]

Oh, and now all clubs smell of BO instead of smoke. Which is bad.

 

[Chappers]

of course it does have its dangers

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6912900.stm

 

[Abstract]

I've been through this on another thread on here somewhere.

I've literally just come back from the pub now, and have been to the pub a few times since the ban. Smoking in pubs never really bothered me. Most of my friends smoke, especially when the drink, so nowadays we mostly sit outside. I dunno what we'll do in Winter. I still think this is a cheap and easy PR coup for the government more than a genuine attempt to improve the health of British citizens, or an attempt to save the NHS money. The obvious white elephant in the room is that alcohol is the most detrimental drug in British society. Not only is it bad for those who drink, but also for society as a whole in its external costs (take a trip to any British town centre on a Friday and Saturday and you'll see what I mean). Why not ban alcohol? Obviously because it's more popular than smoking and so it'd make the government unpopular. But if its more popular than smoking - and thus more detrimental - then surely thats more reason to ban it than smoking?

Yeah, I also said in a recent thread that if you had to ban something, ban alcohol, keep cigarettes banned, and let pot smokers smoke legally.

I don't know why, but I find pot less offensive than cigarettes.

 

[Brize]

Why not ban alcohol? Obviously because it's more popular than smoking and so it'd make the government unpopular. But if its more popular than smoking - and thus more detrimental - then surely thats more reason to ban it than smoking?

Because you can drink in close proximity to others without damaging their health. The smoking ban isn't intended to railroad people into health-promoting behaviours; it's intended to protect people from second-hand smoke.

By the way, it's curious logic to suggest that alcohol has a greater detrimental impact than tobacco simply because it's more popular.

 

[MattG]

I don't live in the U.K., but I say the more places they can ban smoking, the better.

 

[mpw]

...Why not ban alcohol?...

Because drinking in enclosed public spaces doesn't effect the health of others?

 

[Abstract]

I think this type of ban is a great way of getting votes.

 

[0098386]

I think it's fantastic. My cousins pub reopened after a fire just a couple of weeks ago. There isn't a whiff of smoke in there now. If the ban never happened he would have sold up since his fiancee is pregnant.

Now, a public ban would be nice. They say you can't smoke at bus stations but you get the occasional moron who has to get his fix, triggering off asthma again.

 

[FleurDuMal]

Because drinking in enclosed public spaces doesn't effect the health of others?

Depends how narrow a meaning you attach to 'effecting the health of others'. A night out in a British town centre shows that alcohol actually has massive effects on the lives - if the not the health - of others. Not only is there the cost of policing people who binge drink and become very aggressive, there's the cost to the council of the clean up afterwards. What about the health of families? How many families have been torn apart by the disasterous effects of alcohol?

I'm not saying they're one and the same thing, because they're obviously two very different beasts. It's just that people are far more prepared to point out the damaging effects of smoking, but are unwilling to do the same with alcohol, even though the damaging effects of alcohol are massive and undeniable. If we are genuinely to believe that the way to make society better is to make it harder to enjoy things that cause damage to society, then shouldn't we also apply it to alcohol? The reluctance is not possibly because everyone enjoys a drink, whereas fewer and fewer people smoke, is it?

 

[Father Jack]

Personally I would rather breathe clean air than the polution from smokers ...

Yes, I was a smoker in a previous life ...

 

[Sly]

I am not and have never been a smoker, but smokers are good for the economy. 80% of the cost of a packet is tax, that was almost £10 Billion last year. If everyone in the UK turned round tomorrow and gave up smoking the economy of this country would collapse, or more likely we would see massive tax hikes on other goods. Next time you see a smoker shake them by the hand there paying your taxes for you.

On a sadder note my Mother-in-law died of smoking related Cancer at the age of 49 in 2000. She was diagnosed with the incurable and in this case inoperable disease, 6 moths later she was dead. This is the harrowing, terrible part of the addiction. She missed my wife and I getting married by a couple of months, which took away a lot of the magic of our big day, particularly for my wife.

If your a 40% tax payer who is also a heavy drinker, heavy smoker and drives a big engined gas guzzling car, I for one salute you, your keeping my taxes down.

 

[synth3tik]

First off I would like to state that I am a smoker, not proud of it, but I am one.

A little under 2 years ago there was a local smoking ban. It took me no time at all to get used to it. and for the most part I like it. One bar I like to frequent now smells like a dirty urinal, but other then that it's alright.

I Don't smoke in my house or any place in doors really, I just don't like the smell if it.

Now I do believe though that it should be up to the property owners on whether or not to allow smoking. There were a couple really cool bars/clubs around here that went out of business because their clients were all smokers. It took less then 2 months for these people to loose everything, and that is not right.

I thing I do not like is when people complain that they work around smoke all day and they are now sick. Ok, it's called an occupational hazard. If you are not comfortable with that type of hazard find another job. I work around extremely hazardous chemicals and gases, now I would not be ok working here if they were to leak constantly or something, but being around them is a hazard that I think is tolerable to work around.

but I am getting off point. I would say smoking bans are good things. You can still enjoy a smoke outside, on a deck or what not.

 

[crap freakboy]

Didn't Hitler ban smoking? It'll be books next.

 

[Queso]

I am not and have never been a smoker, but smokers are good for the economy. 80% of the cost of a packet is tax, that was almost £10 Billion last year. If everyone in the UK turned round tomorrow and gave up smoking the economy of this country would collapse, or more likely we would see massive tax hikes on other goods. Next time you see a smoker shake them by the hand there paying your taxes for you.

I'd rather not touch their brown stained fingers thanks

£10 billion a year you say? Nearly as much as the English give to Scotland and Wales in subsidy. How about we allow Scottish and Welsh independence, then everyone in England can instantly give up smoking and everybody's happy.

I like this ban. Going into pubs is far more pleasurable now

 

[Brize]

smokers are good for the economy. 80% of the cost of a packet is tax, that was almost £10 Billion last year..

How much does the NHS spend each year on smoking-related illnesses?

How much do businesses lose each year to lost productivity because smokers take more sick-leave than non-smokers?

 

[TBi]

Oh, and now all clubs smell of BO instead of smoke. Which is bad.

We had that problem for a while here after the smoking ban. However people soon learned to have showers and use deoderant before going out. It's not really a problem any more now.

 

[nplima]

I am not and have never been a smoker, but smokers are good for the economy. 80% of the cost of a packet is tax, that was almost £10 Billion last year. If everyone in the UK turned round tomorrow and gave up smoking the economy of this country would collapse,

yeah, we're all sure this extra money made available all of the sudden would not increase internal demand for other products or invested on other stuff. people would obviously burn the money as a homage to their old days as smokers

Depends how narrow a meaning you attach to 'effecting the health of others'. A night out in a British town centre shows that alcohol actually has massive effects on the lives

kudos for that. I'm tempted to say that when the weekend comes in London the Metropolitan Police could change their name to "Customer Service for Drunken People".

Having moved to the UK recently, I'm not really ready to suggest how laws and local custom should be, but I've noticed that people drinking lots of beer actually spend quite some time nurturing their drinks. If they did it with half-pints instead of pint-sized mugs, in the end they might be drinking less. Just an idea...

We had that problem for a while here after the smoking ban. However people soon learned to have showers and use deoderant before going out. It's not really a problem any more now.

heheheh good one

 

[Sly]

How much does the NHS spend each year on smoking-related illnesses?

How much do businesses lose each year to lost productivity because smokers take more sick-leave than non-smokers?

The Govenment quote £1.5 Billion as there estimation of how much strain smoking related deases place on the NHS. As to loss of productivitey it's just estimated at £lots? billions in the article I read.

 

[0098386]

but I am getting off point. I would say smoking bans are good things. You can still enjoy a smoke outside, on a deck or what not.

Funny thing is just as the smoking ban kicked in, we get month long torrential rain. On the way back from town once, Union Street in Oldham (which if legends are true has some record for most pubs/bars in such a concentrated area) was just packed with smokers crawling around trying to find a dry spot to light up in the pouring rain.

 

[jive]

I live in Scotland so we've had the ban for a while and everyone I know (smokers and non-smokers) loves it.

 

[mpw]

Depends how narrow a meaning you attach to 'effecting the health of others'...

You can't legislate effectively to stop people drinking to excess or simply being stupid. You can stop people smoking in enclosed public spaces because it's easy to measure.

The effects of alcohol, sometimes on some people, are obviously detrimental, but how do you ban drinking alcohol from the workplace without impossible consequences or simply banning alcohol all together, which is stupid.

 

[Brize]

If your a 40% tax payer who is also a heavy drinker, heavy smoker and drives a big engined gas guzzling car, I for one salute you, your keeping my taxes down.

So, you're happy for people to harm themselves and others just so long as your taxes are kept low? That's hardly responsible citizenship, is it?

If we are genuinely to believe that the way to make society better is to make it harder to enjoy things that cause damage to society, then shouldn't we also apply it to alcohol?

No one's denying that alcohol is a social problem, but we need to keep in mind that the vast majority of adults enjoy drinking without causing harm to others.