The First Nonsmoking Nation

[Brize]

just dont try to get help of the nhs or whatever when you need it.

Good lord. You guys in the anti-smoking camp have some very sound points, but you have to understand that smokers more than pay their way when it comes to healthcare. In addition to paying for their own healthcare, they're also subsidising yours.

Personally, I'd be in favour of a complete ban on tobacco products in the UK, but I understand that taxes would have to be raised substantially to offset the loss of revenue.

 

[russed]

Russed - try reading some of the mails through rather than just hitting reply.

sorry about that! just getting carried away by it all!

 

[russed]

Good lord. You guys in the anti-smoking camp have some very sound points, but you have to understand that smokers more than pay their way when it comes to healthcare. In addition to paying for their own healthcare, they're also subsidising yours.

Personally, I'd be in favour of a complete ban on tobacco products in the UK, but I understand that taxes would have to be raised substantially to offset the loss of revenue.

maybe in the short run, but in the long run people will be less dependant on the nhs due to not having smoked. we wont be spending all the funding on treating people with lung cancer or having to fund them giving up. i personally beleive that apart from the ban in public places, the tax on a packet should be raised significantly. i wouldnt mind paying a bit more in NI contributions if i were to be able to have a meal or go to a pub without having to come back smelling like an ash tray.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Good lord. You guys in the anti-smoking camp have some very sound points, but you have to understand that smokers more than pay their way when it comes to healthcare. In addition to paying for their own healthcare, they're also subsidising yours.

Personally, I'd be in favour of a complete ban on tobacco products in the UK, but I understand that taxes would have to be raised substantially to offset the loss of revenue.

The anti-smoking camp should get politicians into office that won't have their hands in the pockets of the tobacco industry. And then figure out how for the UK as an example they will make up the 7B pound difference in lost taxes.

 

[johnnyjibbs]

The whole "you can just go to a different bar with no smoke" idea is not a good one in the UK. I haven't a clue where the nearest non-smoking pub is - it's probably miles away. The only one I've ever come across is in Shrewsbury...


(By the way, Shrewsbury is near Wales, the other side of the country to Essex).

 

[Brize]

maybe in the short run, but in the long run people will be less dependant on the nhs due to not having smoked. we wont be spending all the funding on treating people with lung cancer or having to fund them giving up.

No, people will be more dependent on the NHS, because if they haven't smoked, they're more likely to still be alive. Elderly people generally require ongoing medical care, even if we're only talking about a subsidised prescription every fortnight. In any event, I was merely trying to point out that smokers more than pay for their healthcare on the NHS.

Oh, and yes, I too would be happy to pay more in tax and NI contributions if smoking were to be banned. Of course, I'd rather see the defence budget cut, but that's a different issue.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

That's where they'll try to make their argument though, the fact that they are the minority; saying that the minority shouldn't be over powered by the majority. Which is perfectly correct in many cases, but in this one IMO is totally wrong.

The issue is what is the majority in the anti-smoking ranks?

I and others have mentioned that non-smokers could find smoke-free places. I even suggested that one vote with their feet and money. For if the non-smokers were as much of a majority as you say they are, they have considerable clout by staying away for even one week from any place that allows smoking. The owners would then get the message loud and clear. But we don't see these type of efforts for the reason I think that most non-smokers don't care. It is the anti-smokers that seem to be in a minority. For non-smokers have heard of the risks, just as smokers have.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Thought I'd throw this into the mix...

Wetherspoons, a large UK pub chain, have announced that they intend to make all their pubs smoke-free...

The Times


Some people hate Wetherspoons. Especially real-ale drinkers and CAMRA types... They're also a bit bland & corporate but they're relatively women-friendly and they don't have music, which sometimes is nice after a busy day – you can have a chat without being deafened.

It will be interesting to see how this affects the rest of the industry.

 

[mpw]

...It will be interesting to see how this affects the rest of the industry.

I suspect that wetherspoons have made this annoucement because they know it'll get them a bunch of advertising ahead of the almost inevetible legislation that'll force the whole industy down that route.

I happened to work in the industry a couple of years ago on the management side of a pub chain of 19 outlets ranging from country family pubs to town centre bars. We opened the first non-smoking bar in the area in 2001, it also had no big screen TV and a strict music policy of low volume world music. The non-smoking failed in a matter of months. The problem seemed to be if a group of friends go out and only a couple smoke the non-smokers will go to a smoking bar before the smokers would abstain volunterily.

I personally would NOT like to see smoking banned. I don't smoke and don't enjoy being in smoking atmospheres but I do like the choice not to smoke or smoke as I see fit.

What is needed is tighter control over the sales of cigarettes and the public places where smoking is allowed.

 

[johnnyjibbs]

Wetherspoons, a large UK pub chain, have announced that they intend to make all their pubs smoke-free...

The Times


Some people hate Wetherspoons. Especially real-ale drinkers and CAMRA types... They're also a bit bland & corporate but they're relatively women-friendly and they don't have music, which sometimes is nice after a busy day – you can have a chat without being deafened.

It will be interesting to see how this affects the rest of the industry.

Actually that has already been pointed out in this very (post 91).. but thanks for the link.

 

[russed]

The issue is what is the majority in the anti-smoking ranks?

I and others have mentioned that non-smokers could find smoke-free places. I even suggested that one vote with their feet and money. For if the non-smokers were as much of a majority as you say they are, they have considerable clout by staying away for even one week from any place that allows smoking. The owners would then get the message loud and clear. But we don't see these type of efforts for the reason I think that most non-smokers don't care. It is the anti-smokers that seem to be in a minority. For non-smokers have heard of the risks, just as smokers have.

i have never seen a non-smoking bar, it may be because i live up north (we are backwards up here..not) anyway if say i am going out with a group of friends and amongst say the 10 people i will go out, there is probably one smoker. we try giving them subtle hints that we dont like it, infact we tell them we hate and then just like you they get in a huff as we are hurting their rights.

so what do you suggest we do when going out with a smoking friend? tell them to go to a different part of town? i think that is why you will find people tend to put up with it as the primary point of going out it to be with your friends. we just dont apprecieate smelling like an ash tray at the same time. also, who goes to pubs on their own.

 

[mouchoir]

thank you. i just dont get it how the minority here (the smokers) get their own way?

how would you like it if the biggest minority group of people in the world (left handed people [we are so the best]) we able to go with out paying taxes?

I am left handed and a smoker. And I also pay tax.

So what was your point again?

 

[russed]

I am left handed and a smoker. And I also pay tax.

So what was your point again?

i know it was a rubbish example but i was stating the fact here that the minority, and it is the minority is basically getting away with whatever it wants and i think many people view taht is wrong.

 

[mpw]

The issue is what is the majority in the anti-smoking ranks?

I and others have mentioned that non-smokers could find smoke-free places. I even suggested that one vote with their feet and money. For if the non-smokers were as much of a majority as you say they are, they have considerable clout by staying away for even one week from any place that allows smoking. The owners would then get the message loud and clear. But we don't see these type of efforts for the reason I think that most non-smokers don't care. It is the anti-smokers that seem to be in a minority. For non-smokers have heard of the risks, just as smokers have.

I don’t have figures to back this up but it seems to me that there is a majority of people who would prefer not to experience a smoke filled atmosphere. However only some of those want to make a huge issue of it when the argument comes up, it’s human nature to avoid confrontation generally but that doesn’t mean you don’t care. So this leaves the two vocal minority groups to argue about the issue, half who share the majority view but for their own reasons are arsed enough (how about that for vocabulary) and half who are addicted to a drug.

It seems that a lot of the smokers I encounter forget that just because it’s not against the law, or house rule, doesn’t mean they have a moral right to smoke.

Unfortunately smokers in general don’t ‘get’ that and most commercial enterprises don’t have the power to bring about change without some form of government backing.

I can’t honestly remember the last time I heard someone ask if anyone around them minded them smoking before they lit up in a restaurant, bar or club where smoking was permitted.

Yes non-smokers have a choice to not go to some places or to boycott some places if that is their preference or desire. But equally smokers have a choice not to smoke when they know it is likely to annoy, offend or hurt others.

I know plenty of non-smokers, myself included, who choose not to go places because of smoky atmospheres. I can’t ever recall hearing any of my smoking friends say they choose not to go places because their smoking would offend others.

 

[russed]

thank you. another person talking sence.

lets pick up one one thing you said their for the smokers here to pick up on.

what moral right do you have to smoke?

 

[mouchoir]

thank you. another person talking sence.

lets pick up one one thing you said their for the smokers here to pick up on.

what moral right do you have to smoke?

Big can of worms.

What moral right does one have to drive a car and pollute the atmosphere?

What moral right does one have to use plastic?

What moral right does George Bush have to go against the kyoto treaty and allow his industries to carry on pumping pollutants into the atmosphere, damaging the world we all live in?

Because anything that we do that damages our atmosphere and the enviroment, or exploits other peoples could be conceived as morally wrong, and is a lot more worrying than a smoking habit.

I believe it is my right to do what I want with my body, as long as it doesn't harm another person.

So what is morally wrong about me smoking, on the condition I'm not doing it where 'innoccent' bystanders such as yourself (who I'm sure aren't contributing to any of the above)?

 

[Brize]

what moral right do you have to smoke?

russed: There's just no substance to that question. This is about smokers having respect for their fellow citizens and adhering to the law. 'Morality' is a culturally situated value system, and the enemy of logic and reason.

By the same token:

What moral right do you have to abortion?
What moral right do you have to a gay relationship?
What moral right do you have to sex before marriage?

See? It's just vacuous nonsense.

 

[mpw]

Big can of worms.

What moral right does one have to drive a car and pollute the atmosphere?

What moral right does one have to use plastic?

What moral right does George Bush have to go against the kyoto treaty and allow his industries to carry on pumping pollutants into the atmosphere, damaging the world we all live in?

Because anything that we do that damages our atmosphere and the enviroment, or exploits other peoples could be conceived as morally wrong, and is a lot more worrying than a smoking habit.

I believe it is my right to do what I want with my body, as long as it doesn't harm another person.

So what is morally wrong about me smoking, on the condition I'm not doing it where 'innoccent' bystanders such as yourself (who I'm sure aren't contributing to any of the above)?

mouchoir, you quote russed but he was picking up something I mentioned so I’ll have a go at answering.

You believe it’s your right to do with your body what you want as long as it doesn’t harm others. I’m all for that but smoking in a crowded bar will hurt others. I’d say choose not to.

One has no moral right to pollute by any of the means you suggest and where possible I’d again like to see people choose not to. But I accept that the good brought by the use of some pollutants can make their use more of a benefit to all our lives as a whole.

However we do have a moral right and a moral duty to choose not to do things that we practically can. Personally I’m happy that the government that represents me chooses to try and limit the damage done by car and industry while ensuring that I can enjoy the benefits they bring to my life.

George Bush has no moral right to go against the Kyoto treaty and I’d suggest that the American people choose to find better representation. But life is a compromise.

Some things are too big to tackle on your own, choosing when it is and is not appropriate to smoke is common sense and courtesy, neither of which should be too big for the individual.

p.s. I don't know the detail of the Kyoto treaty or what alternative measure's Bush/America may take to avoid polluting but I've based my argument on the assumption we all think that avoiding the general idea of the treaty would be a bad thing.

 

[Brize]

But I accept that the good brought by the use of some pollutants can make their use more of a benefit to all our lives as a whole.

That's incredibly selective. Many people want nothing to do with cars, plastics, oil, etc. and would be quite happy to do without those things.

 

[mpw]

That's incredibly selective. Many people want nothing to do with cars, plastics, oil, etc. and would be quite happy to do without those things.

I agree that some people would like to do without some or all of the things you mention and indeed no doubt many more, but I'd say given the availability and access to the things 'most' 90%+ would opt to use them.

Most would knowingly accept the compromise between quality of life(as percieved) and the negative impact this would entail for the planet.

I’m advocating that we use oil, plastic etc as little as possible but real significant benefits do come from using them if we try to use them wisely.

We will get some things wrong but life is a compromise.

We should be trying not to use too much of anything and doing the least damage we can.

For that reason the smokers argument that their activity hurts less than the pollutants from one ambulance doesn’t work. We’d mostly agree I’m sure that one activity is unavoidable while the other clearly isn’t.

 

[Brize]

Some things are too big to tackle on your own, choosing when it is and is not appropriate to smoke is common sense and courtesy, neither of which should be too big for the individual.

Absolutely. I don't think many smokers would disagree with that statement. Many of the non-smokers posting in this thread have indicated that they find smoking offensive (and in some cases intolerable) when they're exposed to it in a confined area. If nothing else, those smokers reading and participating in this thread should now have a better understanding of the effect that their habit has on others, and modify their behaviour accordingly.

Similarly, those non-smokers who are vociferous in their condemnation of smoking need to extend some tolerance to smokers. They are, after all, engaging in a legal activity, and should be allowed to exercise their rights without judgement, so long as they're not infringing upon anyone else's rights.

Many have commented that they dislike smoking in pubs. That's fair enough, and the law will no doubt be changed in due course. However, as things stand, why continue to visit pubs and clubs if you dislike it so much? I'm not that bothered about smoking, but I have an aversion to drunk people, bright lights, and crap music. As such, I stay away from pubs and clubs. Sorted.

 

[Brize]

For that reason the smokers argument that their activity hurts less than the pollutants from one ambulance doesn’t work. We’d mostly agree I’m sure that one activity is unavoidable while the other clearly isn’t.

Taking the two in isolation, I'm pretty certain that an ambulance on a short journey pollutes the atmosphere far more than one cigarette. Certainly, those who drive SUVs or other uneconomical vehicles have no right to complain about smoking. The detrimental health effects to the general population from driving an SUV for a year far outweigh those from one person smoking cigarettes for a year, provided they don't smoke around others in confined spaces. Additionally, driving a car is an avoidable, personal choice, just as smoking is.

 

[chanoc]

Sorry to say however I have lived years with smokers and I have to say its unappealing to me since the entire house smells like smoke. 2nd hand smoke is even worse then actually smoking.

The smoke permeates into your clean clothing, and furniture. I say get rid of it. And to think many people smoke with young ones in the house. Disgusting indeed.

Well, I smoke outside and away from entryways. No smoke smell in my furniture, and about my clothes, they get washed.

I did quit from 1992 to 2004, but do to living in a fish-camp with indoor smokers who refused to open windows it leed me to revert my old habit one night while drunk when I asked my three smoking roommates for a cigar.

I must admit, would love to quit - saves money.

 

[chanoc]

You smokers just don't get it. It's not about "living forever." It's about doing something that disturbs A LOT of people around you.

Eating fatty foods, drinking, and doing drugs doesn't directly affect the people around you. You all have no idea what it's like to go into a restaurant, bar, or any other public space where people smoke and have to inhale that s***, especially if you have allergies. We shouldn't have to avoid places like that just because you're all so pathetic that you can't curb your stupid, nasty addiction for an hour or so. Thank goodness smoking was finally outlawed in restaurants here in Florida.


Ditto.

Or in the *car*. These people should be arrested for child abuse.

I smoke outside in -10f temperatures and away from people. Smoking has been banned in restaurants for many years in Alaska - and some bars. Why do so many people have allergies in the USA? Why are people in the states so uptight about smoking?

* I secertly want to quit. Anybody care to suggest a method?

 

[A Mac Gamer]

Taking the two in isolation, I'm pretty certain that an ambulance on a short journey pollutes the atmosphere far more than one cigarette. Certainly, those who drive SUVs or other uneconomical vehicles have no right to complain about smoking. The detrimental health effects to the general population from driving an SUV for a year far outweigh those from one person smoking cigarettes for a year, provided they don't smoke around others in confined spaces. Additionally, driving a car is an avoidable, personal choice, just as smoking is.

I don't think that driving a car and smoking are even closely related. Sure they both pollute, and a car does even more then a cig, but driving a car is used for a constructive purpose, getting from point A to B. Smoking is the exact opposite.