What does everyone think about the smoking ban, which comes into play from 1st July? I'm personally really pleased - it's got to the stage now where I avoid pubs because I can't bear the stink of smoke on my clothes afterwards.
Lucky lady to get to her nineties, as a smoker, without developing lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or emphysema. She is rare unfortuately.
Her human rights must be tempered by mine. If I am in her vicinity when she smokes, then she forces me to smoke her cigarette with her. That is unacceptable.
In my country a smoking ban has been in place for a couple of years. It has transformed cinemas, bars and restaurants from smelly, smoky, eye watering dives into pleasant places to be.
As with the introduction of compulsory seat belt wearing, so it will be with the smoking ban - it will seem impossible, looking back, that the old system was put up with for so long when it caused so much damage.
Originally posted by =Ego: A smoker's rights end at my nostrils.
Have you every thought about wearing a gas mask when your out and about? After all, stinky, unhealthy chemical-laden car fumes can't be doing those sensitive nostrils of yours a power of good either.
It's about time that their is a smoking ban because when I go out, I want to spend time with my friends, and very soon I'll be able to go down to a pub, without unwillingly inhaling other people's filthy smoke, no more inhaling tar and turning my lungs into a green-disease like colour. I know it's only a ban in pubs, cafes and restaurants, etc, but it's a lot better than there being no ban at all.
________________________
Wanna hear an ironic fact? Try and guess which book is stolen the most in the USA... That's right...the Bible!!! LOL!!!
Have you every thought about wearing a gas mask when your out and about? After all, stinky, unhealthy chemical-laden car fumes can't be doing those sensitive nostrils of yours a power of good either.
As a driver in a society where the automobile has become a near-essential component of daily living (in part due to the decline of public transport), I recognise the trade-off between clean(er) air and practical living. There is a cost, and a benefit.
OTOH there is no benefit to cigarette smoking (unless you work for BAT, I guess). It's an addiction to a set of toxic substances; it doesn't make people feel good, all it does is give them a fix so they get back near to where they started before getting hooked. I won't repeat the stats: there's no excuse for not knowing that it's very harmful to yourself and others, and every week the litany of costs grows.
As a part-liberal, I fully support the right of others to do stupid things to themselves as long as it harms no others. Most smokers have rationalised the harm away ("It's a conspiracy", "It won't happen to me", "My gran smoked Capstan from birth till 102 continually, did a marathon every day and was still smiling when she died of being too happy"). They then seem to think that because it's OK for them it's OK for everyone else, too. That's a rationalisation too far.
Originally posted by C4 Culture Ed: What does everyone think about the smoking ban, which comes into play from 1st July? I'm personally really pleased - it's got to the stage now where I avoid pubs because I can't bear the stink of smoke on my clothes afterwards.
Really, Oh you mean it comes into force in England on 1st July. I suppose it only matters now because it is happening in England. Funny that you a national broadcaster didn't ask the same question when any other part of the UK implemented the ban.
The problem is that in removing the smell of the smoke from bars one can now smell ones fellow drinkers. I prefer cigarette smoke!
What does everyone think about the smoking ban, which comes into play from 1st July? I'm personally really pleased - it's got to the stage now where I avoid pubs because I can't bear the stink of smoke on my clothes afterwards.
Personally, I always thought that the smell of smoke left on my clothes (and hands, and hair) was one of the nicest things about going down the pub. But I digress.
I'm not too sure about the goodness (or, for that matter, the legality) of the ban. But it seems obvious that we live in a culture where once the spin doctors have managed to sufficiently demonize any activity, it can be happily banned and nobody will squeal too much. Having said that, I fully acknowledge that smoking is very bad for you, of course, and maybe it is an activity that has run its course and it was high time it was banned in public places. And maybe in 50 years' time we will look back on it like a primitive ritual and feel surprised that we used to do it. I don't know. I'm just thinking aloud.
I'd like to share with you one more thought. When you walk into a restaurant with a smoking and a non-smoking section, in my experience, one thing strikes you: the people in the smoking section seem to be having lots of fun -they talk and laugh animatedly. The non-smoking section looks like a graveyard in comparison. Do you have the same impression?
P.S. I'm trying to quit right now. I'm wearing the nicotine patch. I'm amazed at how effective they are. I would strongly recommend them to anybody who wants to quit.
Originally posted by Milan K: When you walk into a restaurant with a smoking and a non-smoking section, in my experience, one thing strikes you: the people in the smoking section seem to be having lots of fun -they talk and laugh animatedly. The non-smoking section looks like a graveyard in comparison. Do you have the same impression?
I have to concede that, on the surface at least, the smoking ban is probably a good idea. But there's actually something quite sinister going on. Just so we can be reminded about some facts this government has tried to implement: Don't smack children, smoking banned, big anti-social drinking message, limit wine consumption, be more polite, teams of undercover officers to enforce smoking ban, some councils targeting people for dropping cigarette butts on the street, anti-obesity drive, patronising women on the do's and don't during pregnancy, under no circumstances say anything to anyone that might possibly be offensive - even if you don't mean it. If it can be construed as offensive, it's YOUR fault. National ID cards. Now consider we are the most CC TVd people in the the world.
Because these measures have been implemented under the guise of a so called 'democratically elected government', there is an assumption that the people have given a mandate for these measures. They have not. We live in the nearest thing to Orwell's nightmare and it has slipped right under our noses.
Originally posted by DanDare: I have to concede that, on the surface at least, the smoking ban is probably a good idea. But there's actually something quite sinister going on. Just so we can be reminded about some facts this government has tried to implement: Don't smack children, smoking banned, big anti-social drinking message, limit wine consumption, be more polite, teams of undercover officers to enforce smoking ban, some councils targeting people for dropping cigarette butts on the street, anti-obesity drive, patronising women on the do's and don't during pregnancy, under no circumstances say anything to anyone that might possibly be offensive - even if you don't mean it. If it can be construed as offensive, it's YOUR fault. National ID cards. Now consider we are the most CC TVd people in the the world.
Because these measures have been implemented under the guise of a so called 'democratically elected government', there is an assumption that the people have given a mandate for these measures. They have not. We live in the nearest thing to Orwell's nightmare and it has slipped right under our noses.
No, I don't accept that this is true, despite the fact that it is the favourite paranoid fantasy of the Daily Mail.
Many of the reasons for implementing these things are economic, in order to drive down the burden on the NHS (obesity and smoking). If someone chooses a dangerous lifestyle, should they not be required to cope with the consequences? If I drive a fast car, am I not expected to pay out more in insurance?
Some of them are just plain right. It is not acceptable for parents to assault children. The acceptability of this stems from a belief that somehow parents 'own' children, which they do not. Sometimes children need to be protected from their parents.
The one bit of the above that I do agree with is about offensive speech. There is far too much 'taking offence' going on today. You can choose to take offence, and you can choose not to. Boris Johnson is the role model for me here, despite being a Tory: push the boundaries, say what you mean.
I am currently cutting down with a view to stopping...not because I want or need to, but I can't be bothered with the prospect of becoming a social pariah at the behest of this dimwitted, pernicious government.
It is interesting to talk to both smokers and non-smokers around here; there is an almost universal dislike of the ban. However; it's going to happen. Both my locals are non-smoking, and have been for up to 2 years now, and have noticed a drop in "wet" trade; despite the fact that they both place heavy emphasis on the serving of food, that side of the business has not increased one bit.
It should not have been beyond the wit of man to allow some pubs to continue with smokers - though the logistics might have taken a little working out.
The only part of the ban that I do agree with is not smoking IN workplaces; people there have no 'choice'.
No, I don't accept that this is true, despite the fact that it is the favourite paranoid fantasy of the Daily Mail.
Many of the reasons for implementing these things are economic, in order to drive down the burden on the NHS (obesity and smoking). If someone chooses a dangerous lifestyle, should they not be required to cope with the consequences? If I drive a fast car, am I not expected to pay out more in insurance?
Some of them are just plain right. It is not acceptable for parents to assault children. The acceptability of this stems from a belief that somehow parents 'own' children, which they do not. Sometimes children need to be protected from their parents.
The one bit of the above that I do agree with is about offensive speech. There is far too much 'taking offence' going on today. You can choose to take offence, and you can choose not to. Boris Johnson is the role model for me here, despite being a Tory: push the boundaries, say what you mean.
Hmm...well I agree with you to some degree HB. However, the "DM paranoia" is less to do with the DM than it is the truth ( and I only occasionally read the DM - normally The Times ). We do "democratically elect" our Government - as far as is possible with our quaint election system and blatant fraud..as well as the fact that Goverenments seldom live up to anything they promise in the very mandates upon which we BASE our choice of candidate. The problems arise when a Government - such as this current mess - goes off on its own, and takes no notice of the public to boot. That is where democracy ends, of course. Once the administration considers itself "in power" and simply does what it wants when it wants; there is no longer a democracy. THAT would only return if WE could say "enough is enough" and boot them out. We can't...
Nowhere have the British public expressly given a mandate for many of the points raised - and their "economic" benefits are questionable in many cases.
I agree with the notion that "dangerous lifestyles" should be the responsibility of those practising them - but then most things we do have an element of danger, and always have, and one questions the point at which you say;" We are not going to look after you if you do this anymore"... If you consider the effects of alchohol consumption throughout the country; by far one of the worst culprits for death, injury, illness, lost days at work and property damage; the natural thing would be to ban it outright. Can you imagine? And the argument of there being "no such thing as passive drinking" holds little - if any - water.
We have yet to learn how much revenue the Treasury will need to draw from elsewhere following the drop in tobacco sales ( which the industry is indeed gearing up for ) - I forsee it going on drink - because the NHS could certainly do with that extra income!
Smacking is not assault - and shouldn't be confused with it - and I fail to see how it arises from the concept of parents "owning" children.
Your insurance is based on two things; your likelihood of making a claim - and the cost of repairs for your particular car; not the idea that your car is intrinsically dangerous.
Do people not work in pubs? Should they not be protected?
You take a job in a smoking pub in the knowledge that people in there....might smoke. That has always been the case - and when I took poeple on in that very trade I always made sure that the candidate knew it. ( Yeah, I know, discrimination laws and all that crap...)
The point there is that public houses are there for the enjoyment of those using them, and sell alchohol on that basis. As, for many, both drink and tobacco are forms of relaxation and enjoyment, that sets it somewhat aside from other places of work NOT centred around recreation.
Originally posted by Heselbine: Do people not work in pubs? Should they not be protected?
Of course they should. However, they are not being forced to work there either. (As an aside all the bar staff in my local smoke.) When someone applies for a job they obviously look at certain criteria to see whether that job is for them - surely whether they will be required to work in an environment where a legal drug, which they do not wish to imbibe in, is allowed is a choice they must make.
I think the most sensible solution would have been to allow pubs to decide whether or not they wished to be a non smoking environment. There were non smoking pubs here in Glasgow long before the ban was imposed (first one opened way back in the 80s - The Pots Still). The manager of a pub always had the right to refuse service to anyone so if you smoked in those pubs you could be chucked out just like now.
No, I don't accept that this is true, despite the fact that it is the favourite paranoid fantasy of the Daily Mail.
Many of the reasons for implementing these things are economic, in order to drive down the burden on the NHS (obesity and smoking). If someone chooses a dangerous lifestyle, should they not be required to cope with the consequences? If I drive a fast car, am I not expected to pay out more in insurance?
Some of them are just plain right. It is not acceptable for parents to assault children. The acceptability of this stems from a belief that somehow parents 'own' children, which they do not. Sometimes children need to be protected from their parents.
The one bit of the above that I do agree with is about offensive speech. There is far too much 'taking offence' going on today. You can choose to take offence, and you can choose not to. Boris Johnson is the role model for me here, despite being a Tory: push the boundaries, say what you mean.
Hmm...well I agree with you to some degree HB. However, the "DM paranoia" is less to do with the DM than it is the truth ( and I only occasionally read the DM - normally The Times ). We do "democratically elect" our Government - as far as is possible with our quaint election system and blatant fraud..as well as the fact that Goverenments seldom live up to anything they promise in the very mandates upon which we BASE our choice of candidate. The problems arise when a Government - such as this current mess - goes off on its own, and takes no notice of the public to boot. That is where democracy ends, of course. Once the administration considers itself "in power" and simply does what it wants when it wants; there is no longer a democracy. THAT would only return if WE could say "enough is enough" and boot them out. We can't...
Nowhere have the British public expressly given a mandate for many of the points raised - and their "economic" benefits are questionable in many cases.
I agree with the notion that "dangerous lifestyles" should be the responsibility of those practising them - but then most things we do have an element of danger, and always have, and one questions the point at which you say;" We are not going to look after you if you do this anymore"... If you consider the effects of alchohol consumption throughout the country; by far one of the worst culprits for death, injury, illness, lost days at work and property damage; the natural thing would be to ban it outright. Can you imagine? And the argument of there being "no such thing as passive drinking" holds little - if any - water.
We have yet to learn how much revenue the Treasury will need to draw from elsewhere following the drop in tobacco sales ( which the industry is indeed gearing up for ) - I forsee it going on drink - because the NHS could certainly do with that extra income!
Smacking is not assault - and shouldn't be confused with it - and I fail to see how it arises from the concept of parents "owning" children.
Your insurance is based on two things; your likelihood of making a claim - and the cost of repairs for your particular car; not the idea that your car is intrinsically dangerous.
Otherwise I agree
Hmmm. Informed, sensible debate. That's not what I come on these forums for. I think I need to go back to another thread for a discussion with Rocket Scientist.
I do think there's a case for a small number of special licences or something for specific smoking pubs. I read yesterday about shisha cafes which are affected by the ban.
It doesn't seem right that this sort of thing, where everyone who's there buys into the concept, needs to close. And you can easily extrapolate this to having a small number of pubs where everyone knows you can smoke.
I don't really see the problem of this. However, the default should be no smoking as far as I'm concerned.
Originally posted by insight: Nowhere have the British public expressly given a mandate for many of the points raised.
Well, you say that, but the British public would have to be pretty stupid not to expect a Labour government to be to some extent centralising and what the DM calls 'nannying'. Oh, hang on a minute - they are pretty stupid. Fair enough.
Originally posted by Heselbine: I don't really see the problem of this. However, the default should be no smoking as far as I'm concerned.
Fine, I personally think the Mods should have asked those people who actually have been living under the new laws for the past year to give their opinion on its effects rather than asking you to conjecture on what may or may not entail when it is enacted in your area of Britain.
From my perspective, no one up here is too bothered. Yeah it is inconvenient having to go outside for a puff but that's the way it is so it happens. It really isn't even an issue which anyone even bothers or talks about. Like everything the media tries to hype up into a big burning issue it'll just be exposed as a damp squib.
It is like the whole question of ID cards - there is little doubt it will eventually happen so what. I carried one for over 20 years it wasn't a problem. Most people on the continent don't have any problem with them, it really is just another non-issue. How many people work in jobs which require them to wear an ID card - do they refuse or object, what's the problem?
No Heslebine I loathe the Daily Mail! I was merely trying to point out that, 10 years on, we have to look back and see what has happened to our civil liberties collectively, not just one ban here and then maybe one there. Look at the whole infringement of The Terrorism Act upon most people. I can't go to within a mile of the Houses of Parliament and wear a t-shirt saying 'Make Love, Not War'. It's comes under the legislation of being a terrorist threat! I'm not jumping on the paranoia bandwagon - these are facts.
Originally posted by Joobs_too: It is like the whole question of ID cards - there is little doubt it will eventually happen so what. I carried one for over 20 years it wasn't a problem. Most people on the continent don't have any problem with them, it really is just another non-issue. How many people work in jobs which require them to wear an ID card - do they refuse or object, what's the problem?
I too have carried ID cards, and have no objection to the concept as a whole. However, it is the "peripheral" uses that this Government will put them to, the lack of security - especially with all your eggs in one basket, and the complete lack of need that I object to.
On that basis I dismiss the cards as being of no actual use, and an infringement of privacy on a huge scale.
Originally posted by Joobs_too: It is like the whole question of ID cards - there is little doubt it will eventually happen so what. I carried one for over 20 years it wasn't a problem. Most people on the continent don't have any problem with them, it really is just another non-issue. How many people work in jobs which require them to wear an ID card - do they refuse or object, what's the problem?
Er... the matter of choice? - to name just one objection. I'm awake
Topic Closed
