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?
What are we talking about, a total ban, or just a ban for public places?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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)...
'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 :xp:. 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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A pub w/o smoking? Isn't that like a rock concert w/o weed? :p (legality issues aside)
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 :)
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.
They are doing the same thing here, but only city by city. Houston does not allow smoking except in the bar area. Austin banned it completely indoors. It is rather nice to leave a bar and not have to go home and shower before going to bed.
I’m all for it. Everyone in my family except my mother and me smoked. I’ve already breathed enough second hand smoke for a life time and don’t need or want any more.
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’d actually be for either one of those. :)
A pub w/o smoking? Isn't that like a rock concert w/o weed? :p (legality issues aside)
Smoking, I would say is not so important. The smell of beer and background smoke mixed together, on the other hand, are vital, IMNERHO.
beer smells freakn aweful, i HATE when people come up to me at work after they've been out drinking and the smell on their breath just makes me want to puke. it's almost worse than garlic.
This is going to make more countries aware of the danger of smoking, I support it. :)
'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.
Maybe they'll ban people from emptying their chamber pots on the street below, or something insane like that :xp:. 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?
If an owner of an establishment want to allow smoking it should be his right. If they have smoking. You have the right of not working there or frequenting the place.
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!"
I would quite say that I would want to ban a certain religion in public if it was a religion that had a major tenent of converting all other people in the general vicinity to their religion and trying to kill everybody else.
The point is, you say it like the majority of people are uninvolved with the issue. Here, the majority is the victim.
Even though you choose not to admit it, global warming is a very serious matter and it's effects can actually be seen today.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Lief_Erikson_Day_-_October_9th)
http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/BGGH.html)
:rolleyes: The climate of the globe is cyclical. This is one of the major reasons that I'm not worried. When it's warm enough that I could have a prosperous cow farm in Greenland, I'll start to consider that global warming might be a problem. Since today the weather in Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, was a high of 41 degrees and a light snow, no one has to worry about me raising cattle. And the thing is, I'm the most liberal of my group of friends, so don't write off my disbelief because you think I'm a republican.
_EW_
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.
I think people have the right as individuals to smoke. But for everybody against it, I would like you to consider the fact you are not the only one smoking a cigarette when you light one. Second-hand smoke kills just as many as smoking does, so take it outside. My aunts smoked about 2 packs a day in their home and it was evident it was effecting their children, so they took it outside and away from the kids. Its a start, but they are most likely going to die young. Not saying thats a bad thing, as it is their choice, but when you start hurting others with your habits thats when I think the line should be drawn.
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.
You're exaggerating heavy, Aash. They've just banned smoking, and smoking has been proved to be bad for your health and someone else's as well. Even though Alchohol may be in line some fifty years in the future, I don't see any government stupid enough to ban sex, kissing, eating old someone else's place and so on.
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)...
A government is in place precisely to tell you what you can and cannot do. Without a government to show people what is right and wrong (however strict it is), the world will descend into a barbaric state, no laws, everybody's crazy, no progress and you having a possibility to die every other second because a freak will run you over with a truck and then eat your corpse, because he likes it and nobody's prohibiting it.
Communism is not a police state, it is not inherently evil, or bad for that matter. It is a system of government that just went wrong on a large scale.
"In every system of government, you sacrifice something. In a police state it's freedom, in a socialist state it's property, in a democracy it's focus. - Anonymous/Don't Remember.
I would quite say that I would want to ban a certain religion in public if it was a religion that had a major tenent of converting all other people in the general vicinity to their religion and trying to kill everybody else.
I'd say probably 99% of my friends are smokers, and never has their smoking tried to convert me to be a smoker. Honestly, I find it very hard to believe that second-hand smoke is really SO DANGEROUS that it will KILL YOU if you are exposed to it. I'm exposed to it around my friends and at work, and while I don't like the smell of cigarette smoke, I'd consider myself a very tolerant person.
Eating junk food is much more likely to kill you (and probably will) than second-hand smoke. I'd say in that case a majority of people eat junk food regularly, and they're the ones at risk. Why is nothing being done about that eh? Because it would be retarded that's why. Too many people eat junk food for it to be banned (part of why alcohol prohibition failed so badly... lots of people like to drink). Since smokers are a minority, it's easier to push them around... that's kinda the point I was making.
Without a government to show people what is right and wrong (however strict it is), the world will descend into a barbaric state, no laws, everybody's crazy, no progress and you having a possibility to die every other second because a freak will run you over with a truck and then eat your corpse, because he likes it and nobody's prohibiting it.
So you actually have more faith in government than in humanity itself? The government is made up of just people like you and me, except government tends to get corrupted. People WILL regulate themselves without the state there to clamp down on them. People realize that it is not in their best interest to have chaos, so they will settle down and remain civil. You are using the same argument that people use against atheists - that without a god (or a government in this case), people will just go crazy, killing, robbing, raping, etc., but of course that is not the case.
In reality, a government does very, very little to actually show right from wrong. Often, they show the wrong way (just look at Jim Crow laws and such), not the right way. Usually, a government just picks up the current state of society and makes laws around that. Humanity sets the rules... not the government. They just claim credit for it.
In reality, a government does very, very little to actually show right from wrong. Often, they show the wrong way (just look at Jim Crow laws and such), not the right way. Usually, a government just picks up the current state of society and makes laws around that. Humanity sets the rules... not the government. They just claim credit for it.
Here's a shocker, dude, we pretty much agree on this. Governments often only codify what we've come to recognize as right/wrong and then are responsible for enforcing that. Even when govt DOES work right, it tends to lose sight of doing what's right and does what's expedient for the people in charge. This becomes that much worse when govt sees itself as the master and us as thralls. Sic semper tyranis.
I'd say probably 99% of my friends are smokers, and never has their smoking tried to convert me to be a smoker. Honestly, I find it very hard to believe that second-hand smoke is really SO DANGEROUS that it will KILL YOU if you are exposed to it. I'm exposed to it around my friends and at work, and while I don't like the smell of cigarette smoke, I'd consider myself a very tolerant person.
What separates second hand smoke from junk food or alcohol is that the person being exposed to second hand smoke does not have the choice to not breathe that air. And while it won't "for sure, kill you," I personally don't like what constant or regular second hand smoke does for my chances, or my ever so healthy respiratory system that I would like to keep top notch.
Bottom line is if people want to kill themselves with substance abuse, be it alcohol, junk food, cigarettes, illegal drugs, or snorting bleach, then there is nothing to stop them, and it's none of my business. But the second any of those activities, performed by others involves or endangers me without my consent, then that is where it pisses me off. Therefore, public smoking ban = good thing for me and my family.
Smokers can kill themselves in private all they want. Power to them and all that.
Out.
Hopefully.
But, your questions can go the other way around: What's next, legalizing drugs? Legalizing prostitution? Trafficking? Where does it end?
What does Trafficking have to do with it?
But yes, I do think it is a good idea to Legalize drugs, as least the less deadly ones. I mean, people are using it. Legalizing it actually reduces most drug related crime, as it is less profitable for the underworld ro profit from it. There are quite many leasure users out there also, people that are not addict. "Its bad for you" simply is not a good way to ban something. Granted, I do think that smoking in places like restaurants does adversely affact the health of the employees, and thus should be regulated.
Same goes for prostitution. It is like one of the most ancient profession. We know its there, and we know people uses this service. Mind as well legalize it. Its better for the health of both the prostitute and the johns, and does help them from getting controlled too much by the gangs and what not. Plus, with that you can start things like regular check up (and taxes for the stupid IRS) Oh, unlike smoking you don't have the AoE effect.
That having said, BARS SHOULD BE EXEMPTED FROM THIS RULE. Same goes for some designated places. There should be a special licence or something for places that specialize in sales of cigars and cigarettes or something. You know those places and what I mean.
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)...
It isn't often that I agree wholeheartedly with Aash Li, but I sure do today! First smoking, now trans fats! IT IS NOT THE PLACE OF GOVERNMENT TO BE YOUR NANNY!!! Check out the Libertarian Party (
http://www.lp.org) for more information regarding the decay of civil liberties. The progression that Aash Li speaks of was the way that the Nazi Party rose to power in Germany. They started taking away the small stuff first. If they continue to ban things, one of two things will occur....Fascist government and/or a black market for the contraband. Alcohol prohibition in the States gave rise to the Mafia just like the prohibition of other controlled substances (marijuana, cocaine, etc.) gave rise to the Bloods, Crips, and other street gangs. Make no mistake...the day they completely ban cigarettes we will see a black market in tobacco begin to take hold. The downfall of any great civilization is brought on by the people loosing their will for FREEDOM!
Government nanny-ship... Nazis... The Mafia... The downfall of any great civilization is brought on by the people loosing their will for FREEDOM!
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." -Oliver Wendell Holmes
If someone wants to blacken their own lungs with smoking they have the right to decide to do so. That right ends, however, when they take away another person's same right.
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." -Oliver Wendell Holmes
If someone wants to blacken their own lungs with smoking they have the right to decide to do so. That right ends, however, when they take away another person's same right.
You are talking in the context of shared public spaces, not private businesses or homes, right?
So you actually have more faith in government than in humanity itself? The government is made up of just people like you and me, except government tends to get corrupted. People WILL regulate themselves without the state there to clamp down on them. People realize that it is not in their best interest to have chaos, so they will settle down and remain civil. You are using the same argument that people use against atheists - that without a god (or a government in this case), people will just go crazy, killing, robbing, raping, etc., but of course that is not the case.
In reality, a government does very, very little to actually show right from wrong. Often, they show the wrong way (just look at Jim Crow laws and such), not the right way. Usually, a government just picks up the current state of society and makes laws around that. Humanity sets the rules... not the government. They just claim credit for it.
People WILL NOT regulate themselves without a government. It is theoretically impossible. If a person does regulate others, he becomes a government.
As for individuals regulating themselves - that is possible, if a person has a strong will. That is why there are two systems of regulation necessary - faith and government. Faith regulates us in our conscience, stopping us from murdering, raping, pillaging etc. But it is possible to evade one's faith. In such a case, external regulation is necessary. This comes from a government.
People do not realize that it is not in their best interest to cause chaos. If you've seen terrorists or street mobfights, you know what I mean. Humanity is not one - it is many. And to unify, to control many, you need a government.
I think smoking bans is a total waste of time, If people want to smoke, let them smoke. It's their own life.
You are talking in the context of shared public spaces, not private businesses or homes, right?
Yep. A person's private property is their business. (That and it would be rather difficult to enforce)
I think smoking bans is a total waste of time, If people want to smoke, let them smoke. It's their own life.
I suppose the thousands of lives they kill off as a result of that doesn't factor into it? Letting them live their own lives is fine as long as they don't interfere with other's people ability to live their own.
You can smoke in your own home, but if you have a plumber or salesman or whatever come to your home, they have the right to make you stop as it is now there place of work.
Yep. A person's private property is their business. (That and it would be rather difficult to enforce)
I suppose the thousands of lives they kill off as a result of that doesn't factor into it? Letting them live their own lives is fine as long as they don't interfere with other's people ability to live their own.
Nobody can stop smoking, there will always be people who smoke and i think these people know very well it kills.
How about this:
Should parents who are smokers be allowed to smoke in their house when children are present?
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?
That's most likely because you don't smoke, i do and even though it is better It's also very annoying when your about to light up and then you remember you have to get up and go outside, :headbump. Although there is one good side if your talking to some boring person and you want to get away just say oops sorry just got to go for a cig, lol.
I think smoking bans is a total waste of time, If people want to smoke, let them smoke. It's their own life.
However when it puts other people's health in jeopardy because of the very fact they are smoking it is no longer just about them.
There has been a statewide ban on smoking in public areas for over a year now in Colorado. Since I don't know the specifics of the England ban, I cannot speak for how it will work there, but in Colorado it seems everyone has at least gotten used to it, and it no longer faces strong opposition.
The main difference that I'm unaware of is if England's ban will still allow smoking in casinos and cigar bars (which you obviously need a special license to operate). This still gives smokers a place to be where they can smoke, but not the majority of places.
This is good, because if any private establishment were able to allow or disallow smoking, I cannot imagine any bar banning smoking, which means people who don't smoke, and are in fact really allergic to it like myself would be more or less unable to go to any bars.
meh.. I'm a smoker (granted, in the US) but we're slowly adapting the same policies.
Frankly, I really don't mind it. I rarely smoke in public in any case, and never around non-smokers. It's a bad habit (yeah, I DO agree with you non-smokers.. hehehe) but it's MY habit.. so neener neener. But I can guarantee I'll never blow smoke in your face.
The point that keeps making it in these posts (that I'm seeing) is that once it starts affecting someone else, without their choice, then yes... I'm not seeing this (particular ban) as a bad thing.
More power to the non-smokers, and the smokers. I go out to eat, entertain, socialize, shop, work and get my boogie on :sbdance
I can smoke at home ;)
HOWEVER, those nonchalantly trying to dis-credit Aash Li's post is going to be in for a major shocker if they keep letting these things pass quietly. Make noise gang, even for the little things you disagree with.. otherwise, you're not going to like the alternative. She's right and you've got blinders on if you think otherwise.
When I no longer have the right to smoke in my own house or on my own property, then we'll start getting out the pistols.. :lol: