|
Post by Devious Diesel on Jul 4, 2007 21:34:43 GMT
I don't smoke, never have done and never will do. I intend to lead a healthy life. No more second-hand smoke risk for me, hopefully.
|
|
aargh
Shunting Engine
Posts: 29
|
Post by aargh on Jul 6, 2007 21:38:07 GMT
I'm quite split about it. It is a benefit to the health and happiness of any pub-goers who might be bothered by the smoke but on the other hand I don't believe the government has any business telling private citizens what they can and can't do with their businesses. A good middle ground would be mandating a well-removed and well-ventilated designated non-smoking area in every bar and resturaunt if they choose to continue to allow smoking at all.
I am bothered by the nanny state and I find some of the anti-smoking legislation to be representative of its work, but I feel that laws such as those mandating the use of bicycle helmets are much more intrusive. If you don't wear your helmet, you can't harm anyone but yourself whereas if you smoke in the same space as someone who is bothered by smoking you are leaving them with an unpleasant experience and likely damaging his or her health to some degree, too.
|
|
thommob1987
Goods Engine
You're the best in the world - Richard Burns 1971-2005
Posts: 148
|
Post by thommob1987 on Jul 7, 2007 23:57:55 GMT
Now I'm not a smoker and I thought it was a good idea but the only drawback is it marks a border of anti-socialism where you're chatting to a smoker and suddenly he wants a cig so you have to go outside to continue the conversation. It's frustrating especially if its cold!!
|
|
Mafew
Goods Engine
Posts: 203
|
Post by Mafew on Jul 17, 2007 15:31:37 GMT
I'm tempted to go buy a pack now..having one of those days =(
|
|
|
Post by Father Austin Purcell on Jul 18, 2007 11:01:54 GMT
I'm not a smoker myself, nor would I ever encourage it, and therefore I view myself as a "neutral" participant in the smoking debate. I must say, however, I despise this ban for several reasons. Firstly, it's one of the most blatant displays of Nanny Stateism I have ever seen, and I despise the concept of the Nanny State. Secondly, the joy with which it is recieved. Few people seem to realise the vast amounts of tax money the Government reaps from smokers. The fewer smokers there are, the less tax the Government gets to plunder from them. Where do you think they'll make up the difference from? The rest of us, that's who. From the glee of the anti-smoking lobby, one can only assume they relish the thought of the rest of us being taxed to oblivion. My third point is unrelated to the ban as such, but rather to a point made earlier. Excuse me, but the NHS is for EVERYONE. We all pay into it, including those who smoke. Are you suggesting they be made for a service they can't use, or would you advocate a sort of discount for our smoking friends to make up for the treatments they can't recieve? You're sort of defeating the object of National Health Service the way I see it. On a more light-hearted, unrelated note: For a humourous, rather tongue-in-cheek view of the whole smoking debate, I heartily reccomend the Yes, Prime Minister episode "The Smoke Screen." It's one of the funniest, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by choochoo on Jul 18, 2007 11:37:18 GMT
You are so right, that episode was very clever !
In answer to your other point, though, I would just say that the resources of the NHS are finite and hard choices are being made every day about priorities.
|
|
|
Post by stuart7 on Jul 18, 2007 12:33:43 GMT
Yeah, this Nanny-state is bloomin' ridiculous. At this rate, they'll be banning cars from running or the road or something.
Stuart
|
|
|
Post by FlyingScotsman on Jul 18, 2007 17:38:12 GMT
Good! Honestly, I was walking to work today. Short walk, just from Waterloo Station to Westminster Bridge, I blew my nose when I got there and discovered my nostrils were full of soot. The fewer cars the better. I work for the NHS, by the way.
|
|
|
Post by Skarloey on Jul 18, 2007 19:56:48 GMT
Excuse me, but the NHS is for EVERYONE. We all pay into it, including those who smoke. Are you suggesting they be made for a service they can't use, or would you advocate a sort of discount for our smoking friends to make up for the treatments they can't recieve? You're sort of defeating the object of National Health Service the way I see it. My point wasn't that smokers couldn't use the NHS, rather that they shouldn't be given any form of priority for organ donations, etc, if they have problems such as requiring transplants on organs with faults that were self-caused through things like smoking or excessive drinking. A bit like throwing a brick through a window and asking for it back.
|
|
|
Post by FlyingScotsman on Jul 19, 2007 17:56:40 GMT
I don't know, I think the trouble there is that if you say it for one group, you have to say it for all. Should you not treat the liver condition of a drinker, or the heart condition of someone who's overweight? Should you deny a diabetic insulin if they had a family history of the condition but ate a poor diet anyway?
|
|
|
Post by stuart7 on Jul 24, 2007 9:51:49 GMT
I don't know, I think the trouble there is that if you say it for one group, you have to say it for all. Should you not treat the liver condition of a drinker, or the heart condition of someone who's overweight? Should you deny a diabetic insulin if they had a family history of the condition but ate a poor diet anyway? You're right there, Tom. I ask you, "Can it be right to deny anyone treatment?" Refusing to cure an ill person, self-harmed or not, is just a little too barbaric. Stuart
|
|
|
Post by Little Engine on Jul 30, 2007 16:28:17 GMT
Well from what I know,there are drawbacks to this.I mean what about the people who make them,it might be the only job they have and if they go out of buisness they could go broke,and then we must face letting them stay.I mean kids in eighth grade don't usually smoke so it shouldn't be problem then,we'll I don't know,I really don't know how to lay this down
|
|
|
Post by FlyingScotsman on Jul 31, 2007 10:30:30 GMT
Yeah, but that's the way the world works. Things change, people lose jobs. Sad but true, and that's why we have cheap consumer goods.
However, in the case of this, I don't believe one country banning smoking under certain circumstances is going to create too much of a sweat for the farmers.
|
|
|
Post by newengine24 on Aug 28, 2007 16:53:20 GMT
I wouldn't mind smoking being banned everywhere. I was at NASCAR race just recently and the people in front of me happend to be smokers. I kept getting cigar smoke blown in front of me all throughout the race I wanted to say something but I preferred to keep my mouth shut. I apologise if there are people who are opposed to the ban but smoking needs to be stopped for the better of everybody -NewEngine24
|
|
|
Post by choochoo on Sept 20, 2007 11:50:18 GMT
It may be my imagination ,of course, but there do seem to be more ciggie ends scattered about on the pavements since the smoking ban. I've also just seen for the first time a wall mounted ash tray outside a pub in Sheffield. I wonder what is happening to all the indoor pub ash trays ? Probably being sold to collectors on ebay !
|
|
|
Post by CPK on Sept 20, 2007 12:08:57 GMT
I've not really noticed that much difference since the ban, although I do have new neighbours in a newly refurbished house next door, and they always come outside to smoke...... other than that, small groups of smokers are accumulating outside of buildings, and when I (rarely) go into a pub, they seem more vacant than ever.
Nobody seems to be complaing about it now though. Sure,there was a little uproar at the start of July, but it's practically unheard of now.
|
|
gonzerelli
Goods Engine
The definition of 'Crazy Musician'
Posts: 268
|
Post by gonzerelli on Sept 21, 2007 14:25:46 GMT
Same thing happened here in Australia at the start of July.
It's great that I can now go out and have a few (too many) drinks, and not come home smelling like I'd just had a threesome with Patty and Selma.
(sorry for the graphic language, but it's for the point!)
It's forced ALL establishments to re-think their layouts for the comfort of all patrons, which can only be a positive thing. How can you create a "smoking environment" that's just as comfortable as inside? I've seen some pretty sweet looking smoking areas, that I would love to hang out in, apart from the fact it's filled with cigarette smoke! But for those who don't mind the smoke (ie. smokers), they've still got a nice place to do it.
|
|
|
Post by CabForward on Sept 22, 2007 2:36:09 GMT
Now, smoking is one of the drugs that hurt your health that I feel the least strongly about, but it comes down to this.
A smoking ban will not stop people smoking. Smokers are addicts, and cannot come off just like that - and even if they do quit, they may go back if a tragedy happens. A smoking ban will not stop smokers smoking, it will promote smokers smuggling illegal drugs.
And Governments ARE trying to stop non-smokers from becoming smokers. Packets are becoming covered, and so on, to stop young people from starting.
Very few people here will have seen it - in fact, I may be the only one, but there's a nice little place not far from where I live, "The Moon Cafe". There's two sections, an enclosed area, and a slightly less enclosed area. The less enclosed area is pretty much indoors, it's just there is about 10cm, around the walls, where the wall isn't quite there. This allows smokers to have a place to smoke, indoors, where non-smokers don't have to go if they don't want to, and also give the smoke a way to escape the building.
Just so you know, I'm not a smoker myself, I just know a number of smokers and druggies.
|
|
Nanaki
Main Line Engine
Just wolfing around.
Posts: 1,515
|
Post by Nanaki on Sept 23, 2007 18:04:52 GMT
I actually would NOT mind a smoking ban where I live.
Right outside a mall I go to frequently, there's tons of smokers lighting up. The mallrats are the worst...from a few yard off, it looks like there's a cloud on the pavement. And some people are even so bold as to try it out INSIDE the mall, right by my favorite bookstore. And the worst part is that I'm allergic to tobacco, so I can barely tolerate even secondhand smoke. @_@
Oh yes, and then there's my school. Since it's a vocational/tech school, there are adult students too, and they take breaks from classes to light up right by the school enterence. ><
I personally refuse to ever smoke, because it's gross, and illogical (to me). Smoking in Florida...it makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle on Sept 27, 2007 1:16:58 GMT
Sorry to sound all "Conspiracy Theory" here Amber, but the government will never get that serious about stopping smoking; they make too much revenue off it. They'll put in token efforts to make it LOOK like they are trying, but i doubt whether they'd be willing to part with all of the money it brings in for them...
Still, I think the bans are a good thing. I've got nothing against people that smoke (some of my best mates are smokers) but I feel that people should be able to go into pubs/bars/clubs without having to risk cancer because of it. But if smokers want to go and do it in privacy I'm not going to preach to them; that's their choice.
|
|