Vote on smoking ban in public places

MrMatteh · 14 Feb 2006 at 20:11

I reckon its fair to say you should be free to do what you want provided it doesnt effect others, 'cause that's just not fair.

smoking does effect others. Don't get into an argument over passive smoking, the fact is, its just unpleasant! So i'm all for it being banned in public places (also good news for the bar staff)

Someone commented about "omg ban the drinkers too"; well, i'm not pouring my drink over you am i? you dont end up smelling of alcohol at the end of the night and inhaling fumes do you? silly argument.

manor · 14 Feb 2006 at 20:11

Bennah said:
Does it mean that you can smoke going down the street though? Public buildings and stuff are banned?

As far as I can see it. Smoking in the streets will still be ok but people will no longer be able to smoke in public buildings.

However, from what I have heard happening in Scotland already, is they have "hannibal lector" style booths in pubs where smokers can go.
I'm assuming that similar things will be set up in england too.

Glaucus · 14 Feb 2006 at 20:11

well that sucks, wheres the tax deficite going to come from.. Unless people just cram more cigs in at home.

james.miller · 14 Feb 2006 at 20:12

Rich_L said:
\o/

IMO there's no right to smoke in the first place, the government not banning it up to now is a privelege and concession afforded to smokers rather than them taking away some right of theirs.

Sooner the better, and I'm glad that there aren't going to be any daft exemptions like originally proposed.

oh i agree with that. However, the 8bn in profits they net from smoking will have to be taken from somewhere else.....you. It seems to be a little short sighted for non smokers to say "yeah, ban the crap" without caring or at least worrying where the money will be taken from after it's banned.

iBankAllDay · 14 Feb 2006 at 20:13

cleanbluesky said:
No-one has to go anywhere... a person cannot be gaurunteed air quality no-matter where they go. I cant walk down an A-Road and still get air quality, why is the idea that I should demand air-quality when going inside a pub any different?

If you want air quality, you have to seek it - a smoking ban wont change this

Perhaps it is not guaranteed to be perfect. However, increasing the quality of the air is certainly possible, and will be achieved through this legislation.

There is a difference in your comparison as, generally, people do not got to an 'A' road to work, dine or socialise. Instead the air quality here is controlled through industrial and motor emission standards; which are monitored by the Environmental Agency and local authorities' respectively. These standards are set on the basis that the equilibrium is found between emissions and health/quality of life for humans and animals.

Excellent air quality is more achievable in confined spaces than in built up urban areas or roadsides; as it can be controlled directly by removing the cause. The legislation will remove the cause of the poor air; this is a lot more effective than introducing remedial measures such as ventilation; which are not practical in many venues anyway. Given ventilation does not necessarily occur naturally as it does outdoors, on a road side for example, the most effective measure to improve air quality is to remove the source completely.

MrMatteh · 14 Feb 2006 at 20:14

AcidHell2 said:
well that sucks, wheres the tax deficite going to come from.. Unless people just cram more cigs in at home.

Less money being spent on lung cancer and other smoking related diseases?

punky_munky · 14 Feb 2006 at 20:14

cleanbluesky said:
You were detailing how bad an experience entering pubs has been for you, you seem happy that the legislation is going to solve your problem - I'm just curious why the situation has been so bad for so long but you haven't found a solution...

Is it because you didn't care about it that much really?

What? I've always thought of you as a fairly rational and intelligent person. I'm starting to have doubts...

What sort of solution what you suggest? Wearing a gas mask to the pub? Maybe there's something obvious here that we're missing.

MrMatteh · 14 Feb 2006 at 20:16

punky_munky said:
What? I've always thought of you as a fairly rational and intelligent person. I'm starting to have doubts...

What sort of solution what you suggest? Wearing a gas mask to the pub? Maybe there's something obvious here that we're missing.

indeed, the non-smoker shouldnt have to go out of their way to negate the effects of the smokers!

cleanbluesky · 14 Feb 2006 at 20:16

UOcUK Poopscoop said:
Find a solution??

What on earth are you talking about, you have truly lost me?

I have always supported a ban on smoking in public areas but your train of thought still baffles me.

Okay. If it bothered you so much, why not just stay out of pubs?

Glaucus · 14 Feb 2006 at 20:17

MrMatteh said:
Less money being spent on lung cancer and other smoking related diseases?

I bet that is less than 10% of what profit they make from cigs...

Although I would like to see some stats if anyone has any..
Its not like beer where you have police, hospital ect.

Cigs you just have a few health problems.

If the public wants smoke free pubs so bad, why hasn't there been a chain banning smoking they would be constantly filled by all the non smokers...

Buy the way I don't smoke never have, but don't mind smoking in pubs/clubs.

cleanbluesky · 14 Feb 2006 at 20:17

punky_munky said:
What? I've always thought of you as a fairly rational and intelligent person. I'm starting to have doubts...

What sort of solution what you suggest? Wearing a gas mask to the pub? Maybe there's something obvious here that we're missing.

Stay out of the pub! If going into pubs is that much hassle, stay out. That or its not really an issue is it.

cleanbluesky · 14 Feb 2006 at 20:18

MrMatteh said:
indeed, the non-smoker shouldnt have to go out of their way to negate the effects of the smokers!

Or perhaps the smoker shouldn't be inconvenienced by those who do not wish to share their environment - do want everything you desire to be sanctioned and provided for you by the government?

Rich_L · 14 Feb 2006 at 20:18

james.miller said:
oh i agree with that. However, the 8bn in profits they net from smoking will have to be taken from somewhere else.....you. It seems to be a little short sighted for non smokers to say "yeah, ban the crap" without caring or at least worrying where the money will be taken from after it's banned.

Fine, put taxes up or add a bit to a pint of beer.

I'd happily pay a bit extra to have smoke-free pubs and clubs tbh.

james.miller · 14 Feb 2006 at 20:18

MrMatteh said:
Less money being spent on lung cancer and other smoking related diseases?

they make a LOT more from cigs they they spend on treating the problems associated with them. in the order of 4-5 times as much i believe. It sgonn have to come from somewhere and it WILL come from you.

Rich_L said:
Fine, put taxes up or add a bit to a pint of beer.

I'd happily pay a bit extra to have smoke-free pubs and clubs tbh.

it will be a LOT added to beer. How much do cig's cost, and what do they sell for? 200 B&H is about £11.50 in the canary islands. Here, it's what...£5.10 in the shops for £20?

that's the government making around £4.50 a pack more than the canaries on top of the profit that's already made. Most regular smokers smoke 20 a day. £4.50 per day per smoker. How much do you think they have to raise the price of beer to compensate?

// no matter what happens, somebody will be hurt by it. It's a catch 22 in the case of non smokers. Either put up with public smoking, or realise than the 8bn in revenue that's generated from sigs has to come from somewhere else.

MrMatteh · 14 Feb 2006 at 20:19

cleanbluesky said:
Stay out of the pub! If going into pubs is that much hassle, stay out. That or its not really an issue is it.

why should we not be able to go to the pub because a few others smoke? doesnt seem right does it?

or, maybe we should not allow smokers (and by that i mean anyone that has smoked before) into a pub! that wouldnt seem fair would it?

punky_munky · 14 Feb 2006 at 20:20

cleanbluesky said:
Stay out of the pub! If going into pubs is that much hassle, stay out. That or its not really an issue is it.

That's not a solution, it's surrender.

MrMatteh · 14 Feb 2006 at 20:20

james.miller said:
they make a LOT more from cigs they they spend on treating the problems associated with them. in the order of 4-5 times as much i believe. It sgonn have to come from somewhere and it WILL come from you.

yes, but we're not eradicating smoking are we? just restricting where it can be done. Don't know how much revenue will slip by, but i can't see it being *that* much

Glaucus · 14 Feb 2006 at 20:22

MrMatteh said:
why should we not be able to go to the pub because a few others smoke? doesnt seem right does it?

or, maybe we should not allow smokers (and by that i mean anyone that has smoked before) into a pub! that wouldnt seem fair would it?

This belive it or not is an economic based society, if there is demand for smoke free pubs, then some one would provide them. As there would be huge profits to make.. I hate the idea of banning things.. If people wont smoke free pubs, why don't you buy a pub and make it smoke free.

Andelusion · 14 Feb 2006 at 20:23

Woah, fantastic news!

wolvotim · 14 Feb 2006 at 20:23

MrMatteh said:
I reckon its fair to say you should be free to do what you want provided it doesnt effect others, 'cause that's just not fair.

smoking does effect others. Don't get into an argument over passive smoking, the fact is, its just unpleasant! So i'm all for it being banned in public places (also good news for the bar staff)

Someone commented about "omg ban the drinkers too"; well, i'm not pouring my drink over you am i? you dont end up smelling of alcohol at the end of the night and inhaling fumes do you? silly argument.

you could head butt me while drunk