in ireland come the new yr the govenment health minister has decided to impose a smoking ban on any and all work places
this includes
bars
resturants
old ppl's homes
bingo halls
hospitals

under this law if you have a t.v. repair man come into your house to fix your t.v. and you smoke while he is there he can sue you.

i just wanted to know what you ppl think?

because the E.U. is thinking of implimenting this all over europe

To me, this sounds absolutely fantastic. I hate cigarette smoke.

Someone once said to me "If you don't like the smoke, then fuck off."

I shoulda started pissing on her face while saying "If you don't like this... then you fuck off."

Kormiic spouted:
To me, this sounds absolutely fantastic. I hate cigarette smoke.

Someone once said to me "If you don't like the smoke, then fuck off."

I shoulda started pissing on her face while saying "If you don't like this... then you fuck off."

Absolutely bang on the head of the nail with a large hammer.

I used to work in an edit house, and was one of approx 5 members of staff (out of 80) who didn't smoke. It was disgusting. Everything stank, fag ends were all over the place, ash in the furniture, stubs in half drunk tea and coffee, and walking into some rooms was like having a stroll in smog. Hatefull.

This may sound a bit strange, but as a smoker - i actually agree with all this.

Simply encouraging people not to smoke does not work. However, imposing a ban in pretty much all public places is a great idea - i know that i may then be able to quit smoking i.e the temptation to smoke won't be in my face.

I also hate smoking in restaurants. Although i smoke, i always sit in the no smoking area and don't smoke until we leave the restaurant.

Imposing this law upon bars may be a bit trickier though. I mostly smoke whilst drinking alcohol (as with a lot of people), and couldn't imagine having a pint without a cigarette.

Hmm.....we'll see what happens.

I can understand the fact that smoking has an effect on those around you...and that sometimes they really cant do anything to relieve themselves of it. To that end, I think its great that its banned at work...however...:

Banning smoking in public (i.e. in outdoor settings, like public paks) is bullshit. To have to hide inside your own home to smoke is ridiculous.

Saying that I cant smoke in my home (regardless of who else is in it) is bullshit. It is MY home. I pay for it. Whatever I do in MY home, so long as it doesnt adversely affect my neighborhood, is completely and utterly my own business. If I feel like tearing up my carpet and smashing in the walls with a hammer, I bought it...its my business. Similarly, not a single damn person is going to stop me from smoking indoors if I feel like it. (this whole rant refers to the Florida law that you happen to be violating if someone walks up to your window seal and sniffs...and can happen to smell smoke, in addition to the repairman deal).

More than that, why does the government feel that it needs to take up the burden of protecting us from ourselves? I completely agree with publishing the facts of smoking for us to see so that we can make completely informed decisions...but if we make the unpopular choice, even fully informed, it is still our choice. Its like the gov. taxing junk food "for our own good." I honestly dont like the idea of Bush standing behind me at the dinner table raking the potatoes off of my plate because "I dont need them."

public paks? Is that like where you can buy lots of public things for £1 ?

To be honest, if they go down a blanket ban route, they will end up causing people to take it underground thus it becomes another drug that people want to take a some point or other...

It's becoming so that having the ability to have a choice is no longer going to be available. You ARE being told what you can and can't do, and slowly but surely it's getting to be more of a dictatorship than anything else...

Or I could be lying.

netniV spouted:
blanket ban

It's a duvet-ists plot. I demand my right to irritating, scratchy outmoded bed clothes!

I agree with the ban in work places like offices, restaurants. I'm not so sure about bars/pubs though- in places like this that have age limits, it should be up to the bar owner. If the owner thinks they will gain customers by banning smoking then so be it.

I'm undecided on the parks/campsites issue. If it stops either of my younger brothers taking up smoking (because they won't be able to hang about in their usual haunts if they do) then I'm all for it.

On one hand, nah don't agree. I don't think most people ever HAVE to inhale someone else's smoke...and if they do..tough shit, they also have to be near ugly people, fat people, people who stink of piss, people who aren't funny, townies...etc etc...all the things that people can take offense at, but can't help bumping into,

personally I didn't mind them before I smoked and don't now, I just took it as a fact of life.

However if you're allergic or something then I appreciate your concern...also, as a smoker, I couldn't care less where it's banned, I wouldn't mind if I was limited to streets/my house, because I'm not addicted..and respect other people's wishes.
But in my pub, where 80% of people smoke, I'd laugh if someone complained..because there's a few non-smoking clubs/pubs in town and basically if you go in a rockers pub..you gotta expect a lotta men with beards, lotta leather jackets and a lotta rollups ;)

Preventing people from smoking basically makes it illegal to smoke in these places, does it not? If that's the case, then how can it be justified that a consumer product that is so heavily relied upon for taxation income, and is clearly legal, is illegal to use? It's like saying you can go to the takeaway and order that pizza, but you have to go home to eat it because it might offend other people.

I agree that it's not fair to force someone to go somewhere else to be away from the lingering smoke surrounding a smoker, but at the same time, you can't walk into a room where someone is smoking and demand they be cautioned or arrested because you dislike cigarette smoke. As a side note; if you visit a European country, say Spain for example, you find ashtrays everywhere you go, and likewise smokers to fill them. People don't have the same uptight attitude towards tohers who they might feel is violating their right to unpolluted air. Could you also stop someone from cooking their food because you walk past and you don't like the smell, or get the delivery guy who just knocked at your door arrested because his van makes a funny smell?

Likewise, offices and bars are the responsibility of their owners, and if their owners want to let people smoke, then they can damn well let them! It's the law in the UK (and I'm sure many other countries) for owners of any public-access building to display their smoking policy clearly with the use a government-issued sticker on the front door. If you walk into a bar having just seen a sign that says "Smoking is allowed in all areas", you don't have the right to be pissed off because someone is enjoying a cigarette.

If you're a non-smoker, or indeed a smoker trying to give up, you can't also complain that other people are making you want to smoke. I know smoking is addictive, but if you don't want to smoke then it's your responsibility not to smoke.

It's all part and parcel of the blame-shifting society that seems to be growing. "I called the accident helpline and claimed £5000 compensation because someone smoked a cigarette near me" - it's just ridiculous isn't it? Or do you disagree?

Squalion spouted:
I don't think most people ever HAVE to inhale someone else's smoke...and if they do..tough shit, they also have to be near ugly people, fat people, people who stink of piss, people who aren't funny, townies...etc etc...all the things that people can take offense at, but can't help bumping into,

hmm, I disagree, unless your definition of allergic is slightly off.

I'm allergic to smoking in that I don't want to get lung cancer and die. I've had asthma since I was 8 years old, and I'm told by the doctors it was probably caused by my parents smoking while I was young (they soon gave up after that).

You may have a few non-smoking pubs where you are, but for those of us in rural areas, we have no choice. Pub = smoke, and while I conciously take the decision to go to a pub and not complain about the smoke, I would go to a non smoking one if I could.

I wouldn't want the government to ban smoking in all public places, but workplaces seems like a good idea. Yes, it does smell. Yes, it's unsociable (especially in restaurants etc). Yes I can smell you smoking and I'm breathing in your tar when you're walking down the street in front of me.

If smoking was completely banned, then we'd lose all the cancer tax you suckers are paying for when you buy cigarettes. All you smokers are paying for the NHS for me.

smokers are inconsiderate cunts, by and large.they'll say 'mind if i smoke' then light up anyway whether you say yes or no. 'oh i didn't think you were serious!'
and fuckers who fling lit fag ends out of their car windows, so it ends up right in my face. you have an ashtray, motherfucker, use it. i once picked up a lit fag someone had just thrown out, chased after him and at the next lights flung it back in his car and fecked off(i was on me bike)

mxg spouted:
Could you also stop someone from cooking their food because you walk past and you don't like the smell

The strong smell of wrank food is not yet suspected of giving you lung cancer and numerous other respiratory problems.

If you're a non-smoker, or indeed a smoker trying to give up, you can't also complain that other people are making you want to smoke. I know smoking is addictive, but if you don't want to smoke then it's your responsibility not to smoke.

It's different with children, and public places generally contain children, hence my comment above about age-restricted areas being different. They are more likely to be led into smoking being unaware of the consequences. And once hooked it is obviously VERY hard to stop. Both my parents started smoking in their early teens and have been unable to stop despite many attempts.

*Ahem*

Drinking until you fall over/shout at strangers is an antisocial habit, yet I don't see anyone in a hurry to ban that.

It's just self-interest.

No-one has the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body. If you don't like smoke, go to places where there is none. It not as if there aren't many of them.

not quite right Dazzla, there are very few places to go out in the evening where there are no smokers down here.

And similarly, no-one has the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body, but others still force me to inhale smoke.

Who's forcing you to inhale smoke? Are you tied to the chair?

If you have such a problem with it, why don't you do something about it? Like open a non-smoking pub?

And with all the money that is wasted on people injured by violently drunk people, battered partners and accidents, why isbn't there a similar move to ban drinking?

It's true. I don't have to inhale other people's smoke. I can stay at home.

But if I want to go out for a drink, then I have to breathe smoke, as there are no non-smoking pubs in the area (and I don't want to own a pub, the hours suck!)

I can't really see the government banning cigarettes or alcohol entirely, as it produces so much tax revenue for them.

Dazzla spouted:
And with all the money that is wasted on people injured by violently drunk people, battered partners and accidents, why isbn't there a similar move to ban drinking?

Public drunkenness is a crime. Bars also risk losing their license if they serve a drunk person.

See, it's easy to whinge that there's nowhere to go for non-smokers and and the government should do this and that, but no-one actually getting up and opening a non-smoking pub. Surely that would be the best indicator of whether there is truly a desire for a smoke-free environment or whther this is something that is only an issue because there are vested interests at work.

If you want a non-smoking environment, wouldn't it be a better solution to open one rather than whingeing about how people should be barred from letting their customers do something that neither they nor their customers want to stop doing in their own places of buisiness?

Yep, sounds good. Care to lend me the money?

If I had it, I'd do it myself. I genuinely think it would work.

yes well the fact remains that in irland this ban will be infirced to a larger extent than the laws against drink driving of the laws against joy riders.

a government spokes-person said recently that these new measures would bring decent people back to pubs and nightclubs. so by his logic i as a smoker who has never been in trouble with the gardi or anyone else am not a decent person??????????????????????

while i can see the point of these new laws <i still dont agree with them> they have led to an increasing criminalisation of smokers as dangerious group in society.

oooooooohhhhhhhhhhh it gets me mad to think that because i smoke i will be treated as a second class citizan. it's an invasion of my civil liberties damn it.

deedee spouted:
under this law if you have a t.v. repair man come into your house to fix your t.v. and you smoke while he is there he can sue you.

I can understand and respect the reasons for banning smoking in public places, but to stop someone smoking in their own home is just wrong. I've always believed if you're in someone's house, you put up with what their doing or leave.

justbecause spouted:


I can understand and respect the reasons for banning smoking in public places, but to stop someone smoking in their own home is just wrong. I've always believed if you're in someone's house, you put up with what their doing or leave.

Bleh. I could sue you for using the name 'justbecause'; it doesn't mean I'd win. I could hardly see somebody winning against you because you happened to be smoking when you answered the door.

What's more likely to happen is that the tv guy would ask you to stop smoking if it was annoying him. If you continue to smoke then he would leave and your tv would stay broken.

hugo-a-gogo spouted:
smokers are inconsiderate cunts, by and large.they'll say 'mind if i smoke' then light up anyway whether you say yes or no. 'oh i didn't think you were serious!'
and fuckers who fling lit fag ends out of their car windows, so it ends up right in my face. you have an ashtray, motherfucker, use it. i once picked up a lit fag someone had just thrown out, chased after him and at the next lights flung it back in his car and fecked off(i was on me bike)

I don't ask, just in the same way that drivers don't fuckin' bother to ask if I, as a cyclist, don't want to inhale their fumes from irresponsibly jumping in the car just to go to the shops less than 10 minutes walk away.

Lets ban cars as well. Hell, why stop there, lets ban beans, since it causes people to fart more, sprouts too. Better yet, stop people exhaling since we all know that generates carbon dioxide, and no human can survive on that, thus your poluting the air.

I don't smoke, but my point is if people own their own homes they should be able to do what they like in them. And you can always take you tv to a repair shop.

justbecause spouted:
I don't smoke, but my point is if people own their own homes they should be able to do what they like in them. And you can always take you tv to a repair shop.

From reading the bill, you can do whatever you want (when it comes to smoking) in your own home. But when you invite a workman- tv guy, plumber, whatever -it sort of becomes their workplace too for the time that they're there.

Phwoar spouted:

It's different with children, and public places generally contain children, hence my comment above about age-restricted areas being different.

You're absolutely right, but one wouldn't generally expect to find/want children in bars, pubs or workplaces

Phwoar spouted:

They are more likely to be led into smoking being unaware of the consequences. And once hooked it is obviously VERY hard to stop. Both my parents started smoking in their early teens and have been unable to stop despite many attempts.
I don't think anyone in the Western world is unaware of the adverse health effects of smoking, regardless of how young they are. I've always known that smoking damages my body and could contribute to the risk of my getting cancer, yet I still choose to smoke.

mxg spouted:
You're absolutely right, but one wouldn't generally expect to find/want children in bars, pubs or workplaces

I commented above about pubs/bars- I think it should be up to the place's owner because I do sympathise with smokers. But you have to remember that people work there too and I don't think people should have to choose between a) being unemployed and not being able to provide for themselves/their kids and b) being employed but (significantly?) increasing the risk of getting lung cancer or whatever.


I don't think anyone in the Western world is unaware of the adverse health effects of smoking, regardless of how young they are. I've always known that smoking damages my body and could contribute to the risk of my getting cancer, yet I still choose to smoke.

I think there's a difference between being aware of the health effects (seeing an ad on tv) and having more upfront experience with it; as you are obviously more likely to have as you get older.

When I was about 13 a good friend of my parents (coincidentally, he was the landlord of our local pub) was diagnosed with lung cancer. He deteriorated over the next year or so before he died.

My grandad is a heavy smoker and he has had recurring respiritory problems.

This has conspired to put me off smoking. I can't imagine seeing a 30sec clip of a funny looking bloke or some old hag who've had lung cancer doing the same thing.

That advert made me think... dang I need a smoke.

Dazzla spouted:
See, it's easy to whinge that there's nowhere to go for non-smokers and and the government should do this and that, but no-one actually getting up and opening a non-smoking pub. Surely that would be the best indicator of whether there is truly a desire for a smoke-free environment or whther this is something that is only an issue because there are vested interests at work.


A London publican recently reversed a no smoking ban he enforced complaining he lost most of his customers. He was interviewed on the BBC's local news a few days ago explaining his decision and gave customer feedback why they were against the ban. So I'd say that was pretty conclusive

Breathing in other people's smoke has never bothered me even when I wasn't smoking at the time, and it's not as if I was suffocating. What amazes me is why doctors and critics seem oblivious as to why people smoke. "Why do we allow a product that kills?" asked one astute physician. Well, life is pretty stressful for some especially for those who have to travel in and out of London five days a week. People need to relax and find some tranquility in their hectic scheduling and social time, and smoking offers the sedative they crave. This demonstrates the risks people take even though their ciggies are covered with slogans warning them they'll die of cancer. It's those against a ban on smoking who live in the real world, unlike certain people in the medical profession.

And personally I'd rather burn out than fade away. I don't wish to be confined in a nursing home at 90+ years old going senile and smelling of lavender because I lived a full healthy life. No thanks. So allow me the privilege to smoke my way to an early death so I can get off this crazy merry-go-round before I'm an old man.

Manta7 spouted:
Breathing in other people's smoke has never bothered me even when I wasn't smoking at the time, and it's not as if I was suffocating.

according to the government one in eight school children and one in 13 adults have asthma. I suspect that most of them would quite literally be suffocating.

And personally I'd rather burn out than fade away. I don't wish to be confined in a nursing home at 90+ years old going senile and smelling of lavender because I lived a full healthy life. No thanks. So allow me the privilege to smoke my way to an early death so I can get off this crazy merry-go-round before I'm an old man.

"Yes, son. I'm dying of lung cancer at 40 years old. It breaks my heart that I'm not going to be able to spend the next 30-40 years watching you grow up, get married and have children. I'm sorry that your children won't have a grandfather."

Good luck making that speech. But seriously, you'll probably find that one of the only reasons your body craves that sedative is because you're addicted to it. The majority of people find other outlets like squash or jogging or eating. Personally I prefer to go and get very, very drunk.

I think this ban should be implemented here too. Its alright for the smokers saying that its there right but the simple fact is that they harm other people. People like me who don't want to inhale the smoke also have a right but we wouldn't be damaging peoples health. They would still be able to smoke in their houses etc anyway.

The British government will never ban smoking completely.

Smokers pay for the NHS, it's that simple.

...and give too much money to the Labour party!!!

Like I said, if you are gonna ban smokers, ban all the other things that are bad for us. This includes but is not limited to:

Cars
Caffine
Salt
TV
News
Alcohol


Wait... does this sound like a film anyone else knows ? With sandra bullock in it...........

netniV spouted:
Like I said, if you are gonna ban smokers, ban all the other things that are bad for us. This includes but is not limited to:

Cars, Caffine, Salt, TV, News, Alcohol


Wait... does this sound like a film anyone else knows ? With sandra bullock in it...........

Don't the non-purist type people win in the end anyway?

Remember though, they're only planning (considering?) banning public smoking, not smoking all together. Most of your arguements don't really compare to the smoking ban though; if we were sat in a restaurant eating dinner, you'd hardly be more likely to get cancer if I put too much salt on my meal.

No, but you are more at risk of having heart desease, and the people close to you would experience the herat ache and pain of loosing you all because some resturant didn't ban salt.

I smoke, but i still think that people who complain about smoking bans being enforced are on very shaky ground. I choose to smoke, but if a non-smoker where to choose NOT to have to breath my second hand poison its 'there choice' and they can just stay away from pubs/resteraunts etc.?
It seems slightly unfair to me that the people not causing harm to anyone should be expected to make the sacrafices.
As far as bans in pubs go, that would annoy me greatly, but i'd still find it difficult to argue with any sense of conviction that the people banning it were in the wrong. I would also never smoke in a resteraunt, i think its just common curtosy.

netniV spouted:
No, but you are more at risk of having heart desease, and the people close to you would experience the herat ache and pain of loosing you all because some resturant didn't ban salt.

In my opinion it would be because I chose to eat the salt. I have great trouble when choosing not to breathe.

Not if they put it on for you without asking... :P

Can anyone imagine what it would be like if tobacco was suddenly taken off sale and banned in this country? I imagine the shock to some people's systems would be so bad they'd actually become ill due to nicotine deprivasion, not to mention total uproar.

With salt the people are only harming themselves not others.

Not really, because chef's use it in food without necessarily being asked, the same with other fattening ingredients.

Not to mention all the other GM, carsonogenic, and artificial elements which are put into food without your knowing before you even buy them.

Manta7 spouted:


A London publican recently reversed a no smoking ban he enforced complaining he lost most of his customers. He was interviewed on the BBC's local news a few days ago explaining his decision and gave customer feedback why they were against the ban. So I'd say that was pretty conclusive

Breathing in other people's smoke has never bothered me even when I wasn't smoking at the time, and it's not as if I was suffocating. What amazes me is why doctors and critics seem oblivious as to why people smoke. "Why do we allow a product that kills?" asked one astute physician. Well, life is pretty stressful for some especially for those who have to travel in and out of London five days a week. People need to relax and find some tranquility in their hectic scheduling and social time, and smoking offers the sedative they crave. This demonstrates the risks people take even though their ciggies are covered with slogans warning them they'll die of cancer. It's those against a ban on smoking who live in the real world, unlike certain people in the medical profession.

And personally I'd rather burn out than fade away. I don't wish to be confined in a nursing home at 90+ years old going senile and smelling of lavender because I lived a full healthy life. No thanks. So allow me the privilege to smoke my way to an early death so I can get off this crazy merry-go-round before I'm an old man.

Manta, I agree with everything you said there.

I'm going to print out this post and frame it.

according to the government one in eight school children and one in 13 adults have asthma. I suspect that most of them would quite literally be suffocating.

Yeah, and the most likely cause is the pollution in the air, the main cause of which is cars. And I don't see anyone in a hurry to ban driving in town centres or for leisure purposes.

Dazzla spouted:


Manta, I agree with everything you said there.

I'm going to print out this post and frame it.

/me faints

Dazzla spouted:

Yeah, and the most likely cause is the pollution in the air, the main cause of which is cars. And I don't see anyone in a hurry to ban driving in town centres or for leisure purposes.

He has a point Phwoar. Even I start to choke when I walk around some parts of London due to the amount of carbon monoxide in the air. And I don't suffer from asthma. What we need is better air conditioning in pubs and clubs which take out the smoke and make the air better. There are products available on the market which do just that and which is the way forward rather than ban smoking completely.

Dazzla spouted:

Manta, I agree with everything you said there.


Me too, very well explained.

It's about time the medical profeesion accepted that the simple prolonging of life is not their only duty.

Longevity without quality of life is worthless.

except nicotine isn't actually a sedative. it relaxes you in the same way that any drug addict is 'relaxed' when they get a fix, and it makes you nervous/agitated when you haven't got any in your blood.
just admit, you like a drug that many others don't like, and do it in the privacy of your own home (or sneak off into a toilet cubicle) like everyone else who uses society's less acceptable drugs.

quality of life, thats a good one. you ever seen someone dying of emphysema?

do not ban, just tax it even more, say add a £2 to the price of a packet of cigarettes, that would help to sort out the NHS. :D

and smokers could look upon it as a investment in their future when they will require treatment for the numerous cancers they will develo :D

erm in ireland fags have reached the €6 mark and gone over and since a box of 20 cost less than 50cent to produce. i think at the moment we smokers may be funding the sodding health service.

hugo-a-gogo spouted:
except nicotine isn't actually a sedative. it relaxes you in the same way that any drug addict is 'relaxed' when they get a fix, and it makes you nervous/agitated when you haven't got any in your blood.
just admit, you like a drug that many others don't like, and do it in the privacy of your own home (or sneak off into a toilet cubicle) like everyone else who uses society's less acceptable drugs.

quality of life, thats a good one. you ever seen someone dying of emphysema?

I've never known a smoker to get agitated unless they haven't smoked for a long period of time which is usually over a course of days. There are people I work with who show no signs of stress or agitation because they can look forward to their next break when they can have a quick cigarette. In pubs and clubs I love to relax with a cigarette it makes me more confident when chatting to people. And personally I'm no more addicted to cigarettes than coffee and I find that I get better results with smoking and my mind frees and I relax quicker.

I suggest it's those people who don't smoke are the ones who are more likely to get agitated and stressed out as they don't have the release smokers have.

Fireboy, we're paying enough as it is! :(

you've never known a smoker who is desperate for a smoke within an hour or two?

lol!

"I love to relax with a cigarette it makes me more confident when chatting to people"

yep, nothing like brown stains on your fingers and teeth to get the ladies to notice you. And who needs aftershave when you have "eau de fag-ash"

Sorry, just couldn't resist.

toycar69 spouted:
lol!

"I love to relax with a cigarette it makes me more confident when chatting to people"

yep, nothing like brown stains on your fingers and teeth to get the ladies to notice you. And who needs aftershave when you have "eau de fag-ash"

Sorry, just couldn't resist.

Yep. And I smoke about twenty a day and have nothing like that.

:)

I'm only 10 a day and I'm a babe magnet.

wow, it causes delusions too :))

hugo-a-gogo spouted:
you've never known a smoker who is desperate for a smoke within an hour or two?

I used to be like that when I smoked. I gave up 10 years ago and would not claim that it ever relaxed me. Any beneficial effects experienced by smokers are probably psychosomatic rather than chemical.

As for the quality of life point, it was more general than just smoking, and of course I know that the effects of smoking can be horrible.

My concern is that, in many cases the medical profession expresse opinions which suggest that its role is exclusively the prolonging of physical existance, without regard for peoples own ideas of how their life is meant to be. Give people the facts, and the ability to understand those facts and then let them make their own choice.

While it is fair to protect those who don't wish to inhale others smoke, that cannot be by a total ban.

hugo-a-gogo spouted:
you've never known a smoker who is desperate for a smoke within an hour or two?
Then again you get people like me who can have that one day, and not have any for 3 months... I just take and leave it as I please... (within reason)

Dazzla spouted:


Yep. And I smoke about twenty a day and have nothing like that.

:)

Wow. That includes the "eau de fag-ash" fragrance?
You can always smell a smoker. I'll rephrase, a non-smoker can always smell a smoker.

I agree with the ban in all public places and places of work, if TV repair guy is only good at repairing TV's and can't do anything else why should he have to put up with your carcinogenic pastime he may face loosing his job if he refuses to fix your TV due to you smoking.

KenTheSlayer spouted:
Banning smoking in public (i.e. in outdoor settings, like public paks) is bullshit. To have to hide inside your own home to smoke is ridiculous.

Saying that I cant smoke in my home (regardless of who else is in it) is bullshit. It is MY home. I pay for it. Whatever I do in MY home, so long as it doesnt adversely affect my neighborhood, is completely and utterly my own business. If I feel like tearing up my carpet and smashing in the walls with a hammer, I bought it...its my business. Similarly, not a single damn person is going to stop me from smoking indoors if I feel like it. (this whole rant refers to the Florida law that you happen to be violating if someone walks up to your window seal and sniffs...and can happen to smell smoke, in addition to the repairman deal).


So its your house, you can do what ever you want, would that include beating your wife and kids too, or would you just limit that to giving them cancer!

If anyone in this day and age is so rediculously stupid to want to smoke anyway, esp with all patches chewing gum etc... available to help give up. they should be forced to smoke in private, where it isn't going to affect another human, i would also include the smokers home if he / she has children of any age.

I know this is an extreme example but here goes. What's next suppose someone finds that small doses of anthrax are really relaxing, an excellent way to chill... i bet there would be a million people stopping someone getting their fix of anthrax in a public place. O.K. anthrax will kill you a little quicker than tobacco smoke but smoking causes cancer, cancer kills. we have a short enough life on this planet as it is without passive smoking chipping away at what time we have left.

Smoking isn't cool anymore, its a waste of money and a waste of life, grow up, give up!

For years now the battle between smokers and anti smokers has been fuelled by further research into the bad effects of smoking.

Instead of pouring all this money into research of the effects, why not research how to end the addiction to help people give up without all the hassles of withdraw and 'cold turkey'?

Then ban tobacco and make it available with prescription only. Simple......

The tax from cigarettes has paid multi fold for this type of research.

Then everyone is happy!

But then who would pay for the NHS ??

All none smokers......... Which would be all of us!!!

And do we really want to pay all that extra tax?

If people are daft enough to smoke and largely fund the health service with their taxes, why not let them ???

just ban the sale of tobacco..... obviously its not gonna happen but that would put an end to all this shit. I doubt there are many people out there who smoke and who dont want to give up. I smoke - and I want to give up - but whilst its so wasy to obtain this drug then I guess I'll keep doing it.

Ever hear of "Black and Milds'? they are a cigarette sized cigar that is hollowed out, and marijuana in packed in there, those things , guys leave the tobacco all over the bus floor , not a fine rolling tobacco is my point.

I smoke - and I want to give up - but whilst its so wasy to obtain this drug then I guess I'll keep doing it.


So what you're saying is that you need protecting from yourself?

That's not a dangerous precedent at all, is it?

And who says that the banning of a substance has any effect on its consumption? I mean, I don't know about you but I don't know *any* dope smokers and no-one I know has ever taken a pill.

Banning smoking in public will get the same reaction from me as when they banned drinking alcohol in public round here.

Ill ignore it and do it anyway.

Both my uncle and my father died from lung cancer. My mum gave up before it killed her too.
I suffer from asthma, as does my 16 year old niece. Sitting in a smoky atmosphere has the potential to kill us both. I'll cough as loudly as I want in any smoker's face if they're going to blow their stinking poison in mine. They choose to smoke, I don't choose to have an asthma attack, or for my eyes to go bright red and bloodshot. I don't wear expensive perfume just for them to mask over it with their stink. I don't spend money on a night out just to be forced to go home because I'm ill because of someone else's disgusting habit. Kill yourselves by all means, just don't kill me too.

I live in Germany and around here ( Unterfranken is the region ) approximately 50 % of the people smoke... especially teenagers. I tried it out for some months and I am happy I stopped it. ITS THE MOST BRAINFUCKED THING ON EARTH, except being gay, or voting for Bush :P.
But I fear a ban won't help too much, forbidden things are often more interesting for idiots... and I know there are lots of in Europe...

Smoking must seem incredibly stupid to all non-smokers, but only a smoker can fully appreciate the pleasures of smoking. That cannot be explained to a non-smoker and can only be realised if you yourself smoke.

Yes it is bad for you, expensive, blah blah blah, but it is up to the individual if they want to smoke. Non-smokers complain about being in pubs or bars full of smoke, but I wouldnt be surprised if in the very near future all those sort of places will be non-smoking with a minute smoking section, a complete reverse of how it is in some places now.

Saying that, I'm probably wrong and it will be outlawed completely in bars/pubs.

Over here, you see barmen smoking behind the bar, chefs smoking in the kitchens, hell, I go to meetings regularly where there are ashtrays on the table for people to use.

And to be quite honest, it really doesn't bother me. :)

(I have never smoked in my life - never even tried a cigarette)

Too many people are too obsessed about wanting to live forever.

Eertamai spouted:
Smoking must seem incredibly stupid to all non-smokers, but only a smoker can fully appreciate the pleasures of smoking. That cannot be explained to a non-smoker and can only be realised if you yourself smoke.

Yes it is bad for you, expensive, blah blah blah, but it is up to the individual if they want to smoke. Non-smokers complain about being in pubs or bars full of smoke, but I wouldnt be surprised if in the very near future all those sort of places will be non-smoking with a minute smoking section, a complete reverse of how it is in some places now.

Saying that, I'm probably wrong and it will be outlawed completely in bars/pubs.

Like I said, it's not just unpleasant to me, it's potentially life-threatening, and not just in the long-term. Yes, it's up to the individual if they want to smoke, but isn't it my right to be able to breathe?

I was looking in a shop window when a guy blew smoke in my face- the wheezing kicked in almost immediately, my chest tightened and I couldn't catch my breath. If I had forgotten my inhaler that day, it wouldn't have been long til my hands and feet started tingling due to lack of oxygen. Chances are I may have passed out or collapsed.

See what I'm saying?

quit cigars 18 months ago, after smoking 3-4 hundred, it's a physical addiction, that kills others, i needed the "patch for a week.

Sorry to hear that happened to you Kinky. Whenever I am smoking outside, I always make sure that if I can, I dont stand too close to annyone, as I can appreciate a lot of people hate smoke. That guy just sounds like a regular selfish unthoughtful person.

Of course it is your right to breath as it is a smokers right to smoke. I do agree that secondary smoking is dangerous, which is one of the reasons why it probably only a matter of time before smoking is banned everywhere, except for seperate enclosed designated areas.

Who knows, I may have given up by then. :)

Blaggard spouted:
Banning smoking in public will get the same reaction from me as when they banned drinking alcohol in public round here.

Ill ignore it and do it anyway.

you drink on the streets? loser....

What the government is my new mum, what next ban alcohol, then salt. While were at it ban unsafe sex that kills to, and ban cars. It has been proven that if you live close to a garage you are 4 times likely to have astma. If you work in a work place were people smoke quit, find a new job,if you cant set up a smoke free restraunt or whatever. If there are so many anti-smoking people you will make a fortune. But there arent because we would have seen people capitalizing on this.

What about wokers who work in tunnels and mines with petrol/diesel engines? do they have the luxary of gas masks?

How come many people can smoke all there lifes and still live past 90 smoking 40 a day like my grandad for example?

Why dont we ban cows farting, because they contribute to global warming/cooling which in turn causes floods and kills. Heck stick a fucking cork in your ass and stop poluting the air. If I want to smoke in a bar it's up to the propritor, if you dont like it go somewhere fucking else and stop blaming us smokers for all the damm problems.

It's our right to smoke in buildings were the owner says so not the fucking government. The government doesnt care about individuals or us as a whole, they only care about figures and money. US SMOKERS NEED TO PROTEST WE NEED TO MARCH FOR OUR RIGHTS TO SMOKE IN PUBLIC AT THE OWNERS DISCRETION, IF WE WANT TO GAMBLE OUR LIVES THATS OUR PROBLEM, NOT YOURS OR THE GOVENMENT, THEY TAX US MORE MONEY THAN THE AVERAGE JOE. IF YOU FUCKING PUSSY ANTI-SMOKERS DON'T LIKE IT GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!

I still think all smokers should have their own area, preferably air tight. They'll all die faster in theory, which means the govt, will face a huge reduction in pensions expenditure.

I still think all smokers should have their own area, preferably air tight. They'll all die faster in theory, which means the govt, will face a huge reduction in pensions expenditure.

ok thats a small bit militant, you mught need to calm down there.

tosspot

For what it's worth, I thought the smoking ban in NYC was the apocolypse, until it happened. Now I've just come home from a great night out, my eyes aren't red, my voice isn't hoarse and my clothes don't smell like an ashtray. Furthermore, as smoke no longer masks odors of dirt and rubbish, bars and cafes actually seem to be kept much cleaner (there's a benefit no one expected!)

I was joking deedee. NYC, do the nighitclubs smell of sweat now there's no smoke to cover the smell?

Weirdly enough, no. Which may mean that ventilation is better than I thought, or maybe the average nightclub goer has no sweat glands, like a pig, which they tend to resemble after the seventh cocktail (theirs, not mine). (After my seventh cocktail they all start looking like Audrey Hepburn).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4201053.stm

JD Wetherspoons have banned smoking in its 600 pubs. Now I don't smoke I can selfishly say that I am glad. JDW are a very sales-led company so I imagine this decision is based on making money (not pissing off non-smokers) not the wellbeing of customers.

I don't begrudge people sitting in the same pub as me and having a ciggie with their drinks; but it pisses me off when it's say Friday of Saturday night and there is a thick cloud of smoke hovering which causes eyes to sting and clothes to stink.

Maybe pubs having better ventilation would solve this, but in the meantime I am looking forward to this coming into effect.

Most Wetherspoons pubs are soulless shitholes anyway. Who cares what they do. I'll stick to going to proper pubs.

I agree. We have one in Twickenham (converted bank natch) and it's horrible. I felt about 95 when I was there. But they are a major name so other chains will follow. The free houses will probably take years to follow (or when they have to).

To be honest, I think Tim Martin has got this one completely wrong. Wetherspoons probably have less problem with smoke than any other pubs. They are all, in my experience, very large buildings with high ceilings. Converted banks, as Mikey said, or similar. They already ban smoking at the bar, so fellow customers and staff don't have to be near someone smoking and also have extensive non smoking areas. I really don't see how he works out he's losing custom because of smoke. Personally, I think Wetherspoons will lose custom because the smokers will go elsewhere.

But the non-smokers will have somewhere they can go to without coming out smelling of other people's habits.

Well if were going to ban everything from pubs that are a bit smelly Wetherspoons would have to ban half their customers as well.

You got me there. I dont think some smokers realise just how nasty it is for non-smokers. There's nothing that can be done about that though.

I never thought i'd agree with the smoking ban, but going out now is much more enjoyable.
Clubs and pubs in Eire tend not to be the most ventilated, so smoke in that enviroment makes things nasty. Now the morning ofter a night out i dont smell like shit!!
Being a smoker means i get to go outside and cool down during the club. Also its a great way to meet people, your both in the same boat.
The only bad thing about it was the realisation that people fart when they are out. It never occurred to me that people did it. But oh god the smell, it's vile. I mean i'm friendly with a few lads whole are hard core guinness drinkers and i swear they must be rotting from the anus up!!

But other than that its all good. :)

I smoke. A lot. I enjoy it. I also understand that it must be horrible for non-smokers and probably even worse for ex-smokers.


If a packet of fags costs £4 to buy and £1 to make and market. The government are getting £3 tax (i realise the govenment are making more than this in tax it just makes my maths easy). This means in the last 15 years I have payed (approximately) £20,000 more tax than a consistent non smoker. This sounds like a very large number, hell, it is a large number. But i'm happy with that.

I'm on the bench about a ban, either total or partial, but if a partial ban came in, I would try to give up, because if i was still addicted it would ruin a good piss-up for me not to have a fag.

However, in the case of any ban, will the government promise not to raise my taxes to cover the shortfall of £20k they won't be getting from me over the next 10 years. Of course they won't.

So rightly or wrongly, are all the non-smokers out there happy to pay more tax to stop me smoking? and are all the smokers happy to pay more tax in order to give up?

The tax you're paying on fags will be spent on those suffering from smoking related illnesses on the NHS. So you pay more tax but you cost more to support.
It would be interesting to discover whether caring for smokers costs the state more than the tax revenue from ciggies.

As for a public ban, I'm against. I'm an ex-25 a day smoker but I don't agree there should be a ban in pubs. That's not because I've been influenced by any of the shite that groups that FOREST spout - simply that I love the smell of smoke in a wood panelled pub with a pint...fantastic!

Well I smoke and I've visited the doctor once in 20 years. I'm costing the NHS bugger all.

I suppose its difficult to get to the surgery in an iron lung...

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. I reckon all those malingerers and hypochondriacs that frequent doctor's surgeries should be grateful that my fag tax helps to fund the NHS.

The tax you're paying on fags will be spent on those suffering from smoking related illnesses on the NHS. So you pay more tax but you cost more to support.
It would be interesting to discover whether caring for smokers costs the state more than the tax revenue from ciggies.


Sadly I cannot find the article, but I read (I belive on the BBC website) in spring last year an article that quoted independent figures to the tune of smokers costing 8.4 Billion a year (including not just NHS but littering etc) and generating somewhere in the region of 14.1 Billion in tax revenue. This article was based on stats for just the UK, not the whole of europe.

Had I not remembered the article, I wouldn't have made the post, that would have been daft, as Trattos response was going to be an obvious point raised against it. Incidentally I haven't consulted a doctor in 10 years either. I will endevour to dig out the article I mentioned. I think it also mentioned the average cost to deal with each ailment with clear links to smoking.

Found another goodun:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3292979.stm

Although obviously there is a lot of pro and con in here, the bit that concerns my post is:

It said ordinary people were better equipped to consider the arguments than the government, "perhaps because the UK public does not have to consider directly the £9.3bn per year raised in tax revenue on tobacco".

In comparison, the £1.5bn cost to the NHS of smoking-related diseases was "paltry", the Lancet argued.

That was december 2003. I'm not in a position to argue with the Lancet either way, so i'll agree with them, and I think it demonstrates how dependent we are these extra taxes.

I think ultimately, any revenue the government loses through tobacco taxes, it would gain through other means; most likely being alcohol & petrol.

I would happily see the government charge people who go to the doctors/A&E when they have a cold etc...

They could majorly fine people who call 999 for all the wrong reasons as a way to plug the funding gap.

I would happily see the government charge people who go to the doctors/A&E when they have a cold etc...
They could majorly fine people who call 999 for all the wrong reasons as a way to plug the funding gap.

I don't think that either of those methods (or many others) would even begin to cover the shortfall - not a drop in the ocean (although both bloody good ideas in their own right and things we should be doing anyway), mostly because of the implementation and administrative costs that would be involved. Of course, reports vary, but according to the lancet we need to find 7Bn a year somewhere, although thats just the difference in NHS costs, and not of those included in other aspects of cleaning up after us smokers.

Incidentally, as well as not having seen a doctor in 10 years, I (for business reasons) have to have private medical insurance (which I also pay for), maybe thats the way to go, then the financial side of things in terms of the NHS is a mute point. Unfortunately that other 7bn must be going somewhere and i'm sure we'd miss it.

I absolutely agree with Xavier that the government is the worst position.
It preaches public health whilst at the same time relying on cigarette revenues.

The problem with costing all this out in this case is that smoking - and I apologise in advance to you smokers out there - is often combined with low income, poor diet and excessive alchohol consumption. It is also, statistically, a symptom of poverty.
Apart from the diseases that can be directly attributable to smoking i.e. lung cancer, there are a number of others in which smoking may have played a part, such as heart disease but attributing all the blame to smoking is dubious.
So I reckon any figures of this kind have to be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

That said - because nicotine is so addictive the government knows it can continue to preach the benefits of stopping and attacking the tobacco firms safe in the knowledge that over the short term at least their revenue streams are safe. This is a truly hypocritical & cynical thing to do...maybe even worse than what BAT or Imperial are doing.

I stopped smoking 3 weeks ago after spending a lifetime putting that shit into my lungs I have turned into the worst non smoker in the world... I would ban all you smoking mother fuckers from living on this planet...( sorry thats the addiction speaking) bastards hate you all...giz a fag no you cant have one well fuck off then...aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I really think you are all missing one big point.

We are all breathing in shit that we don't want to breathe.
How many of you non smokers are driving a car?
You may think 'fuck that', everybody drives.

But everybody used to smoke!

It was hip and cool in the days before we knew it was a killer, and a secondary smoking killer as well.

Its only as we become more educated, that we realise what is killing us.
Traffic, as a pollutant harms 2000 times more people than cigs do.

More people are killed and maimed by cars, than cigarettes.

If I object to your fumes harming EVERYONE... on the whole planet..
Nothing happens, because we socially accept it, as a fact of our everyday lives. The more socially acceptable it is, makes it ok, even though we now know we are poisoning each other. I am not on a high horse...

I smoke 30 a day and drive a diesel car.......

To be honest, i'd rather smoke, complain less and die young than live to be a hypocritical moaning old fucker as is the case with most anti-smokers I know.

Here's to the good times eh. (i'm a bit drunk and stoned btw). :D