Coventry City Council are attempting to put forward a policy to ban all smoking in public places?

What do you think about this?

Personally I dont have a problem with people smoking, as its what they want to do, and I think something like this is to opressive.

I remember replying to a thread like this before... My point was that whilst, for a lot of people, smoking is just annoying, for others,it can be threatening to their health. I have asthma, and there have been times when I've had to take my medication just because someone's smoking near me. Plus it stinks, and I don't wear expensive perfume just to cover up the stench of someone else's smoke.

I would like to see it possible to have some public spaces and more bars smoke free - but i do feel an outright ban is a touch harsh

drnoble spouted:
I would like to see it possible to have some public spaces and more bars smoke free - but i do feel an outright ban is a touch harsh

I agree- it would be nice to have somewhere to go that doesn't stink of smoke. Let all the smelly smokers kill themselves together.


For the record, I think smoking on the streets should be banned.

salsa spouted:
Personally I dont have a problem with people smoking, as its what they want to do, and I think something like this is to opressive.

I agree with Salsa. It is all too easy to dismiss smoking as a nasty and filthy habit, and immediately say that smoking should be banned everywhere. What some people (mainly those who have never smoked) realise is that smoking is a terrible addiction (not a habit), and to create a public ban is ridiculous. Do the government think it's going to work? Not a chance. This is just another case, of wasting resources on completely stupid things.

I personally think that as a smoker, I am quite considerate. If I am with people who don't smoke, in a pub or bar, I always move away from them. If I am stood in a bus shelter, and want a cigarette, I move away, and try not blow smoke anywhere near them.

In the majority of restaurants I visit, the no smoking area is just as big, If not bigger than the smoking area. I believe smokers are opressed enough. We know we are killing ourselves, we are aware what smoking does to our bodies. This new wave of anti-smoking campaigns (the one with the fat dripping etc) is absolutely horrid. Yet, we still smoke. We still continue to kill ourselves. Smoking isn't something you can just turn off when you've had enough. It is an illness, a disease that becomes part of your everyday life.

Opressing smokers isn't going to work. I would still smoke in public even with a ban. This isn't just a habit we're talking about. This is a case of the government once again, attempting to sweep a problem under the carpet rather than dealing with it effectively. Its a case of 'if they cant see it, then it is isn't there'. Absolute rubbish.

unordinarychild spouted:


We know we are killing ourselves, we are aware what smoking does to our bodies.

But what about killing other people? It only takes one asthma attack to claim a life, and it only takes one breath of someone else's smoke to bring on an asthma attack...

Survival of the fittest, Kinky.

</Isaac Hunt> :rip:

I'm a non-smoker, and I really don't care if people smoke around me. If I go out to a pub, I expect to come home smelling of smoke. It's what washing machines and showers are for.

A total ban in all public places is bordering on Nazism. Fucking hell - it is in the street, ie: outside, where there is fresh air, and your smoke disappears into it. When was the last time you walked down a road and thought "christ it stinks of smoke down here"?

[EDIT]

It's also just occurred to me that if they are going to ban smoking in public places I assume that they are also going to be banning traffic?

Kinky McFoxxy spouted:


But what about killing other people? It only takes one asthma attack to claim a life, and it only takes one breath of someone else's smoke to bring on an asthma attack...

It is easier for you to move away from someone who is smoking than for a smoker to quit. There are all sorts of things that can bring on asthma attacks as you must know. Such as air pollution through traffic, heat, humidity, crowded places. Surely you can't be blaming your asthma attacks on people smoking only. Sure, this can contribute, but it isn't the only reason.

Shall we ban traffic as well?

One of my more recent asthma attacks was caused by someone smoking in the street. My asthma is brought on by allergies- aerosols, pollen, animals and smoke. Seeing as people aren't waving their cats in my face when I walk down the street, then I do blame smoking only.

GuinnessMeister spouted:
Survival of the fittest, Kinky.
A total ban in all public places is bordering on Nazism. Fucking hell - it is in the street, ie: outside, where there is fresh air, and your smoke disappears into it. When was the last time you walked down a road and thought "christ it stinks of smoke down here"?


This ia different issue, and is with regards to littering. How often have you seen thousands of fag butts lying around? It's a bit manky.

Kinky McFoxxy spouted:
Seeing as people aren't waving their cats in my face when I walk down the street, then I do blame smoking only.

That is ridiculous. As an asthma sufferer you should avoid smokers then. It's on your terms. Unless you carry a large sign saying "I'm an asthma sufferer, don't come near me" how can you expect smokers to be aware of it? From what I have read, it seems to me that you do nothing to prevent contact with smokers. YOU expect them to move out of YOUR way. My inference from all this is that you don't believe smokers should have the same freedoms as non-smokers.

Why should she have to spend her life dodging people who choose to pollute the air around her?

People who smoke are poisoning the air. If I was to walk around burning any other poison and wafting it in people's faces, I'd be arrested, so why's cigarette smoke any different?

Kormiic spouted:
People who smoke are poisoning the air. If I was to walk around burning any other poison and wafting it in people's faces, I'd be arrested, so why's cigarette smoke any different?

I agree with that Kormiic. I understand that to non-smokers, the smell of cigarettes is foul. My point is that whilst smoking may be 1 cause of asthma attacks, it is by no means to only cause. And to direct any aggresion for these attacks directly at smokers is in my opinion wrong.

I've just googled for cause of asthma attack and found the following information from this website (http://www.emedicinehealth.com).


Common triggers of asthma attacks are the following:

Exposure to tobacco or wood smoke
Breathing polluted air
Inhaling other respiratory irritants such as perfumes or cleaning products
Exposure to airway irritants at the workplace
Breathing in allergy-causing substances (allergens) such as molds, dust, or animal dander
An upper respiratory infection, such as a cold, flu, sinusitis, or bronchitis
Exposure to cold, dry weather
Emotional excitement or stress
Physical exertion or exercise
Reflux of stomach acid - What medical professionals call gastroesophageal reflux disease, or GERD
Sulfites - An additive to some foods and wine
Menstruation: In some, not all, women, asthma symptoms are closely tied to the menstrual cycle.


As you can see, smoking is one of many causes of asthma attacks, and not the only one.

Kinky McFoxxy spouted:
I don't wear expensive perfume just to cover up the stench of someone else's smoke.

Did you ever think that the expensive perfume you are wearing could be causing your attacks?

So Google knows more about the causes of my asthma than me? I have had asthma for about 17 years. I know what causes my attacks. If i try something new and I start to wheeze, I stop using it. No, my expensive perfume isn't causing it. As I said already, my asthma is brought on by an allergy to smoke, animals, aerosols and pollen. Oh, and the fumes from gloss paint.

I resent the fact that you don't seem to think I'm entitled to walk down the street because smokers might be there (paraphrased, I know, but the general idea of what you said is there). Perhaps I should take to going about my daily business in an oxygen tank?

I don't take my habits and addictions onto the street. I keep them for a more appropriate location- my home- where there is no risk of offence or harm to anyone else. It would be nice if others did the same.

An ex-smoker once said to me that most smokers are the most selfish addicts in the world. I tend to agree...

Hee, just remembered something I did in a club once...


I was sitting at a table at the side of the dancefloor one night, and the person next to me had lit a cigarette and left it sitting in the ashtray while they got on with getting it on with their conquest. The smoke was really starting to bother me, so I lifted the fag and dropped it into their bottle of Bud. :D That's what they get...

Kinky McFoxxy spouted:
The smoke was really starting to bother me, so I lifted the fag and dropped it into their bottle of Bud. :D That's what they get...

I can imagine you felt really proud of yourself afterwords. If somebody was next to me doing something I didn't like, then I would simply move away.

[slight derail]

On another note, I suffer from bowel and stomach problems. As a result of this i have been known to experience severe panic attacks - mainly caused by being confined in crowded places. I can't breathe, I can't move, and I feel like i'm going to throw up. To reduce the risks of this happening, I avoid getting myself into certain situations where this might happen.

Maybe you should stop going to clubs eh?

[/slight derail]

Okay, I'll take up knitting and become a boring cunt because of other people's anti-social behavior... the club was very busy, and they came and sat beside us, for the record.


I was in a restaurant once, in the middle of my dinner, sitting at a table at the edge of the non-smoking area, when a guy stood up, walked to the very edge of the smoking area and started puffing away. Surely that is the behavior of a cunt? Or do you see him as justified?

One thing for sure- if I ever see you in a restaurant and you start puffing on my dinner, I'll be hocking a greener into yours.

wannabepornstar spouted:

This ia different issue, and is with regards to littering. How often have you seen thousands of fag butts lying around? It's a bit manky.

Well we should be employing more people to clean the streets then - cutting unemployment and keeping the streets clean in one fell swoop.

Either that or supply places in the streets where you can stubb out and bin cigarettes.

Kormiic spouted:
Why should she have to spend her life dodging people who choose to pollute the air around her?

People who smoke are poisoning the air. If I was to walk around burning any other poison and wafting it in people's faces, I'd be arrested, so why's cigarette smoke any different?

People who drive cars are also polluting the air, with far worse things. I don't see the coppers arresting every car driver in a queue of traffic for pollution of the atmosphere.

I'm calling it a day on this debate, there's no point in me wasting my time trying to make people (who obviously don't give a damn) a little more aware of the harm they could be causing other people.

Kinky McFoxxy spouted:
One thing for sure- if I ever see you in a restaurant and you start puffing on my dinner, I'll be hocking a greener into yours.

If you ever saw me in a restaurant you wouldn't find me smoking (as I have already mentioned in a previous post). If I wanted a cigarette I would go outside and smoke.
You cannot label all smokers as exactly the same. Not ALL smokers are selfish, not ALL smokers are ignorant. I personally believe that your views border on fascist. How can you judge a person by wether they smoke or not?

Back on track..

An idea which may suit those extremely anti-smoke would be to create designated smoking areas in public places, rather than completely outlawing it all together. I personally, as a smoker, don't like smoking in front of other people, and I have said I will move if someone politely asks me to. If they become ignorant and presume that they have more right to be there than me, then I will blank them.

Kinky Mc foxxy said:
I was in a restaurant once, in the middle of my dinner, sitting at a table at the edge of the non-smoking area, when a guy stood up, walked to the very edge of the smoking area and started puffing away. Surely that is the behavior of a cunt? Or do you see him as justified?

I don't see him as justified. It's a case of common courtesy if you are near a no smoking area that your smoke doesn't go into that area. That is a question of manners. Non-smokers have the biggest problem with inconsiderate smokers. Smoking in queues is a good example. Some smokers stand right next to people and blow their smoke everywhere.

I once saw an arguement start because of that, and the smoker just couldn't have cared less about what was happening. You can't ban public smoking because that is just ridiculous, people should just be more considerate for others around them.

Eertamai spouted:

Non-smokers have the biggest problem with inconsiderate smokers.

The point I have been attempting to convey is that not all smokers are inconsiderate...

That point is a good point. When I smoke I always make sure it doesn't go near anyone around. I definately wouldn't smoke standing in a queue or in/near non-smoking areas but a lot of smokers (my friends included) really don't give a shit.

I would say that from what I know, considerate smokers are in the minority.

Smoking should have and would've been banned completely long ago if so many people weren't making tons of money from it.
We're talking billions of dollars in tax revenues that most governments aren't willing to part with, even if their populace is in less than peak physical condition.
Would you sell the health and well being of your friends and family? If you're not working to ban smoking, then you are.

Kormiic spouted:
Why should she have to spend her life dodging people who choose to pollute the air around her?

People who smoke are poisoning the air. If I was to walk around burning any other poison and wafting it in people's faces, I'd be arrested, so why's cigarette smoke any different?


I dont recall the exact figures, but there was a statistic mentioned on BBC radio a while back about how a smoker would have to smoke about 15 HUNDRED ciggy's per hour for 24 hours to put the same amount of toxins into the atmosphere as a car driver does in one hour.

Any of you non-smokers drive by any chance ?

I'm sorry but I fully respect that 2nd hand cigarette smoke is an irritant to people with respiratory conditions, & an all round pain in the ass to non smokers in general and I fully respect and agree with prohibition on smoking in designated area's, but lets keep a sense of proportion here.

If you inhale my 2nd hand smoke then there is a SLIGHT chance that I may impair your health. However , if you drive then you ARE categorically KILLING the planet we all live on.

Another point for your consideration, In their lifetime a smoker pays somewhere in the region of 40 times as much as a non smoker into the health service. I hope you all have your BUPA payments up to date, because the revenue the government gets from tobacco sales is massive & without it there probably wouldn't be a national health service (chew on that irony), unless you're all willing to pay an extra 40p in the pound on your income tax.

OK /RANT Folks but it just hacks me off when I hear draconian ideas like a complete ban on smoking.

It's about as draconian as banning shooting yourself. It just makes sense, what assholes aren't going to ban an addictive way to poison yourself.
If you don't ban it, you're helping to kill people.

bassoon spouted:
what assholes aren't going to ban an addictive way to poison yourself.
If you don't ban it, you're helping to kill people.

Then by the self same logic do you also advocate a complete ban on alcohol?

If you drive a car (even with a catalytic converter) you are contributing to the 2nd largest source worldwide of CO2 emissions, destroying the ozone layer, leading to increased rates of skin cancer worldwide. Adversley effecting world weather patterns that have caused increase in flooding in 3rd world areas like India & SE Asia, that wipes out arable land in areas already striken by famine. You are not only slowly killing yourself, but also MILLIONS of other people worldwide.

Drunk drivers also either kill or significatly injure an estimated 3000 people in the UK EVERY year (source: RAC)

Should all private car ownership not also be banned then?

It's about as draconian as banning shooting yourself.

Which is also fairly draconian. I can't think of a non-catholic nation where suicide is illegal.

If you don't like smoking, you are able to avoid it. I have no such option with pissheads in the town centre or the filth of exhaust fumes that can be smelt everywhere in the urban South-East.

smokers go to such ridiculous lengths to defend their 'right' to smoke

i someone left a lit cigarette burning away next to me i'd be pissed off, the same as if they lit a joss stick or a bonfire or left a car running near me. probably more pissed off cos cigarette smoke stinks, a fact smokers don't even realise, it seems

smokers should be made to indulge their habít at home or in little dingy smokers rooms. a bit of common courtesy is all it is

smokers should be made to indulge their habít at home or in little dingy smokers rooms. a bit of common courtesy is all it is

Hmm...internal logic?

Bill Hicks spouted:
Obnoxious , self-righteous, whining little fucks. My biggest fear is that if I quit smoking, I'll become one of you...

But seriously folks, when I did quit for a while, I found that my nasal sensitivity shot through the roof, I became aware of people who had smoked 10 minutes ago, from about 5 metres... probably doesn't sound impressive to a non-smoker. My point is that non-smokers are more sensitive to the smoke and although you get ignorant smokers, you also get smokers who don't realise how much it stinks.

Anyway, I smoke again and I abhor sitting in those little ventilated cubicles at airports but it's a small price to pay. There will always be a place in societys heart for someone who wants to kill themselves on their own time, in peace, free from persecution. I think smoking and non-smoking areas are as far as it should go.
Dundee is talking about a public city-wide ban, now that I don't mind, I wouldn't go to Dundee out of choice anyway...

GuinnessMeister spouted:
People who drive cars are also polluting the air, with far worse things. I don't see the coppers arresting every car driver in a queue of traffic for pollution of the atmosphere.

The main difference being, if you ban cars, the country would grind to a halt, thousands of people would die, the economy would collapse etc. etc.

If you stop people from smoking in public... we non smokers wouldn't have to suffer being poisoned occasionally by inconsiderate gits.

Digital Dogcow spouted:
I dont recall the exact figures, but there was a statistic mentioned on BBC radio a while back about how a smoker would have to smoke about 15 HUNDRED ciggy's per hour for 24 hours to put the same amount of toxins into the atmosphere as a car driver does in one hour.

Any of you non-smokers drive by any chance ?

But I don't spend my leisure time staring down the exhaust of a car, so it doesn't bother me all that much. However, if someone smokes near me, it makes my eyes and throat hurt, and makes me feel ill... just as it would make them feel ill if I rubbed dog shit on their face. However, strangely, rubbing dogshit on people is completely socially inacceptable, but many smokers don't see the problem when they light up near a non-smoker.

I'm no environmentalist, I'm not going to worry myself about ecological issues... as far as I'm concerned this planet is far beyond help, and will probably spend a few million years sorting itself out once we're all dead. All I want is to be able to breathe in public places. Is that so much to ask?

The economy would grind to a halt if people started walking to the shop for a newspaper, or to the gym, instead of driving? If they started cycling to work instead of getting into the car? If they took the train rather than drove to the coast? If freight was moved to rail instead of being on then road? you'll have to explain why these are all neccessary journeys because I'm clealrley incapable of understanding why it's your god-given right to drive whenever you like and not be labelled an 'inconsiderate git' for contributing to pollution (not just of the atmosphere of the people around you, but of the entire world)?

It's the unneccessary journeys that we're talking about.

Dazzla spouted:


Hmm...internal logic?

care to expand on that?

It's all about controlling other people. The arguement have very little to do with public health. Otherwise, we would ban flatulence. Especially, bovine flatulence.

The nerve of Elsie, farting in the field. Some poor border collie will end up traumatized or suffering canine respiratory sysdromes. It will be necessary for a non-profit origanization, funded by tax dollars (pounds, euors, etc.) to hire couselors and trainers to help the border collies go beyond their discomfort and ailments. They could teach them to corral the cows from the front, thereby avoiding the offending orrifice. Next, we could hire hypotists to train Elsie and Elmer to avoid grazing on gas-producing grass. Perhaps, a "We-Are-The-World" type recording to aid the plight of these poor creatures. We could start a movement - Friends of Animals Retrainign Collies to Endur - FARCE.

...then, again, a little common courtesy, in both directions wouldn't hurt.

puddny spouted:
a little common courtesy, in both directions wouldn't hurt.

If only. If more smokers just thought about others around them and not just themselves, then there would not be any where near as much ill feeling toward them. Then again loads of people who smoke don't mind about polluting themselves, so are hardly going to care about complete stangers.

Non-smokers on the other hand should accept that people smoke, and that from time to time they will run into them.

Taking things at face value, smelly clothes are nothing compared to a pissed off smoker.

hugo-a-gogo spouted:


care to expand on that?

Well, you preach common courtesy in the same paragraph as saying that "smokers should be made to indulge their habít at home or in little dingy smokers rooms."

You don't think this is at all inconsistent?

hugo-a-gogo spouted:
smokers go to such ridiculous lengths to defend their 'right' to smoke

Is it so ridiculous Hugo, to point out the inherent hypocrisy of many of those in the anti smoking lobby?.

With the greatest of respect sir, I beg to differ.

A great many of them drink, and a great many of them drive. (Some are so dangerous to do both within an irresponsible interval). The criticisms of smoking can be (at the very least) equally applied to both of these activities.

It seems to me that if you are going to condemn somebody else's vice with even a shred of credibility then you have to first ensure you are not guilty of sins of an at least equal or greater magnitude.

Anything less is hypocrisy.

hugo-a-gogo spouted:
smokers should be made to indulge their habit at home or in little dingy smokers rooms. a bit of common courtesy is all it is

Actually, we already are, & some of us at least, are all to happy to be subject to such privations in consideration of the comfort of non-smokers.

Or did you miss the part were I said :

I fully respect that 2nd hand cigarette smoke is an irritant to people with respiratory conditions, & an all round pain in the ass to non smokers in general and I fully respect and agree with prohibition on smoking in designated area's.[/B]

Unfortunately all too often I find that consideration entirely a one way street, but then thats the price I pay for indulging in my LEGAL vice.

Digital Dogcow spouted:
Another point for your consideration, In their lifetime a smoker pays somewhere in the region of 40 times as much as a non smoker into the health service. I hope you all have your BUPA payments up to date, because the revenue the government gets from tobacco sales is massive & without it there probably wouldn't be a national health service (chew on that irony), unless you're all willing to pay an extra 40p in the pound on your income tax.

Would any of the anti-smoking posters here care to offer me a reasoned rebuttal of this point?

I have said it before, and I shall say it again:

Smoking is very like male homosexuality.

It should be legal in private, between consenting adults, but no-one with any sense would want to do it, nor should they be allowed to do so in public.

And it is connected with putting something revolting in your mouth.

Incidentally, I have not smoked, or had an alcoholic drink, for nearly a quarter of a century; and, although I can drive a car, I haven't done that for about fifteen years. Therefore, I do not understand why anyone else should wish to do these things. And, in case you are wondering, I have never done anything homosexual, nor have I ever had any wish to.

Female homosexuality, on the other hand......

Digital Dogcow spouted:
Would any of the anti-smoking posters here care to offer me a reasoned rebuttal of this point?

uk tax revenue from tobacco - 9billion pounds
of this around 3 billion pounds is VAT which is on almost every product sold, so net 6 billion 'extra' tax on tobacco
(by contrast - revenue from fuel duty - 23billion pounds)
uk government total expenditure - 300+ billion pounds
uk government spending on health - 70+ billion pounds

'smoking tax' is a drop in the ocean

"smokers pay 40 times more than the average person into the health service"
given that all taxes go into a central 'pot' they must pay 40% more overall
uk average earnings 25,000
uk average tax paid 17.5%
= 4375
40 x 4375 = 175,000

wow they really are high earners

hugo-a-gogo spouted:
"smokers pay 40 times more than the average person into the health service"
given that all taxes go into a central 'pot' they must pay 40% more overall
uk average earnings 25,000
uk average tax paid 17.5%
= 4375
40 x 4375 = 175,000

wow they really are high earners

I agree. This doesnt add up, in the words of Peter Kay "thats just mathematical bullshit" where did they get a figure of 40 times more?

I smoke in my car, in my house, in friends houses if they allow, and i love a ciggie with a pint. I wouldnt like to smoke in a restaurant where people are trying to enjoy a meal though, doesnt strike me as being fair. As for smelling of stale smoke, well thats just tough shit if people dont like it. I hate garlic and avoid the smell like the plague, now thats something worth banning :D

As for pubs, most pubs i frequent have a no smoking at the bar policy which is great and they do have designated smoking and non-smoking areas which doesnt work too well because the smoke just floats round the whole pub anyway, maybe Breweries and Landlords need to look into better ventilation. Theres never going to be the perfect solution, but better understanding from both sides of the "smoking" debate would be a good start.

LOL, well I guess that'll teach me not to trust to 2nd hand info without checking then. I withdraw the "smokers pay 40 times more than the average person into the health service" comment.

Slight point of order on your figures though Hugo:

hugo-a-gogo spouted:
round 3 billion pounds is VAT which is on almost every product sold, so net 6 billion 'extra' tax on tobacco

If the revenue from smoking is lost, isnt the 3 billion pounds VAT also lost with it?, so the net 'Tax' is infact the full 9.3 billion.

I'd hardly call that a drop in the ocean. It would represent an average extra 4p in the £ on income tax. (& yes I did check my facts this time) :)

Footnote: this 4p figure may be where I orgiinaly got the misconception of 40p from, as I said originally my 'facts' came from a BBC radio discussion a while back, obviously I misheard. D'oh.

Nice rebuttal, point conceeded (well mostly) ;)

Loose_end spouted:
I wouldnt like to smoke in a restaurant where people are trying to enjoy a meal though, doesnt strike me as being fair. .................designated smoking and non-smoking areas which doesnt work too well because the smoke just floats round the whole pub anyway

I agree with both of these points entirely, as I've indicated previously in this thread, its never bothered me in the slightest to excercise every reasonable consideration towards non-smokers, I dont smoke when I go out for a drink because several of my freinds dont smoke. Our regular watering hole is exclusively a non-smoker, because I wouldnt consider it fair to subject them to what they would consider an unpleasent atmosphere in other (IMHO better) pubs.

it just strikes me that a total smoking ban is beyond reasonable and this is what I object most vehemently to.

Digital Dogcow spouted:
If the revenue from smoking is lost, isnt the 3 billion pounds VAT also lost with it?, so the net 'Tax' is infact the full 9.3 billion.#

i was assuming that smokers would spend their ciggy money on something else if tabs were banned, so the 3billion vat would be made back

Blimey!

Thats crafty

I give up, you're too good for me :)

Smoking SHOULD be banned in public places, not for the reason to avoid passive smoking, but basically, it would make me smoke fucking less as I smoke too much and wish i didn't.
Death with smoking as a cause is a MASSIVE burden on the NHS, and this money could be used to develop the medieval Department of Health, as it is in a shit.

You shouldn't smoke, full stop. "It's my body-blah-blah-blah- bollocks," is not a good enough excuse, unless you are prepared to foot the bill every time you go over the budget allocated to you for health treatment by the NHS due to the hundreds of illnesses caused or exacerbated by cigarette smoking that you are most likely to get.

Its not only the individuals body affected by smoking, but babies and foetuses of smokers too: respiratory diseases, premature birth etc etc. So what is the point of defending it? It is a killer and compromises childrens health right from the start.

Non- smokers- fortunately for you, you are not addicted, so you don't know how hard it is to break the habit, so get off your high horses and show some understanding.

Just because you personally want to stop smoking is not a valid reason for saying that smoking should be banned in public. It would hardly be the case that if smoking was banned in public, all smokers would suddenly stop smoking at once.

It would only act as another inconvenience to smoking a ciggarette, but the people who wanted to continue to smoke would just do so. Smokers in a non-smoking area normally just wait till when they are out of this area to smoke, so it's not like they go without their smoke.

Good for you, that you want to quit, but the reasons to quit will mainly come from you and not from some ruling on where you can or can't smoke. I have smoked for 10 years and have constantly been badgered to stop by parents/girlfriends/media but it was only when I thought to myself that, right it's time to stop now, have I been able to do so. saying that, it's only been 10 days so far, but that's an eternity!!

eertamai, firstly, congrats for not smoking for ten days- thats ten days that your lungs have been given a rest and not filled with carcinogenic material. I think you're right in saying that people will only stop smoking when they want to. But I do find that when I am working in the hospital, where I have to go outside in the freezing cold in a dedicated cabin, in a completely anti-social manner that it makes me smoke much less and I usually smoke about 20 - 25 a day when not at the hospital. I think it would be even better if all cigarettes were sold in plain brown packaging, so as not to glorify them with brand names etc and not attract new customers. It is not a habit that should be encouraged.

Incidentally I heard on the radio the other day that the government were looing at printing pictures of body parts ruined by smoking lungs hearts etc. and putting those pictures on the packets.

Now if they do that, how about they do the same thing with alcohol? Dieseased livers etc?

Or Chocolate fat clogged hearts and artaries.

WHERE DOES IT ALL STOP?

As a smoker myself I don't mind staying out of the way of others when it comes to having a smoke, hell I even go out of the house and stand at my front door to have a ciggie (As my now ex-fiancee is also an ex-smoker) but I do get a bit sick with poeple taring everyone who smokes with the same brush.

Example: 3 years ago I was at lakeside with my daughter and fiancee, dauther in pram, some asshole smoker didn't look where he had his fag and walked straight out in front of us and caught my dauther with his cigarette (mild burn to forehead) as he turned and walked past us.
By the time we realsied what had happened he was long gone.

I myself know tht if I walk into an area where there are children etc then my hand goes up to chest height as I wouldn't risk burning anyone. As to lakeside itself and other indoor shopping areas I don't smoke in there.

Different strokes etc etc.

My other question is this, if they ban smoking in public, are they going to police it too? Surely the police have more important things that they should be doing as opposed to slapping someone on the wrist for sparking up.

If this keeps up we'll all be saying sieg heil by christmas. (possibly)

Zapdos spouted:
Incidentally I heard on the radio the other day that the government were looing at printing pictures of body parts ruined by smoking lungs hearts etc. and putting those pictures on the packets.

Now if they do that, how about they do the same thing with alcohol? Dieseased livers etc?


They are already planning to.

I reckon cars will be next, you buy a brand new Ford and as you're driving it out of the garage, you open the glove box to find a polaroid of a mashed up RTA victim.
Oh, and plastic bags, they should put images of blue lifeless children on carrier bags to illustrate the dangers of suffocation.
yeah, and just about anything that you can shove up your arse, I reckon they should put X-Rays of felching gone wrong on jam jars and stuff.

That way I wouldn't have to buy FHM.

If you think that going on an aeroplane is better now they have banned smoking , think again ,young sirs and madams.
Since smoking was stopped on the aforementioned aircraft ,the air quality has decreased because more air is recirculted around the luxurious cabins you inhabit,rather than fresh air that was pumped in in greater quantities before the fags were banned.
Now all we get is peoples germs recirculated.

I once saw the nicotine that had condensed and collected at the rear tail section of a jumbo jet, it was yellow, sticky and quite thick. Still smoke though..

I hate it when I'm at a bar where smoking is allowed and people ask me, "Miss, can you please put out your cigarette? That second hand smoke is bothering me!"
And then I say, "Bothering you? It's KILLING me!"

ha ha ha ha

I was recently working at an old fogeys 'Gentlemans(no women allowed unless theyv'e finished there chores ,and then only as entertainment) type club' ,in the 'City',and was intrigued by the various dildo sized cigars ,and pipework emerging out of these persons gobs.
I felt like a virgin with my Benson & Hedge.

With the current paper for a proposed smoking ban in public places going through parliament do you think this is a good idea?
I think this may potentially harm certain businesses specifically clubs. I don’t think I could go to a club and have to go outside every time I wanted a fag. While it doesn’t bother me not smoking restaurants since I don’t like eating in a smoky atmosphere will this effect pubs as well. Older style pubs that have separate lounge and bar areas have one smoking and the other non smoking.

I've never minded people smoking, but in fairness, there is a lot of inequality with passive smoking.

I like a pint, but do I really have to get cancer from passive smoking because of it? It's bad enough that my liver's getting pickled without clogging up my lungs up too.

I'd have to support a ban on smoking in public places.

I'm an occassional smoker but I do get pissed off with the amount of smoke/smell in pubs and would welcome a partial ban (ie non-smoking areas).

I have little sympathy with the passive smoking argument though. It has no decent scientific backing. A little bit of nicotine is not bad for you. I smoke 1-2 fags a day and I'm sure that amount is ok.

Cough.

There's no doubt smoking is dangerous and unpleasant to some.

I would support choice generally especially when considering 'socializing' places.
The idea of smoking areas in public places is a reasonable compromise but doesn't always work because of the proximity of the areas.

Why not have smoking pubs/restuarants/clubs etc and non-smoking ones. Then the employees and patrons can choose for themselves?

The idea of a non smoking pub is as appealing as non-alcoholic wine.

Why not have smoking pubs/restuarants/clubs etc and non-smoking ones. Then the employees and patrons can choose for themselves?

A non-smoking pub was trialled in London. Didn't last very long.

10 pence, do you support the idea of business owners being told what they can and cannot allow their patrons to do in their places of businesess? If you don'[t like smoking, remove yourself from its presence.

The idea of a non smoking pub is as appealing as non-alcoholic wine.

If you're a smoker?

Merged with a previous smoking thread.

A non-smoking pub was trialled in London. Didn't last very long.

Well, give people the choice and they'll stick with what they know best. How well would an advisory speed limit do?

10 pence, do you support the idea of business owners being told what they can and cannot allow their patrons to do in their places of businesess?

You mean, for example, not being able to gamble for money with anything other than the listed games? Or not allowing patrons to buy alcohol from you unless during licenced hours? Or asking patrons not to wear football colours? Or asking patrons not to bring children into the bar?

If you don't like smoking, remove yourself from its presence.

A rather simplistic view, don't you think? Does that mean people that don't like cars should avoid roads?

Well, give people the choice and they'll stick with what they know best. How well would an advisory speed limit do?


A fallacy. One chooses to go into a pub. One does not choose to be killed by a speeding driver.


You mean, for example, not being able to gamble for money with anything other than the listed games? Or not allowing patrons to buy alcohol from you unless during licenced hours? Or asking patrons not to wear football colours? Or asking patrons not to bring children into the bar?



Yes, exactly like that. I don't think publicans should be prevented from allowing their customers to do those things. It should be up to the owner of the business to decide what kind of an establishment he or she wishes to run, as long as it does not impact on people whom have not chosen to bear the risk of their activities. What is needed is less, not more legislation.

ps: the football colours thing is a discretionary issue, not enforced by law.


A rather simplistic view, don't you think? Does that mean people that don't like cars should avoid roads?

If they objected to cars as much as you obect to cigarettes, I would advise jsut that.

It's down to level of choice, though - although you might need to use roads to get to work and get around, you do not need, ever, to go into a pub where you come into contact with cigarette smoke. A pub is a private premises, not a public place.

To take the car analogy further - do you agree that people should be restricted in the number of miles they do every year becuase it has been shown that exhaust fumes cause death?

To take the car analogy further - do you agree that people should be restricted in the number of miles they do every year becuase it has been shown that exhaust fumes cause death?

That's a quality point, well made.

On a different note, my local told me the other day that I wasn't allowed to smoke roll-ups. This ridiculous rule must've come from people smoking pre-rolled joints in the place and subsequantly destroying property and causing fights the way that marijauna fiends often do, it's surely not a measure of how obnoxious roll-up smoking is, because they didn't ban ciggies or cigars.
In a way I felt all vulnerable when I realised that I'm chemically, psychologically and habitually dependant on something that an establishment can decide to stop me from taking, thus ruining my night out.
It didn't though, I had a smoke in the toilets and would have had a wank too if I hadn't had to hold my jeans up over the piss-stained floor while holding my rollie in my other hand.

A fallacy. One chooses to go into a pub. One does not choose to be killed by a speeding driver.

You misread my point, perhaps deliberately. One pub decides to go none- smoking. Instead of agreeing not to smoke, the popular opinion is to avoid that pub and drink elsewhere, and to continue smoking. The pub with the smoking ban is eerily quiet. The same goes for say, a speed limit. Make the limit 'advisory' and very few people will stick to it. Make the limit mandatory, and a vastly larger proportion will abide. So by the theory, if non-smoking in public places was mandatory, everybody would have a level playing field and people would be legislated to abide- the businesses wouldn't suffer.

I don't think publicans should be prevented from allowing their customers to do those things. It should be up to the owner of the business to decide what kind of an establishment he or she wishes to run, as long as it does not impact on people whom have not chosen to bear the risk of their activities.

Dark ages? You seem very focused on public houses. What about restaurants, train stations, taxi ranks etc etc etc. Should non-smokers stop using these services in order to avoid smoke? I think not. Just because I like a pint does not mean I should want a smke, too.

What is needed is less, not more legislation.

Or more importantly, everything in good balance.

ps: the football colours thing is a discretionary issue, not enforced by law.

True, but tell that to a landlord before (or after) you're thrown out of the pub.

If they objected to cars as much as you obect to cigarettes, I would advise jsut that.

Mmm. Try getting too and from work, shopping and visiting relatives without using roads. And I'm not against people smoking per se, I'm against having to smoke with them.

. A pub is a private premises, not a public place.

A pub is a private premises that is open to the public.

To take the car analogy further - do you agree that people should be restricted in the number of miles they do every year becuase it has been shown that exhaust fumes cause death?

Have you heard of petrol tax, road tax, company car tax, vat on fuel, tax on insurance, VAT on vehicle purchases....? Pretty restrictive for most people.

Total ban in public places can't come soon enough.

I was over in Ireland last month and to go into a smoke-free pub was superb. You got home at night and your clothes weren't reeking of smoke.

Roll on Scotland (then th erest of the UK.)

Banning smoking in pubs? I've never heard of anything so stupid in all my life. Next they'll be asking us to keep the noise down at football matches. I don't smoke and never have but far more annoying than "second-hand smoke" are the twats who cough and splutter whenever somebody makes a move to get out a lighter. It's almost impossible to get cancer from passive smoking and anyone who complains of this simply needs to get over themselves. Do we want to turn our once-proud nation into a kind of damp California? No.

As of last week, smoking in Toronto bars (and casinos, etc.) took effect. A couple of years ago it was banned in restaurants. But get this: We're currently experiencing a heatwave w/ smog advisory. in the downtown the smog is so bad that you can practically taste it. I would rather city hall consider the health problems posed by air pollution than second-hand smoke from a few cigarettes. People have no problem eating on patios and ingesting exhaust fumes from city traffic, but believe that a cigarette a couple of tables down will kill them.
I must move to France...

It's almost impossible to get cancer from passive smoking

I'm not buying that at all:

"Estimate of UK impact of passive smoking

Whilst the relative health risks from passive smoking are small in comparison with those from active smoking, because the diseases are common, the overall health impact is large. The British Medical Association has conservatively estimated that secondhand smoke causes at least 1,000
deaths a year in the UK. However, the true figure is likely to be much higher. Professor Konrad Jamrozik of Imperial College London found estimated that domestic exposure to secondhand smoke causes at least 3,600 deaths annually from lung cancer, heart disease and stroke combined, while exposure at work leads to approximately 700 deaths from these causes.

Jamrozik also estimates 49 deaths – or about 1 a week – from exposure at work in the hospitality trades. In the population aged 65 or older, passive smoking is estimated to account for 16,900 deaths annually. 9,700 are due to stroke, where current evidence of health effects is weakest."

That quote is from a May 2004 report on the ASH website:

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/passive/pdfs/passive.pdf

Would this be the same ASH who are campaigning for a complete ban on smoking? Do you think they might be putting the cart before the horse? Selecting their research to fit their ends?

Let me ask you this:

Professor Konrad Jamrozik of Imperial College London found estimated that domestic exposure to secondhand smoke causes at least 3,600 deaths annually from lung cancer, heart disease and stroke combined, while exposure at work leads to approximately 700 deaths from these causes.


How did they arrive at these conclusions? How did they separate the effects of passive smoking from those of other airborne pollutants? In competition with a car exhaust, a bus, an aeroplane or a fast food restaurant, how much carbon pollution (not to mention highly carcinogenic benzine) does a smoker output?

Would you say that walking down a street was more or less an act of choice than walking into a smoky pub?

10 pence: a railway station or a train is a public place. I'm not suggesting that smoking should not be outlawed in public places.

How did they arrive at these conclusions? How did they separate the effects of passive smoking from those of other airborne pollutants? In competition with a car exhaust, a bus, an aeroplane or a fast food restaurant, how much carbon pollution (not to mention highly carcinogenic benzine) does a smoker output?

There is a link to his article in the Pdf document I think.

I'm totally convinced it's a serious health issue and so are most researchers and doctors. That's good enough for me.

The fact that exhaust fumes from engines may cause cancer is irrelevant to the issue here.

If that's the case then ban cars too - or make sure the exhaust fumes are treated within the car so that they're no longer carcinogenic (or that the risk of causing cancer is neglibile.)

It's a fact that exhaust fumes are poisonous to the environment, etc. But, at least the cars play an important role in society as it stands now. I don't think I need to make a list of where we are dependent on petrol engined vehicles. I don't think we need to get in to the fact that there's ongoing research in to minimising poisonous exhaust fumes as well.
The only benefit smoking offers is for the one who actually smokes. It makes you feel better, it's soothing, destressing, you've got something to do with your hands, etc., whatever. Ultimately, it's a chosen addiction.
Now, the rest of society has had enough. Bans are to be imposed. I can understand the outrage, but at the same time - you know what; live with it.
It stinks. It makes our clothes stink. It makes your breath smell like garbage. It clearly is not good for anyone, apart from the tobacco companies.
It's considered bad manners to blow off farts when there's people around (and that's even a healthy thing to do, although smelly).
I don't mind the occasional cigar/cigarette myself. But I won't disagree with a ban on smoking. I mean why not? Why should we let our children see smoking as something more than a nuisance?

Our local interchange is supposedly non-smoking although no-one polices it. I'm an asthmatic and it pisses me off when I'm seated on a bench waiting for the 64 and someone comes along, sits down next to me and lights up. There are plenty of places where a person could have a smoke without blowing it in anyone elses face.
I had a friend who couldn't attend any social functions at restaurants because she couldn't last the length of a meal without a cigarette. She died of cancer in her early 40s though.

The proposition of some smoking and some non-smoking pubs is ok in cities and large towns. Where I live there is one pub (if there was a second pub it would be a better pub) so the punters would have no choice. It's down to the whim of the landlord. The bastard smokes cigars and when he smokes a cigar, everyone in the pub smokes it with him.

For starters I think that every smoker wants to quit - there cannot be a single smoker anywhere that does not wish that they never put that first manky old fag in their gobs under peer pressure. Anyone who doesn't wish this is an idiot, it's as simple as that!

But I'm not sure a ban in public places will help everyone quit, it might help a few certainly, but it's more likely to force the habit underground/indoors, and even glamorise smoking - whatever happens I can't see it hurting the huge tobacco companies, who have their claws sunk so deep in governments that, together with the huge tax revenue from smokers, just wouldn't make it practicable for any real threat to the tobacco industry to be made.

It has been proved that smoking kills you, so why not go the whole hog and make it illegal to actually buy the damn things? Because that really would make a lot of people give up, wouldn't it? And then the government would find themselves with a HUGE deficit, both from the people who pay tax on the things, and from a jolly angry tobacco industry.

In any case, I support the total ban on smoking in public places because, as has been mentioned, it's about choice. Smokers can choose to kill themselves at home, in a field or in an illicit smoking club somewhere. That's fine I have no objections. But if they choose to smoke in a pub where there are non-smokers, people who hate having their hair and clothes stink because of someone else's weakness, well that is taking away a non-smoker's choice of breathing clean(ish) air. There should be no argument about the smoker being able to choose to spark up where he/she likes. If smoking offends someone it is out of order - and can be easily remedied by the smoker smoking elsewhere - it's the smoker's problem, not the non-smoker.

And yes, I smoke (well, spliffs anyway)

if this goes through i'm finding myself a crackpot lawyer and taking it to the european courts.

The bastard smokes cigars and when he smokes a cigar, everyone in the pub smokes it with him.

Yeah. He smokes cigars. On his premises.

Generally, the rule for pubs is "If you dojn't like it, find somewhere else that you do like."

That's the diffrerence between a pub and your house.

...Generally, the rule for pubs is "If you dojn't like it, find somewhere else that you do like."

That's the diffrerence between a pub and your house.

Try telling that to my missus!

well, seeing as how it's been proven that secondhand smoke is nearly, very nearly, as dangerous to health and has nearly as much potential for causing cancer and smoking itself, i would think it common courtesy for any smoker to remove themself to somewhere more isolated or out-of-doors, simply out of consideration.
however, considering the fact that a lot of people are just plain arseholes and refuse to practice this, i would support a total ban on public smoking.
while i agree it might look oppressive to some, the pros for the welfare of the people far outweigh the cons or any wrongdoing on the government's part.

so all pubs must be non smoking? even if the owners dont want it that way?? why not make it voluntary? so some pubs can still have smoking? that way people have a choice.

so all pubs must be non smoking? even if the owners dont want it that way?? why not make it voluntary? so some pubs can still have smoking? that way people have a choice.

Nice idea in principle, but look at occassions when publicans have banned smoking through choice. All of the smokers take the easy route and choose to visit pubs where they can smoke instead. Without legislation, very few business owners would risk alienating the smoking population, for fear of losing a large percentage of their customers. Create a universal smoking ban and parity is restored, and no advantage is gained or lost through your smoking policy.

I can understand smokers being particularly touchy about the issue of pubs, after all, people who've stopped smoking often say that it's in pubs where they miss smoking the most. Perhaps by removing the smokey atmosphere and the peer pressure/ encouragement from pubs, reformed smokers might find it easier to actually stop smoking, rather than be encouraged whilst having a pint.

Finally, I don't buy the argument about public houses (ironic name, don't you think) not being a public place. If that's the case, then why ban smoking in restaurants, childrens nursarys, places of work etc etc etc, which are all supposed 'private' places?

why the hell can't people who are so frightened of toxic substances ...STAY OUT THE FUCKING PUBS YOU BUNCH OF WHINING MORONS!

10 pence, do you think, then, that because the majority seem to care more about choice than a smoke-free atmosphere that the latter should be forced on them 'for their own good'?

I'll say it again: this is a matter of choice - legislation is not appropriate.

10 pence, do you think, then, that because the majority seem to care more about choice than a smoke-free atmosphere that the latter should be forced on them 'for their own good'?

I'll say it again: this is a matter of choice - legislation is not appropriate.

moreover, smoking should be made compulsory. that would teach the health facists a lesson!

A lot of good arguments have passed in this topic. As well to the pros as to the cons of a complete ban.

I just want to say that a complete ban is not a solution. And anyone who supports a complete ban is a nazi!!

One of the first posts mentions that smoking is a disease, I agree on this. And a complete ban on smoking in public would be the same as telling all other patients with some kind of disease that they cant be sick in public anymore....

imagine, you go to the supermarket, do your shopping, you walk out of the store towards your car (I usually smoke a cigarette then) and get a nice astma attack. you feel like shit, but hey, you cant use your medication in public anymore...

I don't smoke in public anyways so it wouldn't affect me. :)

Apparently drinking is bad for you as well, so why not ban ailcohol in pubs?
And don't say you can't be a passive drinker, tell that to the families of alcoholics or some poor sod who get's run over by a drunk.
Personally I've never driven a car in my life, but I still have to put up with the pollution they cause. Yeah but, Davey, cars are necessary to get us to places, I hear you say. Yeah but, it's not necessary to drive a friggin' great 4 wheel drive around a crowded city, is it?
I bet if we do ban ciggies people will then start whingeing about having 5p put on the basic rate of income tax. Non smokers ought to be grateful that they're paying less tax because of smokers.

To quote Bill Hicks 'I smoke, if you don't like it take a look at the World around you and shut the fuck up'.

I smoke by the way.

I avoid going out in smokey places. Sure, I get bored, but a boring life is preferable to one spent in hospital. If the smoker want to smoke, let them. Nothing will stop them.

Bans on smoking, hunting, fur trade etc., incite a great deal of passion and vitriol and give politicians something easy they can be seen to be doing.
Sort out the health service, education, crime and violence. Do something to bring the corporations in line. Driving anywhere in England is a nightmare. Pollution, people living rough.......... Society is going to hell in a handcart so let's ban smoking.

Non-smokers, i have some news for you - you're going to die too, whether you breathe second-hand smoke or not.

Personally, I favour a total ban on whingeing, grpiping and coughing ostentatiously in public places. And I think we should tax non-smokers - all them free fags they smoke 'passively' and they've never so mauch as paid for a box of matches.

Personally, I favour a total ban on whingeing, griping and coughing ostentatiously in public places. And I think we should tax non-smokers - all them free fags they smoke 'passively' and they've never so much as paid for a box of matches.

Right on. We should also ban talking in an inane and irritating way in pubs as it does nothing to stimulate the brain. Anyone talking about big brother, soap operas or any celeb lifestyle type shit is causing secondary brain damage and should be made to stand outside the pavement and have their conversation there.

Smoking in pubs is fun. If there is a market for non-smoking pubs then why has there been so few (of if any)?

Most people have a cigarette with their drink. Banning smoking isn't going to break that association. It'll never work, so why bother.

One of the first posts mentions that smoking is a disease, I agree on this. And a complete ban on smoking in public would be the same as telling all other patients with some kind of disease that they cant be sick in public anymore....

imagine, you go to the supermarket, do your shopping, you walk out of the store towards your car (I usually smoke a cigarette then) and get a nice astma attack. you feel like shit, but hey, you cant use your medication in public anymore...

Using an inhaler or injecting yourself with an Epi-pen is NOT the same as smoking. Being asthmatic or having a life threatening food allergy is not a choice. You choose to have the smoking "disease".

didn't they ban smoking in pubs in Dublin? Please tell me i've heard wrong.

Pretty sure they did ol' girl.

saints presairve us.
I don't understand exactly why bars and pubs. It was the last refuge of the coffin nail crew, and it's true, most people enjoy a smoke when they drink. When I was in Spain people were smoking in bars, airports, internet cafes. I did'nt notice that much of a difference in my personal space air pollutant quota but I do understand people with asthma and other lung-related problems who need to be away from it.
i don't think there's going to be a happy medium anytime soon and governments seem determined to keep raising cigarette prices...i mean, stamp out the terrible addiction that is smoking.

Some small points which may have been covered already so sorry if they have been.

1. Revenue from smoking outways the cost to NHS in monetary terms by some 6 Billion pounds, (sources- Anti smoking web sites costing for cost to NHS, tax revenue from the Govt web site, soz didnt write doen the addresses). So where this extra cash going to come from if we ban it?

2. Early on, someone was talking about smoking causing there asthma to play up. Diesel car fumes have been shown to be much worse in various studies in the lancet and BMJ, so should we not ban those also?

3.Also a friend of mine has a severe peanut alargy, which can be and has been set off by peanut dust realesed by someone opening a packet near him, so ban peanuts aswell. (or if you use the same knife to spread peanut butter and then use it for his marmite after a night on the beer. Sorry mate!)

4. As for the effect of smoking on the smoker lots of things are bad for you, booze, fast food, lack of exersise, and now mobile phones should we ban them too?

5. The litter issue, yes fag ends everywhere is messy, but chewing gum is far worse, so do we do a singapore and jail people for chewing gum?


Although these arguments are not as serious as some in the post I belive they show rather large flaws in "ban smoking" argument. To me it seems to be the thin edge of the wedge, they might end up banning everything that might/ could be / would be bad for us.

What fucks me off is this.
Smoking was banned on aeroplanes some time ago.But sinse then the air quality on airplanes is worse.
When we were allowed to smoke the air was pumped out of the plane,now because us naughty shitesters don't smoke anymore,theirs no need to pump in fresh air.So it's recirculated.And lo and behold ,we have everbodys germs,flu virused ,tory spores etc floating around the aeroplane to in infect us all.

and while cappy is on a roll can i just add that if there is a smoking ban enforced on us then all you non smokers will have to may more tax on some other product to compenste for the drop in tobacco sales!

tobacco is a product of nature and i dont think it matters if its good or bad for you, i dont want some fat knob-head who was only put in power by a bunch of other knob-heads telling me where i can and cant smoke.

power to thr people \m/ :haha:

Are you suggesting people with asthma should never leave the house?

People with asthma should not dictate the rules for everyone else (though to be fair it's usually not people with asthma, but non-smoking politicians looking for an easy way to be temporarily popular with voting moms who are behind the smoking bans).

Everyone around the smoker is affected, not just the asthmatics. Its just that they feel the worst effects. Non asthmatic non-smokers would appreciate the less smokey air.

On one hand I believe smoking should be completely banned due to the suffering it causes. On the other hand I believe that we need to cut the population of Good Ol' Planet Earth by about half. :D

kobo1, I've been thinking of how to tactfuly say that, and gave up. The govt. want to sort out the pensions mess, right...

Yeah, but the population of Europe is already declining, I'm not too sure about N.America but I suspect a similar situation.

Asia is the real problem as far as over population is concerned, maybe we should ban smoking here but start exporting Benson and Hedges?

Yes please,another place to get get cheap duty-frees .

Yeah, but the population of Europe is already declining, I'm not too sure about N.America but I suspect a similar situation.

Asia is the real problem as far as over population is concerned, maybe we should ban smoking here but start exporting Benson and Hedges?
In China over %50 of the population smoke. Thats over a billion smokers in one country yet they have lesser rate of cancer cases per capita than most wstern countries. Most of this is actually down to having a generally healthier diet. A lot of the preservatives and other crap in our food is screwing up our bodies.

Sir Walter Raleigh.(Note the Sir)