Public smoking bans for or against?

My fathers ulcers are just a part of many problems he has. Mainly due to being bed ridden for a long time. Although i think that is due to depresion.

I suspect smoking played a big part in grandads emphysema (spelt correct ) but at least he had a long and full life. I was always, and i still am very proud of him for his achievments.

I admit smoking is bad for me, but it is my life. I also agree that it is not right for non-smokers to suffer the same fate as smokers.

 

well Mr Devil,5% of all lung cancer patients is a hell of a lot of people.I don't know how many exactly,perhaps you could enlighten us,but we have just banned fox hunting,and to my knowledge,not one human has died from that.A bit of an anomally,if you assume 5% is 5000 people,and yet we prioritise little foxy woxy.
Same as the super bug thing,many more people die of that than they do on the roads,yet all we do is tell nurses to wash their hands a bit better,yet the annual bill for speed enforcement is extortionate.

 

'Saab' people get cancer, whether they smoke or not. Smoking makes it much more likely that you'll get cancer. Living or working with a smoker may make it a bit more likely but it's very hard to prove. Going to the pub with smokers is neither here nor there.

Going to a pub is voluntary, working in a pub is not mandatory. It is up to the publican or owner of the property what legal activity they allow on their premises. As long as ROAR then I don't see any justification for using the law to control smoking. If you don't like it, don't go.

Paull

 

There are other causes of lung cancer apart from tobacco.

 

The late Roy Castle played trumpet as part of his live act which spanned many years in smoky clubs.
He was not an active smoker, but such strenuous inhaling in such an environment is not really passive either.
Roy Castle died of lung cancer.

:JPS:

 

'if you don't like it,don't go'

fair enough Paul,but if we banned smoking in public places,it would be "if you want a fag,stay in"

more people don't smoke than smoke,so this seems fairer

 

My favourite colour is red. Roses are red. Therefore roses are my favourite flower.

 

fair point Mr Devil,but science doesn't know everything.Take the advice given on cot death and iron supplements for pregnant women,it changes every year almost.It doesn't mean we can't use our common sense and believe that inhaling smoke from a cigarette is no less dangerous just because you aren't actually holding the bloody cigaratte in the first place.Its ludicrous to assume that inhaling the smoke sat next to someone is safe when that other person is dying slowly.I don't buy it.

 

Irrelevant. The important point is that people don't generally go around banning things when there is no clear-cut evidence of harm to others.

-- Ian

 

Right so, once we've banned smoking, we should start on alcohol eh? There must be some very miserable individuals on this forum.

As for it being a vote winner, I doubt that. There are millions of smokers who would obviously vote against, and I would join them, since alcohol is clearly going to be the next on the agenda. I am violently opposed to any attempt to create a "nanny state". I was not sure where I stood on the matter when the question was first asked, but after reading comments here and thinking about it further, there is no way it should be banned. Let people make their own choices.

If that happens, followed by a campaign against alcohol (which definitely wont work BTW), having fun of any description would surely be banned as well.

 

It is less dangerous because the 'dose' is far lower.

 

And who continues to KEEP allowing people to become addicted in the first place? The government. They KNOW cigarettes kill and are addictive, yet they don't ban THEM - only smoking. Typical wimpout clause. As I've said before, the government care about MONEY, not YOU.

If they ban smoking, they should ban alcohol as well - that kills as many people and causes fighting, public disturbances, and puke puddles everywhere. How'd you like your malts being banned?

As for cars, no, they don't fill buildings full of noxious fumes - at least, not in the same way. But you walk onto Heavitree Fore Street here in Exeter - you can't smell the stink per se, but you can't breathe.

As far as I'm concerned, taking in gobfulls of car fumes is every bit as bad as taking in passive smoke, and I have no control over that. So ban cars and smoking and make it fair on everyone. Oh yeah - of course, that's a stupid attitude - we can't stop fat obese people driving 200 metres to the shops, kicking out tonnes of crap because their engines aren't warm, but we can stop 1 person having a fag in a train station. I don't see the difference personally.

And yeah, most bar staff *I* know or see smoke as well, so "duty of care" is in the main, b***ocks.

Oddly enough though, *I* also support the idea of a smoking ban, so long as, as I said before, the smokers have at least one or two venues in a town to use to smoke. If you want to be a health freak, don't drink either - we'll see how boring the non-smoking pubs get won't we?

EDITED TO ADD:

Oh - and here's the OTHER thing; smokers might be in the minority now, but many of them are young people, who, err, don't currently vote (based on what I heard re the last General Election). Now, you get a smoker about to lose their right to smoke, and they WILL get up and take action. My supposition is this - if you're young, 18, you'll be highly likely to be a smoker, based on what I see around town - BUT NOT HIGHLY LIKELY TO VOTE - how many 18 year olds can be arsed to vote? RIght - so all the smokers vote for the party that ISN'T trying to ban smoking, and they might just get in - ever thought of that one???

 

I don't know the figures PB but I'm pretty sure that smokers in the UK are in a minority so the majority of non-smokers support the idea. As can be seen from some of the replies on this thread, many smokers also support a public smoking ban so I think it is a popular measure. Whether it will change people's voting intention is less clear to me.

As for alcohol being next, I doubt it. There's no good reason for it and it certainly wouldn't have popular appeal. The best change that could be made to alcohol legislation would be to liberalise the licensing laws and let alcohol be served at any time instead of the archaic 11pm cut-off we have now which is IMO a major contributor to people drinking too fast and getting violent after closing time.

Michael.

 

Oh - of course there isn't. There's nothing wrong with passive having-the-****-kicked-out-of-you, passive puke-puddle-slipping, passive A&E-on-Friday night, and passive yob-avoiding is there?

Alcohol is every bit as bad as tobacco. Banning one and not the other is *****, hypocritical, and a cop out. The three major items that'll be on Labour's next election manifesto, based on their past efforts in almost everything they've ****ed up (sorry, I meant, done).

And no, I don't think the liberalisation of licencing laws will stop all this either - you'll be a violent drunk, whether you drink to 11pm or to 5am - it's the amount you drink and your mentality, not the time you drink it, that causes the problems.

 

I still don't think alchohol should be banned it will have much much more impact on the econemy than public smoking ban would. However I do think alchohol should be banned in the streets.

I often go (about 2-3 times a month) into Manchester city centre clubbing till the early hours and I have not yet witnessed any problems due to drunk people. There are 100,000's of people who had had a few all ordely trying to make their way home. There is one part of the city centre where you get trouble but all the none trouble makers tend to keep well away from that area.

There is also lots of police about. I think the problem is worse in smaller towns where you only have a few clubs and there is less police about. I never get drunk anymore though as I trhink its totaly pointless, if I go out I will have about 5 pints for the entire evening which isn't much over an 8 hour period.

 

I know in Europe I have often found it so much relaxing in terms of alchohol if you go to a bar there is no rush to get drinks down you because you know it won't close for hours yet.

When I have a pub night out (they stop serving at 12:00 near me) you tend to drink much more because you no after 12:00 you can;t drink more. If I go out clubbing I drink less because I know there is no real time limit. It sounds odd but its probably just human nature.

 

Dom, the fact that excessive alcohol consumption by a few yobs leads to unpleasant behaviour doesn't make it "as bad as tobacco" for other people. Someone having a pint sitting at the bar next to you isn't stinking out your clothes, making you wake up with a cough and sore throat the next morning or generally shortening your lifespan - in fact it would be no different if the person was having a glass of milk.

Regarding the long term health effects, alcohol, consumed in moderation, is also far less damaging than tobacco. It can even be beneficial.

Alcohol and tobacco are totally incomparable with regards to a ban in public areas. In fact, a tobacco ban in pubs would make them a much nicer place to go to and enojy a (alcoholic) drink . To suggest banning alcohol consupmtion in public areas is quite absurd.

Relaxing the licensing laws would make a huge difference IMO. As AT says, if you know you can drink all night then you're not going to do your best to get 6 pints in before 11. Also, I can't think of a better recipe for violent behaviour than creating a situation of a group of drunk and angry people standing in a group, as happens outside most pubs at around 11:05pm. One careless remark and there's bound to be a mass punch up.

Michael.

 

There are far more serious acute and chronic health problems with alcohol than with tobacco. Alcohol kills you the same night if you drink enough - which teenagers often do.

They also get into fights, have accidents, wander into the path of traffic, drive cars and kill either themselves and/or others, indulge in ill-advised behaviour which they wouldn't normally do etc etc.

 

Thats up to the individual to be able to handle their drink. I can handle mine, I know when to stop, I dont get involved in fights, I dont drive, I dont look for trouble and all the rest.

But because some troublemaker chav either kills themselves drinking too much (in which case, good riddance) or looks for fights (which they'd do anyway), lets ban it and spoil the enjoyment for the rest of us who can enjoy a drink responsibly.

As for health problems. Yeah sure, if you drink too much, all of the time, you are asking for trouble. Drinking in moderation is actually good for your health, it relieves stress and stress is probably an even bigger killer than alcohol. If alcohol knocks 5 years off my life but I die a lot happier, then I'll carry on drinking thanks.

Edited to add, totally agree with Michael about the licensing laws. That would solve so many problems. Its already a bit better since there was a few bars open later in Newcastle.

 

Moderation is the point I feel, over excess of anything will kill you, that fact is people don't know went to stop when they're having a good time and worse is some people think they need drink and drugs to have a good time and then your on a down hill slide to your grave.