Smoking to be banned in the UK..time for another smoking debate!!

[Killerk]

(I hardly ever post..guess I'm making an exceptions)

"Smoking could be banned in every cafe, restaurant and most pubs in England in four years under plans unveiled by the government on Tuesday.

The White Paper on Public Health plans to make most enclosed public areas, including offices and factories, smoke-free.

Only private clubs, where members voted to allow smoking, and pubs which do not serve prepared food would be exempt"

I'll admit I don't know what the policy on smoking is in countries other than the UK, but being a smoker myself, I don't like the idea of a ban being effectively forced upon us. People choose whether or not they smoke, so they should have the freedom to choose whether they smoke in pubs, restaurants or cafes. To me, it's natural to smoke in a pub or club..smoking and drinking kind of go hand in hand for me.

And what about the 'second hand smoke' argument? Has there been any realiable figures on the dangers of second hand smoke? Is the danger of second hand smoke exagerated?

What are your views on smoking in general and attempts to ban it?

 

[His Divine Shadow]

While I agree with you on the point that people should be allowed to do as they please, the facts are that second hand smoke DOES kill. According to numerous studies in several countries (I can find specific ones if you want to read them), inhaling second hand smoke is nearly, if not as dangerous to your health as smoking the actual cigarette. Remember: smoke is smoke, no matter how it is inhaled. Because of that, I would support a ban. I doesn't bother me if you smoke, but I do not want any helth issues by breathing your smoke. Want to smoke at home? Fine. Want to smoke in an environment where your smoke is kept completely separate from us non-smokers? Fine. But, if I have to breath your second hand smoke, then it becomes a problem.

 

[alf1]

inhaling second hand smoke

Hoo that's a weird expression 🙂
Well i suppose it means that you inhale smoking without smoking yourself right ???
( not only you mean in general ).
That point i can understand easily, no doubt.
But i can' understand why they try to ban smoking, or make it evil and so on. Why then do they continue to sell cigarettes ?????? ......money i guess.

 

[Killerk]

Well, that's why I think that any ban should be voluntary! Have seperate smoking and non-smoking areas (which are well ventilated), but don't force the ban onto EVERYONE!

 

[masterandticklee]

The ban is meant to protect not only the non-smoking patrons but the workers that provide the service as well. I work at a bar and in Pennsylvania where there is no smoking ban unlike my home of NewYork and beng exposed constantly(up too 8 hours) to second hand smoke does terrible damage to your lungs. More so than a person who smokes one pack per day being that they are not exposed to the smoke for 8 hours straight. I can't remembr if the British have a universal healthcare system...in the case that you do I would imagine these bans would save you guys millions in taxes from not having to treat as many people suffering from smoke related illnesses.
GQguy

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I think it would be humanly irresponsible to allow this to continue, in any country. I'm all for smoking being banned in confined environments like taverns and pubs and even restraunts where the workers and non-smokers are being dragged down with the smokers in being forced to contaminate their bodies and increase the chances of ill health via second hand smoke.

The answer is not in cutting down alotted times smoking is permitted, but in removing it completely in these types of locations. I feel that every establishment has a responsibility for it's patron's and one of the best services they can render to them is ensuring their health during their visits.

 

[highwing]

2nd hand smoke DOES NOT kill. My father is a senior chemist for RJR and has been studing second hand smoke for years. And in there studies it has shown no proof of danger to others. Irritating, yes, deadly, no!

 

[His Divine Shadow]

Well, it can't be a debate without evidence, now can it? Some sources to read supporting the dangers:
http://www.oma.org/phealth/2ndsmoke.htm
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=19930
http://www.4ni.co.uk/industrynews.asp?id=34970
http://mo.essortment.com/secondhandsmok_rxgs.htm
http://www.no-smoking.org/april02/04-10-02-3.html
http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/secondhandsmoke/a/secondhandsmoke.htm
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healthrisks.html
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/dentistry/oral_biology/research/journal/online/passive_2.html
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_21-6-2002_pg7_3
http://www.bchealthguide.org/healthfiles/hfile30.stm


And some supporting the claim that it does not:
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm
http://www.universitychronicle.com/news/2004/11/01/Opinions/Second.Hand.Smoke.Dangers.Inflated-788780.shtml
http://www.quitsmokinguk.com/Quitting%20and%20Tobacco%20News/second%20hand%20smoke%20not%20so%20dangerous.htm

I personally think it does have an affect. Smoke is smoke, regardless of how you inhale it. I can't imagine how it couldn't damage your lungs. Despite that, I still believe we have no right to completely ban something, just to restrict it to where it cannot harm others. But, judge for yourself.


EDIT: I didn't include so few disputing the dangers of second handsomke on purpose, my searches simply turned up fewer of that position.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

To say that it would kill a person outright, I'm not so sure. It would take years to do that, provided the person was healthy and not a child, infant, or eldery person.

It is a fact though that second hand smoke can and does weaken the immune system and contaminates your innards. So, consequently, it does kill you, just not immediately, but over time like the actual smoking does to the actual smokers themselves.

Even though it is not an immediate life-threatening danger, its still unexceptable to allow this to be done unto non-smokers. And the answer is not in banning non-smokers and firing employees who can't handle it or don't want to, but in smokers having the presense of mind to know that what they are doing is affecting other people to some degree, and that if they want to light up they can do it outside these locations any time they want or when their addiction beckons them.

This is just as much a common courtesy as it is a respect for the health of others. Smokers feel passionately about their smoking and right to smoke and so won't voluntarily stop in these places, so they must be made to.

 

[alf1]

Smoke is smoke, regardless of how you inhale it. I can't imagine how it couldn't damage your lungs.

Yah ok, but look at all the bad smoke we already inhale without smoking cigarettes.

 

[His Divine Shadow]

Yah ok, but look at all the bad smoke we already inhale without smoking cigarettes.

Point taken. But, if one source of said smoke can be eliminated, then I would like to do just that. There is no need to outright prohibit it, as long as proper methods containment are devised.

 

[theticklemaniac]

Yes, everyone I have read about second hand smoke is nothing deadly. The figures were distorted and blown up just allow get the laws passed and this much is hands down true. The statitistics you read about second hand smoke are bogus. Ill try to find the link in reference to it from a tv article about it.

 

[Uncanny1]

Its too long for me to read all of it, but I work in a bar (not allowed to smoke in public, has to be backdoor outside) but im all for it, im smoking and using a bin laden ash tray as I type, Im not proud of it tho, the whole thing I think about is how can we get the whole world to stop smoking, if we can slowly but surely stop then surely it'll be better for us all, yeah pubs are a stereotypical smoky atmosphere but today I was standing at the bar thinking if it was smokeless it would be that little bit better. Maybe astrays in the streets and no smoking inside would be better.

aaaaaaaaaand as I say smoking whilst I type I get ash in the keys.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I think theres always room for a happy medium, but people are stubborn and never want to agree. Its not surprising then when propositions such as this make it to the table to be settled, its because it's an obvious problem for more than just one side.

I'm not going to question the mentality of a smoker, as I imagine it doesn't change much because they smoke, but they could just smoke outside. Designated smoking areas are still a problem, and sometimes, alot of times, people are inconviently seated because of smoking arrangements for smoking patrons.

I think its wrong however to stick all the smokers together into far smaller smoking area. I'm sure alot of smokers are disgruntled by this treatment.

So its simple- go outside. Its fresh air (hopefully) and its not bugging anyone, even other smokers who may not like the accomidations.

All this can be done without a proposition for it, but like I said before, people are passionate, and if the right thing is not being done, that is, the right thing for both sides, then they obviously need to be forced to comply by the law.

 

[Cbarton]

All I can say is that, as an oncology pharmacist (one who makes chemotherapy and is otherwise heavily involved in cancer treatment), lung cancer is the #1 cancer killer, hands down. More than colon, prostate and breast COMBINED every year. Most barely live 1 year beyond diagnosis. ANY exposure to the carcinogens in tobacco smoke, even second hand, will put you at a higher risk. However, second-hand smoke may not be as deadly as the chainsmoker going at it like a steel mill in Pittsburgh in the 1970's, the risk to others (esp. children) IS very real. But, since free will is a highly established human trait, it would be nearly impossible to ban it completely. However, I applaud any business that either bans it on their own from their business or protects the non-smoking public. I would spend a lot less of my budget on carboplatin and cisplatin if people stopped...

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Yes, exactly. It affects more areas than it would seem. But let me play devil's advocate a moment. Aren't sick people good for business, as a man of medicine?

 

[Cbarton]

Perhaps in a Macheavillean way (sp?), but preventavie medicine is less expensive and more of a challenge. Believe me, watching these verterans dies in slow motion is not fun. Would prefer an alterneative if we can ever find one, but, people being stubborn people would rather take a pill to treat teh disease than do what's needed to prevent it, even thought the treatment is no cure and has side effects. Believe me, people take TOO much medicine these days. Long-term: not good for you

 

[jrubicante]

Why make puncture-proof tires? Don't the normal ones need to be replaced more often?

 

[Cbarton]

Why make puncture-proof tires? Don't the normal ones need to be replaced more often?

OK...yeah....right...sure....

not to offensive, but that makes as much sense as a screen door on a submarine....

 

[Ticklekiller1]

(I hardly ever post..guess I'm making an exceptions)

"Smoking could be banned in every cafe, restaurant and most pubs in England in four years under plans unveiled by the government on Tuesday.

The White Paper on Public Health plans to make most enclosed public areas, including offices and factories, smoke-free.

Only private clubs, where members voted to allow smoking, and pubs which do not serve prepared food would be exempt"

I'll admit I don't know what the policy on smoking is in countries other than the UK, but being a smoker myself, I don't like the idea of a ban being effectively forced upon us. People choose whether or not they smoke, so they should have the freedom to choose whether they smoke in pubs, restaurants or cafes. To me, it's natural to smoke in a pub or club..smoking and drinking kind of go hand in hand for me.

And what about the 'second hand smoke' argument? Has there been any realiable figures on the dangers of second hand smoke? Is the danger of second hand smoke exagerated?

What are your views on smoking in general and attempts to ban it?

I smoke. I like it. I don't like the restrictions it puts on my lungs but, I like that little buzz I get that makes me want to sit down and feel the calmness move through my nervous system-a deliscious feeling. I've tried quitting before but, I found out it's not just the nic, it's a nervous thing, something to do and on top of that, I like inhaling all of that smoke. I hate to see smokers take little baby puffs and shoot it right back out. Not me, I take nice long drags and hold it in. I'm coughing right now in fact. I been doing this about 7 years now and I love/hate it but, I just can't stop and am in no hurry too either. Family says I smoke like a freight train. I guess I do about 2+ packs a day and I have asthma too. Lately it feels like emphysema too which I've been acused of having-I think that's what killed my grandfather too-not sure. Anyway, I don't expect to make it to 50 if that. As for public smoking we have to pretty much stand out in the cold and THIS is the frigging tobacco state! Even southern style restaraunts are coming down on us! If it does get to be completely outlawed here, I'll just switch over to weed.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

OK...yeah....right...sure....

not to offensive, but that makes as much sense as a screen door on a submarine....

"Papa! I scrapped ma'h finger on da screen door again!"- Cletus

"Why you little!!!"- Homer (choking Cletus)

 

[AphroditeRabbit]

I can argue either way for this topic, although there is MOST DEFINITELY a way I prefer to argue with it (she devil already knows). However, pick me a side, and I'll argue for it.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Debate dear...its debate. :happy: Arguing is when theres petiness and personal spite involved.

But lets see, I want to see the compassionate side of you right now, so debate FOR getting the smoking out of these locations, please.

 

[MistressValerie1]

As a libertarian, I would lean toward letting business owners decide whether to ban, limit, or allow smoking in their own establishments. On the other hand, I take care of an elderly relative who was physically devastated by years of smoking, so I have seen first-hand what damage it can do and am concerned about the risks of second-hand smoke on employees. Even if it isn't lethal per se, sidestream smoke can provoke respiratory problems in children and susceptible adults.

It comes down to whether business requirements outweigh occupational safety. A fair compromise would be to enforce workplace safety laws against larger employers, while allowing tiny businesses more leeway on debatable issues like second-hand smoke.

My views on this are not hard-and-fast, so I'm happy to hear other alternatives.

 

[SheDevil1]

I'm not gonna quote anybody, but I'll give my feelings on the matter. I'm all for businesses making specific smoking restrictions, like making a seperate area for smokers. I happen to live in Chicago, and winter is approaching. Has anyone ever been in Chicago during the winter, or even fall? We have two seasons: Really freakin' hot, and really freakin' cold. I for one would rather sit in a smaller part of a restaurant then spend a few minutes out in below-zero weather. This last winter was TERRIBLE some days! One day I went outside, and part of my left hand went numb, and I was only outside for a few minutes! Now anyway, I'm all for restricting like that. For one, it feels bad smoking in front of non-smokers. I actually feel bad about it. Not to mention, some people have the audacity to make a scene about smoking, so, I don't feel like getting into one of those situations either. Another thing that didn't make as much sense is how some people say 2nd hand smoke is more dangerous than smoking yourself! How does that make work? When I smoke, I'm drawing the smoke into my lungs, and my lungs are absorbing parts of that smoke. So when I exhale, wouldn't it be less? Honestly, some people say that 2nd hand is worse. Another thing I'd like to know is why are cigarettes so much more expensive in New York? I hear a pack up there goes for $8. I pay $4.50 for a pack.