Smoking ban... Should this be allowed or is it a human rights issue??? (uk smoker)?

onefivejesus

I do not drive or use a car but I smoke, is it fair for me to have to breath exhaust from cars if I don't use them? break the smoke ban every chance you get, it will use up the cops time, just do not have it in your hand or get caught with video when they get there and deny it was you.

kitty fresh & hissin' crew

No. It should only be banned in public or communal areas. And hotel rooms.

delgados12

I think people should have a right to breathe clean air. If you are toxifying otherwise clean air for somebody else you should stop.

serephina

I am a smoker. have been for over 10 years and I agree with a public places smoking ban completely. Theres not one good thing about cigarettes but quitting is so far from easy.

snetterton

Whose human rights I wonder. Yours, to smoke, or mine, not to have to breathe in your smoke.
I'm a non-smoker and welcome the smoking ban.The sooner it comes in, the better. Last night at a Christmas do I came home stinking of smoke, disgusting.

hbakfam

The EU convention on human rights states that the human rights of one person cannot be used to infringe on the human rights of others, so even if it is a human rights issue, smokers would be infringing on others' rights by forcing them to smoke passively, so the smokers do not really have a leg to stand on.

Jomtien C

Just a few years ago we had seperate Smoke rooms in pubs. We have come a full circle.
Yes, I agree to segregating smokers whilst they are smoking.

Lauren (â™¥ Erin's mummy â™¥)

i agree with the ban

it is protecting human rights

mine to breathe clean air

and your unbelievably by encouraging you not to smoke and promoting your right to live

zerofool2005

You are allowed to smoke outside. It is not a human rights issue as i shouldn't have to breathe in toxic fumes that could kill me at any second. I think tabacco should be banned completely and made Class A drug

anjbingo

they should ban them from the UK,then give us all compensation for selling them in the first place

Buck Flair

I believe there should have been some kind of compromise (ie the pubs/clubs get to choose whether they want to be non-smoking or not). That would surely have been much fairer, for both sides.

Yes non-smokers have the right not to have to breathe in other people's smoke, but also the smokers should have the right to smoke in designated areas if they wish.

The carpet ban is very draconian and very one-sided. I would have been OK with it but the thing that REALLY makes me angry is the utter hypocrisy of the people who passed this law.

Do you know that the only people in the whole of the UK allowed to smoke in a bar next year will be THEM, in the House of Commons Bar?!!!?!?!?

DO AS WE SAY, NOT AS WE DO!!!!!!

Not Ecky Boy

Oh yes it is a human rights issue all right, bonny lad., NOBODY should have to breathe filthy tobaco smoke.

Put it this way. If I took down my trousers and did a gigantic turd in the street, right in front of you, YOU wouldn't like it, would you.

So why do smokers feel they have the right to pollute the atmosphere with their filthy selfish habit?

PS the ban is going to happen. It WON'T go away either. And guess what. You are going to be standing in the rain, smoking your stupid cigarettes. So you better get used to it.

Luvfactory

I'm quite sick with how people make it out that cigarette smokers are evil. I tell you what's evil: 1. the food industry is allowed to put all sorts of chemicals (lot of them also found in cigarettes) that can bring on a full-blown asthma attack in a person who has never had any respiratory problems 2. all those non-smokers who go to and from work every single day using their cars with only one person per car (just think, you could put another four person in that car, which would mean four cars off the road! - cars also emitt carcinogens), 3. how the number of cancer patients are on the incrase despite the fact that the number of smokers have reduced considerably in the past 25 years (so we should see a decrease in heart diseases, cancers etc.) 4. that it is usually ex smokers who scream the loudest not the never smoked before people (perhaps they reall want to smoke but can't cause they'd look stupid in front of others). The list could go on, as for human rights, perhaps you haven't really got a human right to smoke, however, you do have a human right not to be victimised and bullied just because you chose to smoke.

giovanniis

feeling the withdrawel symtoms already are we! you can smoke in your own home and in the streets but not enclosed public places. on the other hand to youre comment could you not say it is a human rights issue that other people who dont smoke or have breathing difficulties have to inhale other peoples smoke

champagne

and what human rights do you smokers have to make me inhale your smoke?

non smoker....haha

FrozenCamel

I'm a smoker, but I don't object to a ban. I wouldn't consider it a human rights issue either.
Example: Is it a human rights violation that you're not allowed to urinate in the street? No, it's just that it's a potential health issue and many people would find it objectionable, so controls are placed on where you're allowed to do it. The same principle applies here. The idea isn't to forbid you from smoking, so much as to place controls over where you can do it. Outdoors, it's generally permitted. In your own home you're perfectly entitled. But in enclosed public spaces it's not so straightforward. There are people who find it unpleasant and offensive, and as a smoker you have to try and respect that. I find that non-smokers tend to be more tolerant of my habit when they can see I'm trying not to subject them to it.

emzc

this is definately a human rights issue, and im not just saying that as a smoker. i agree that smoking is right to be outlawed anywhere that serves food, eg restaurants, cafes, hospital grounds, shopping centres etc but not in pubs, clubs and private members places. that is an individuals choice. there should be non-smoking sections allocated in these establishments, or non-smokers have an alternative choice to go elsewhere. where food is served in pubs, then unless there is a garden area, then they too will have to find an alternative establishment. but the crazy thing is, that when the ban comes in, you will have more people smoking outside these estalishments on the street. then the goverment will stop that. you might as well say there's no point in us going out for a quiet drink on a friday/saturday night, but occassionally for us mum's it may be our only time of real relaxtion.

secondly, this greedy goverment will still be taking it back, by the tax raised by people still smoking. is that fair?

i know in scotland, their's people campaigning against the ban, and i think people should make a stand and do it here. its another means of controlling our human rights, and should not be allowed. if they outlaw this, then why not 'burkha's' which is even more of a threat to us through terrorism than an individuals choice to smoke. you can be polluted by the carbon dioxide produced by the dirty roads of london and all the cars on it, not just by smoke inhalation. there's two sides to 'secondary smoke' arguement!

welshelf

I reckon we are all getting conned , people have the choice to go into a smoking pub or anywhere else . the same as people have the choice to smoke or not . In a restaurant or pub etc the owners can choose to whether or not to have their premises as no smoking , it is then their choice .

statistics apparently say that you chances of contracting lung cancer go up by 25% from inhaling second hand smoke , but what is the percentage to start with if 0.01 % (pure guess ) of non smokers contract lung cancer without going into a smoky environment then 1 in 40000 are at extra risk

I think our civil liberties ( or are these only for criminals and illegal immigrants ) are being breached and it is time for all of this political correctness to stop

nothing is being done to stop people smoking at home around their families , I smoke (but not indoors) and spend very little time in restaurants or pubs so how does this ban help me reduce the way I "contaminate " others

Dry Dreamer

If your a white British subject then you have no rights under the human rights act

Queen of the Night

Smoking bans in places of work are essential, because sooner or later someone is going to sue their employer for the ill effects they have suffered through passive smoking at work.

Trixie Bordello

Most smokers are incredibly selfish and thoughtless and seem to think that they have an inalienable right to pollute the environment around them; they have a choice whether they smoke or not, I do not have a choice whether I breathe or not. This smoking legislation is long overdue and should be extended to all public places asap.Is it a human right to be voluntarily addicted, I think not.

draciron

Smoking is the first of many "good for you" agendas to be forced down the world's throat. Drinking, eating many foods, lack of exercise, what kind of movies and TV that can be watched, driving with excessive speed or recklessly and so on.

Already in the US the abolishionists have come back out of hiding and are quietly trying to ban drinking. Success with anti-smoking campaigns have led the same tactics to start being used on drinkers. Not just drinkers. Right now there are attempts going on to force people to eat what certain groups feel is healthy despite rather flimsy evidence that the diets proposed are any healthier than traditional diets and that these diets will reduce obesity issues in any way except the food tastes so bad that nobody will want to eat any more than necessary to survive.

The problem is when you get on this slope of deciding whether somebody elses behavior is unhealthy you open the door to a person's private life. It opens the door to banning many other behaviors. Through the use of excessive drunken driving laws, taxation and health issues there is a building movement to ban drinking in the US completely. All of these were avenues pioneered in the anti-smoking campaigns. The war on "fat" is producing similer results.

The end result is a society that forces it's members to exercise, to eat what is prescribed for them and that watches every aspect of their lives for non-compliance with "healthy" living. It will not take long before pyschologically unhealthy living is added to the list of physically unhealthy "problems". So watching horror movies may be banned, role playing games may be banned and video games made "healthy" with the perfect mix of pollitically correct propoganda sprinkled into them. You cannot ban one activity without opening the door to bans on other activities on the same grounds.

Even if smoking proved to be as dangerous as 2nd hand smoking almost studies claim. Being in a room with loud music is a harmful activity. Does that mean that it is the duty of the Gov to save people from exposure to loud music? Drinking is more dangerous to your health than smoking. That clearly opens the door on drinking bans. What about perfumes? What about driving too fast? What about the many other calculated risks we take each and every day?

Simple fact is it is intrusive to attempt to modify people's lives in such a way. The doors it open are doors that cannot co-exist in a free society. It especially opens the doors to modification of "dangerous" behavior. The -smoking ban is exactly that. A crude form of public behavior modification. An attempt to force behaviors on people even in private areas. An attempt to say that "we know better than you and have the right to force behavior modification upon you". The areas these laws can and will be next applied too are diverse and scary. If you look at California the origionator of all of this tripe. You will find already there are bans in schools on many food items. Bans on trans fats have already started spreading accross the US from the same group. Rigid anti-drunk driving laws and even incidents where cops go into bars and arrest people in a bar for intoxication are spreading accross the US. Follow the California lead about anti-smoking and you will find the Gov in every aspect of your life.

ambrose02476

I don't think it is a human rights issue, however it is your right to be able to smoke. I am a smoker and I don't like the ban but I think to have special areas to have a smoke is a compromise.

What grates on me though is the whingers who moan about people smoking when it is a known fact that the tax from cigarettes goes straight into the NHS to keep the whole system functioning.

The Government is not stupid as a total ban would have been a disaster for financial reasons... so when the none smokers moan about you having a cig remind them that if it was banned and they came to have that all important trip to the hospital they will be paying private out of their own pocket, while at the moment they have the luxury of not paying because it's "free"...

Compromise is welcome from all i think..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

panicbutton4562003

I am a smoker and I feel that as long as cigarettes are still legal to buy it should be legal to smoke them where ever it is allowed by the owners of the property. If you don't like to smell it don't go to those places. Its not up to the government to tell us where we can do anything that is legal to do. If we give them control over this what is next. "Nanny state" governments turn to dictatorships very fast be careful what you let them do while you still can.

wondermom

People just think they start with smoking then they add other things to the list. So If you want to give it up give it up but just think what will be next.

In America a least one state passed a smoking ban. Now place do not want to hire you if you smoke. Even if you smoke in your own home. There are companies that don't want to hire you. Now that have passed the law a little over a month ago.
Now they are going after the food industry. They want restuarant to stop using a certain type of oil.
What's next.
Just be informed so you know that your are slowly giving your rights up.

J M

Woe, some of you should try a cig some time. It really calms the nerves.

From the looks some of you'd benefit.

dotty

I am a smoker but never smoke outside due to me being considerate to others,if i visit a non smoking friend I don'tsmoke in their house,I agree that smoking should be banned from public places,but while on the subject of pollution then cars should also be banned as they do just as much damage if not more

thankuberry

sensible smokers don't care if there is a ban or not, its the pigs and bar owners who whine(smoker)

AMRWPK

It should be banned, along with effective enforcement.

The Dude

Yes it is an issue of Human rights... people who work in bars and clubs and pubs who don't smoke have the right to be protected from it. I am a smoker, but I find it strange in in a country where an employer will not let you change a light bulb for health and safety reasons that we can still subject people to a substance that will potential kill them.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: