The smoking ban is unworkable?

N. Cognito

Take it from one who knows - you're on a slippery slope. First off, there's no credible information to suggest that smoke is harmful to anyone but the smoker him/herself. If going non-smoking was a sound business decision, the business owner not only could, but WOULD have done so already. The comment that the owner of a pub is waiting in anticipation for the ban makes no sense.

There are plenty of non-smoking places that someone who is offended by the smell can frequent. But my experience is that the ANTI-smokers, who are more radical than the non-smokers, want to dictate their control over the entire world.

Saying that smoke is offensive is a good argument - but the only one, and once smoking is banned on this premise you've opened a can of worms. What's next? Perfume? Loud music? Grilling a steak outdoors? There are all sorts of activities that each of us enjoys that others may find offensive, or at least uncomfortable. Once you start banning what someone dislikes where do you draw the line. And once you draw the line, do you really believe the government will stop there?

GAR501

It is very workable !
I thought when the smoking ban came in in the South of Ireland that it would never work;however it worked brilliantly !
Its fantastic being able to go into a bar or restaurant without any smoke.My friend who runs a bar in Northern Ireland says he cannot wait for the ban,it will make the bar so much cleaner without all the burns on tables and floors etc.
I don't believe most people who are glad to see an end to smoking in public places do so purely for health reasons,its the quality of the environment,so much nicer to not have to endure dirty stinking smoke all over yourself and clothes.
I would defend the right of any person to smoke if they so wish but am so glad it won't be in my face and eyes anymore !

Rachel

I am totally for the smoking ban. I now smell nice when I come out of a resturant or pub or even shopping mall.
Its your choice to smoke of course. But its my choice not to, and yet for years have had to put up with it.

anitacrrl

Well i'm a non smoker myself, but i agree with you, at least let there be smoking bars and non smoking bars, so you have a choice!

Kat B

I am a smoker, and I agree that it is not pleasant to come home from anywhere smelling like an ashtray (especially when you have a bad hangover and smells make you want to hurl).

However, nobody seems to have mentioned Tax. Do you think that a smoking ban will cause more people to give up, and thus buy less cigarettes? If that happens, will they raise taxes elsewhere??

Avondrow

Smokers will no longer be able to pollute the air I breathe in pubs and restaurants and other public places with the lethal products of their indulgence. If they do, I can report them, and if no action is taken by the staff or management, then the establishment faces a hefty fine. What on earth is unworkable about that? Simple and long, long overdue! I can't wait for the 1st July

I really don't get smokers whinging on about their 'Right' and their 'Choice'! Since when do you have the 'right' to poison me? Choke on whatever toxins you are stupid enough to become addicted to, I really don't give a toss, but do it somewhere where you don't harm others!

gnrdan

its in ireland for the last few years and the smoking areas in most pubs are heated so well you wouldnt even know you where outside but you do get caught talking to weirdos a lot of the time

jaques_de_moley

Not at all. I totally agree. As a smoker I should be taxed half to death and forced outside for smoking. Honestly they shouldnt even let me smoke in my own home that I pay for. We should just consider ourselves lucky that these nice non smokers dont round us up and put us in labor camps.

nosdda

It is not a complete smoking ban you will not be allowed to smoke in enclosed areas. Here in Wales where it is in force some pubs have set aside areas for smokers that do not infringe the law. You are able to smoke in the street and in bus shelters, parks, beaches, and anywhere out doors.

dels replies

The banning of smoking is likely to increase considerably. For example my local hospital has had a no smoking ban in the hospital for some time,but those patients who were able;and staff went to one of the side doors and had a smoke outside.The hospital has now stated that no smoking will be allowed anywhere within the outer hospital boundaries which are about half a mile away from the actual buildings.The hospital says that smoking affects the recovery time of patients and the cost to the local health authority to deal with smoking related illnesses is enormous. Hospital staff are being made to go on stop smoking courses. There will be increasing pressure to try to eliminate as far as possible all smoking . Personal choice in this matter has to take second place to the overall public good In time tobacco will probably be illegal if the way things are going reach there logical conclusion.

geronimo

having seen people with cancer smoking outside a specialist hospital corridor, it made me think yes the ban is unworkable to a degree. Likewise when I saw a group of young mothers smoking in a waiting room inside a maternity ward I felt similar thoughts. However, since then the smoking ban has been extended to public places and I am glad for the unborn babies and passive smokers who nobody, particularly smokers themselves cared about. It would seem that the only people who now think that the smoking ban is unworkable are smokers themselves.

Gyps

As an off and on again smoker...but one that when was smoking never smoked inside a restaurant anyway I look on gov't getting into civil rights as going too far. Yes, it is protecting the civil rights of non-smokers so I understand that. The answer was let the business owners decide if his place of business is to be for smokers or non -smokers...problem solved easy and both sides happy then.
The businessman owns his property and should have rights inside his place of business to a degree.
As for their workers, who would apply for a job in a known popular place of smoking such as a bar, when they suffer from asthma or can't be around smoke??? And yes, non-smokers still have their choice of where they go.
Also, the comment about telling an addict "no" and getting their way is rather lame too. I fly overseas a lot and go as long as 24 hrs sometimes without smoking (when am a smoker) and it doesn't bother me to see No Smoking signs...am use to it, so what. Overseas and in most airport bars you have smoking allowed anyway so big deal.
When I go out others smoke or not.....thats their choice. I am in the medical field and I see a lot of other health issues not even remotely connected to smoking so thats lame to me. I have grandson who has severe allergies/asthma and has never been around smoking...the doctors said with his family history of allergies he could not help having this problem. Same with his kids and NO one smokes around any of them and never have. I am a believer in Genetics as a lot of the researchers do.
Its funny to me though that these same non smokers will go to the bar now because they don't want to smell of smoke but then will climb in their car and drive after drinking. Should smokers stand outside and dial 911 and report all of them as DUI?? How often do they have their liver profiles checked?
Do they have ulcers and are on medications?
Its something else to give thought too.

KNOWALL

Have you got a light ?

Kraftee

I think it's inevitable that smoking will be prohibited in most public places. That's the climate that we are in right now. Whether you view it as a sensible health measure or as "governmental pandering to moral panic", I don't really see a larger agenda behind these laws. What I do hope is that, instead of lots of different laws in each jurisdiction, that each state enact a statewide statute. It's less confusing that way and there won't be any surprises as one moves from one town to another.

The thing that I see happening (and that I have a problem with) is seeing a state pass a comprehensive smoking ban and turn around and raise the taxes on cigarettes. We all know that states become dependent on the taxes collected and that it is to the state's advantage to collect lots of taxes. So why would a state impose a tax on a product and turn around and pass another law that might result in a decrease in the sale of that product?
Weird.

little eccy

If you want to find a quiet spot to breath, your filthy smelly poison then good for you, but stay a least a mile from me, and if you get very sick late in your life, don't blame the cigarette makers for the stupid weak choice you made when you were young

ruttschaw1

I think choice is being taken away. I also believe that perfume is next and the list will go on unless something is done and of course the list will not stop at the air thee will be more things to come. Maybe someone should look at the money brought in through taxes or the jobs being lost from farmers to manufactures. The easy answer would be things for smokers only, but of course some non-smoker would want to come in for the food or entertainment or the connection they could not get and raise a stink and yell discrimination. Seems as if we look at history we can find where something sounded good and then turned into a real mess but who wants to look just barge ahead. Smoking is like everything else there are polite smokers and then those who will blow smoke in your face.

snetterton

Of course it's not unworkable. Ireland has had it for years, Scotland already has, Wales gets it at the end of the month. It works very very well. If you don't like it, move to a country where you can smoke yourself to death and then see how you bleat on about how the healthcare is so rubbish they won't treat your lung cancer.

"we dont do duvets"...

I'm all for it , At least you have a choice !! the non smokers amongst us have had to suffer this filthy habit from the weak minded for long enough.
The NHS is stretched as it is without having to deal with self inflicted illness's from cancer sticks.
Good on the government that's what I say !!

g.m

we are one of the last nations to bring this into force::!!! (I am a smoker) the one thing that is not correct/right , is freedom of the smoker ::ie pub"s club"s etc where staff and patronn"s can choose to visit or work in or not :::!!!! (that is taking freedom away::!!)

here to help

it is unworkable here,it relies on snitches. i still haven't figured out why conservative churches were worried about me smoking in a bar. business owners should have the choice,not the government that collects taxes from a legal product.

tigertigertiger

I have asthma. Thats not vanity. Watching my Granddad die of lung cancer isn't vanity. I have the RIGHT to my health which is more important than your "right" to pretend it doesn't hurt people.
The truth is all personal habits are done in consideration of other people: its legal to play your music loudly, too loudly and its a crime. Its legal to drive at 100 m.p.h. on a race track but not on a public road because it kills people. Its legal to drink until it starts effecting other people by drink and disorderly. So why should smokers be given free reign to make me gasp for breath?
I believe bar staff have the right not to breathe in other people's habits; even bar staff I know that only smoke 20 a day want the ban because the passive smoking makes them equivalent of chain smokers and notice differences in their health. My own experiences of working in bars as a non-smoker had effects on my health after a short period of time.
And in terms of compremising the issue, what are small villages supposed to do with only one pub or small towns with only one night-club? Not everybody has the facilities to make a democratic "choice".
If there was a choice, non-smokers would still feel pressured to go to smoking clubs due to social lives consisting of both smokers/non-smokers. And you will probably say "noones forcing them to go?" But in my experience addicts are difficult people to say no to and will they will try any tactic to get your own way.

And thats another point, how the hell can an addict be "free", addiction isn't free. Heroin addicts aren't "free", gamblers aren't "free" and smokers aren't "free" - they are hooked and it stops becoming a choice once the nicotine takes hold.

I've had years of asthma and sinus problems accomodating your "freedoms" so payback time.

ISH

In your additional details section you mention "neo-nazis" in relation to smoking.

Allow me to point out a few tiny differences...

The Nazis - people who slaughtered millions on the basis that their race and beliefs were different or wrong.

The Smoking Ban - stops people from harming others through passive smoking in certain types of building (e.g. pubs, restaurants etc).

Do you see a slight difference? One of the above is a government health policy and the other is mass murder. These are very different things. I'm sorry if I'm being a bit patronising but I get a bit worried when people confuse this sort of thing.

And by the way..before you assume that I'm some sort of anti-smoking crusader I should mention that I'm a smoker.

BlackSheep

The smoking ban is right and proper. Risking your own health is one thing but the health of other non-smokers is not on, weather in pubs, clubs or even in your own home if you have children.

foxy

....my thoughts are that smoking has been on the way out for decades from the ban on advertising to the warnings on ciggy packets ,no smoking areas and generally it becoming anti social habit in the eye,s of the none smoker...it,s a killer and our government does not want our health service using vast sums of our money on trying to help those who did not try to help themselves...there is no ban on smoking only in places where it can and does affect others and that list is growing......what smokers should think about is those members of their family that may suffer from their insistence in carrying on .....the choice is not being taken away mate....it,s being given back TO NON SMOKERS

It's a shame that those who chose to smoke also seem to chose to annoy non-smokers... and they sort of consider it their right ! Laws are only legislated because those who are smoking seem ignorant to the consequences of their own actions and that those actions also have consequences to the ones around them as well ! I once smoked... as much as 2 packs a day for 20 years... one day I woke up choking and I could not breathe... I had given myself asthma and nearly died during a 30 minute episode that occurred in the middle of the night... Talk about a "wake-up call" !!! OK, so I'm reformed... but I think it takes looking at the issue from both sides before one can really see what is going on ! Is it moral to legislate any laws that curb our rights ??? Well, I didn't see the right to bear lit cigarettes or other tobacco products the last time I read the Bill of Rights... so what right is it to take those rights away ??? It's right in a health interest to anybody exposed to these toxic little nuisances to ban them from indoor public use... but to tell people that they cannot smoke cigarettes in their own homes... I disagree with that and in exclusive settings that are designated "SMOKERS AND ANYBODY ELSE WHO WISHES TO BE EXPOSED TO CIGARETTE SMOKE" in bold letters !

sosgez

Death is too good for smokers.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: