Smoking ban in the UK

[Geoffrey S]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4377250.stm
What are your views on a ban on smoking? How far should such a law go?

[English assassin]

I don't smoke but a pub should smell of smoke. And spilt beer. So I am against this.

James Johnson, chairman of the British Medical Association, expressed "utter disappointment" at the "wasted opportunity to protect the public's health".

Yadda yadda yadda, no doubt he's also disappointed that the government doesn't force us all to wear bubble wrap in case we trip up.

As for how far a smoking ban should go: only to public places where there may be children present. Ban it there. Otherwise, we are all adults, can we please be allowed to exercise some responsibiltiy for our lives?

[monkian]

Well there goes any chance of Amsterdam style coffeeshops opening in the Uk

[Duke Malcolm]

Wait to the 26th of March next year when the first smoking ban in the United Kingdom comes into force. The Scottish Parliament banned smoking in all enclosed public places...

[English assassin]

Well there goes any chance of Amsterdam style coffeeshops opening in the Uk

Vote David Cameron !!! (Make the most of this smiley, kids, Patricia Hewitt will shortly be banning smoking smileys on public forums)

[drone]

California introduced a ban on smoking in bars back in 1998. I think smoking was only allowed if all employees agreed to it. The employee health was one of the main arguments used to get the bill passed.

I would prefer smoke-free bars, I hate waking up the next day with a hangover AND the stench of cigarettes in my clothes and hair. Smoke-free pubs can succeed, there was one in Lincolnshire I used to go to when I lived there, it was always packed.

[Viking]

I think Bhutan has gone forward with an excellent example and completely banned all selling/buying of this s**t.

Otherwise, we are all adults, can we please be allowed to exercise some responsibiltiy for our lives?

And others....? There`s something called passive smoking.

[English assassin]

And others....? There`s something called passive smoking

Sure, if we were forced to go into pubs against our will, this would be a fair point. Lots of pubs have no smoking areas, and if enough people want smoke free pubs they will exist.

Smoke-free pubs can succeed, there was one in Lincolnshire I used to go to when I lived there, it was always packed.

case in point.

I think Bhutan has gone forward with an excellent example and completely banned all selling/buying of this s**t

This is probably what they thought in America before prohibition and that wasn't exactly a success.

[BDC]

It's just a cover whilst Blair passes his mess of education reform. As far as I can work out he's effectively privatised state schools, or as near as to make no difference. Woohoo.

Whoever is paying Blair to mess everything up so effectively probably has horns.

[Goofball]

I am a smoker, and I am in favor of the ban. People should not be subjected to toxic, cancer-causing (not to mention stinky) fumes in their workplace. We have the same ban in place where I live, and have had for a few years now. There has been no effect whatsoever on the bar/restaurant/nightclub industry, contrary to all the claims by bar owners that they would all be bankrupt within months. And since most pubs now offer semi-covered patios where patrons are allowed to smoke outside, there has been very little inconvenience to smokers.

[_Martyr_]

Ireland was the first country in the world to ban smoking in all work places over a year ago. It has been a resounding success. Going out is a much more pleasant experience. Hangovers are less severe because smokey air increases the level of dehydration. Nearly all bars/clubs have outdoor smoking areas. This actually creates a really nice dimension to a night out, a cool and quite area where you can go out and actually talk to people. I dont smoke, but whenever some of my mates are going out for a smoke I often go out as well. Most people I know who smoke are now in favour of the ban, even if they opposed it at first.

[Kanamori]

We have a smoking ban like that in Madison. There are problems w/ the bars in the city limits, the ones right on the edge of Middleton, Manona, and Stoughton, people will go the bar across the street where they can smoke inside. It would be interesting to see a study of just how harmful second-hand smoke is and how long one would have to be exposed to it, etc.

[drone]

It would be interesting to see a study of just how harmful second-hand smoke is and how long one would have to be exposed to it, etc.

CNN link on a study of bartenders after the Cali ban:
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9812/20/bartender.smoke/

[Ja'chyra]

As a non-smoker, and someone who hates the smell of the stuff, I would say it's fair enough to ban it in restaurants but not in bars, banning it in pubs just means that half the group spends the whole night outside having a fag.

[Tribesman]

Ireland was the first country in the world to ban smoking in all work places over a year ago. It has been a resounding success. Going out is a much more pleasant experience. Hangovers are less severe because smokey air increases the level of dehydration. Nearly all bars/clubs have outdoor smoking areas. This actually creates a really nice dimension to a night out, a cool and quite area where you can go out and actually talk to people. I dont smoke, but whenever some of my mates are going out for a smoke I often go out as well. Most people I know who smoke are now in favour of the ban, even if they opposed it at first.

Yes but did you see the HSE on the news , now they want to ban outside smoking areas ???? People walk outside and have to breath the smoke , and when the doors are opened smoke can get in .
Just ban the damn things entirely , oh but they won't do that will they .

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'm against it.

The government should not be able to completely control us for our 'safety'.
Don't want a smokey bar? Don't go there.
Don't want a smokey workplace? Don't work there.
If the owner wants smoking in his bar, he should be the one to decide. People should have freedom, not be bossed around according to 'what's good for them.'

After all, look at the gun ban. You guys sure have a lot less gun crime than 100 years ago when there were no laws at all...er nevermind.

@EA. Actually, I think prohibition, while it enjoyed a lot of support, did not have overwhelming and perhaps not even a majority of public support-just a minority of dedicated people who pestered politicians.
In fact, today MADD (mothers against drunk driving) is becoming a neo-prohibitionist organization and less of an anti-drunk driving organization. They work to increasing lower the blood alcohol limit to something where you're not even drunk and most people can drive safely.

Crazed Rabbit

[Kanamori]

The government should not be able to completely control us for our 'safety'.

As far as I know, there is no federal or state guarantee to the freedom to smoke in bars. If the people want the law passed, then they should be able to pass it.

[Soulforged]

Is totally ridicolous. Of course not!! How is that this is even discussed in the "first world"?

[Goofball]

Don't want a smokey workplace? Don't work there.

So I take it you support allowing smoking in all workplaces then?

Why is it that only people who work in the bar industry should uproot their lives and find new employment because they don't want to die a premature death, and smell bad while they are on their way to it?

[Crazed Rabbit]

So I take it you support allowing smoking in all workplaces then?

Yes. Provided the company owns the property, or the landlord allows smoking, they should be able to allow smoking. It's their property, after all.

Crazed Rabbit

[GonZ]

My name is Gonz and I'm addicted to nicotene.

However I do welcome the ban. Hopefully it will help me quit this filthy habit.

Trouble is I'm self employed, work from home and only go to the pub once a week.

My name is Gonz and I am also addicted to forums.

[Papewaio]

Ban it from any workplace or public place.

How would you like someone picking their nose and flicking snot in your food? Guess what you choose to eat there so it is your fault.

Also it would be healthier then cigarette smoke and would eventually build up your immune system... so do you want food saftey levels lowered?

You get Mad Cow disease. Sorry your fault for eating at the restaurant.

If someone gets drunk and attacks you in the pub it is your fault for hanging out in a place that serves alcohol.

Everyone should be allowed their own hobbies, but not when it impacts on the health of others.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ban it from any workplace or public place.

How would you like someone picking their nose and flicking snot in your food? Guess what you choose to eat there so it is your fault.

Also it would be healthier then cigarette smoke and would eventually build up your immune system... so do you want food saftey levels lowered?

You get Mad Cow disease. Sorry your fault for eating at the restaurant.

If someone gets drunk and attacks you in the pub it is your fault for hanging out in a place that serves alcohol.

Everyone should be allowed their own hobbies, but not when it impacts on the health of others.

Hmmm. Do any of these have anything to do with smoking...nope. It's you trying to defeat my argument by twisting it to seem that I place blame on the victims, when in fact I am against for reasons of freedom, and using that weird logic in totally unrelated situations.

Smoking is unhealthy yes, but that doesn't mean you should be able to stop people from doing it.

Crazed Rabbit

[Papewaio]

Passive smoking.

That is the act of forcing a habit on someone else.

And it has worse health consequences then if you picked your nose and put it in their food. Or took a swing at them with a fist. Lung Cancer is a whole lot worse then the flu or a black eye.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You are not forcing the habit on anyone. All people are free to go as they please.

If enough people don't like smokers in a certain store and tell the owner, he can ban smoking on his premises.

Going someplace where you are free to leave at any time and then demanding people change for you is outlandish.

Crazed Rabbit

[GoreBag]

We have a smoking ban in our city and it has improved the bar life both here and across the river (smoking in bars is still cool in Hull, the Quebecois third of the mega-city), even though that will shortly end as well. People bitched and moaned, but now it's second-nature to have to outside to smoke.

On a democratic level, it makes sense. The majority of the population are non-smokers, so they're perfectly fine to enforce their will on the cancer suckers, right? I don't smoke cigarettes, but I'll have a cigarillo now and then.

As for the Libertarian approach, which I normally support in this case (yes, even if someone gets date-raped at a nightclub), smoking outside is just sensible. The "you don't like the smoke, don't leave the house" approach is just fine, but that's just as legitimate as my decking some smoker out for smoking in my presence. Smoking outside more more efficiently limits the smoke to one person. Besides, many bars have patios or balconies (read: smoking sections).

Just pass the damn bill. If society breaks down and there's rioting in the streets after a few months, then the worrying should start.

[Adrian II]

Passive smoking. That is the act of forcing a habit on someone else. And it has worse health consequences then if you picked your nose and put it in their food.

One more example of the health hysteria that has befallen us. Passive smoking probably causes a slightly higher risk of cancer, but a lot less than many other risk factors to which people are involuntarily exposed. Smoking bans make use of most peoples' inability to distinguish between absolute and relative risk.

Former Swedish toxicologist Robert Nilsson has produced an estimate of the annual incidence of cancer in a population of 100,000 resulting from environmental factors: unknown (177), diet (135), smoking (68), other lifestyle factors (45), sunshine (23), passive smoking (2).

There are several studies confirming the innocuousness of passive smoking compared to other risks. As stated by George Davey Smith, Britain's leading epidemiologist, in a 2003 issue of the British Medical Journal: 'The considerable problems with measurement imprecision, confounding, and the small predicted excess risks limit the degree to which conventional observational epidemiology can address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.'

The campaign against passive smoking is basically a moralist campaign, like the drive for Prohibition in the pre-war United States. This too will pass. If you want to prevent involuntary exposure to carcinogenes, you should ban all industrial pollution for starters. Oh, and seafood. It caused an incidence of 12 in Nilsson's study. Are you infavour of a seafood-ban in public places, Papewaio?

[Duke of Gloucester]

Don't want a smokey workplace? Don't work there.

This sounds reasonable, but if you accept the premise, then you need to repeal all the safety related employment law: no hard hats for builders and any old scafolding will do; no high visibility jackets for railway workers; no legal requirement on employers to keep their building in good repair. "Don't want a dangerous workplace? Don't work there."

Of course, in the real world, people need employment to pay their mortgages and support their families. The freedom to move to a different employer is limited, especially if in a given field, employers adopt the same dangerous practice.

For me smoking in pubs and bars is all about protecting workers from passive smoking. Evidence shows passive smoking can have a serious affect on health and therefore it should be illegal to expose your employees to it.

[Papewaio]

Former Swedish toxicologist Robert Nilsson has produced an estimate of the annual incidence of cancer in a population of 100,000 resulting from environmental factors: unknown (177), diet (135), smoking (68), other lifestyle factors (45), sunshine (23), passive smoking (2).

Oh, and seafood. It caused an incidence of 12 in Nilsson's study. Are you infavour of a seafood-ban in public places, Papewaio?

Difference is choice. If you smoke it is your health, your diet your health, your lifesytle factors your health, smoking around someone else it is their health.

The difference with smoking and drinking is that I can go to the bar and have a beer. I am not forced to drink the umbrella decorated cocktail choice of other patrons in the bar because that is their habit. The smokers on the other hand think that it is their right to force others to partake in their habit.

I can choose to eat seafood or not. Someone else dining on that does not effect my consumption of it unless I start eating like a baby bird.

Also what is the rate of passive smoking for someone working in a bar or other closed environment? I'm sure it is higher then the passive smoker who is working in the outdoors.

Smoking bans make use of most peoples' inability to distinguish between absolute and relative risk.

The risk is small for passive smoking but the damage is great. So the cost risk factor is rather large. Which is worse the flu, a black eye or cancer? How many black eyes to dying by lung cancer would be of equal agony?

Again why should someones choices override everyone else? It is not just cancer, it is the smell, the effect on food and the risk factor for anyone with asthma, hayfever or any other air effected allergy.

[English assassin]

I don't normally think much of slippery slope arguments, (because it is not usually established very convincingly that the slope exists, or is slippery). But there is a slippery slope here.

If we are allowed to ban things because they impose a (small) risk on other people, what else should we ban? Alcohol, obviously:

it has been estimated that 40% of violent crime; 78% of assaults and 88% of criminal damage cases are committed
while the offender is under the influence of alcohol. Although there is no simple causal relationship, alcohol is often consumed by offenders and victims prior to the offence being committed. Moreover, it is inextricably linked to disorder around licensed premises. In addition, fear of alcohol related violence or intimidation may well mean that large numbers of people avoid city centres on weekend evenings

http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/toolkits/ar020101.htm

Driving, naturally. Even if we treat all vehicle users as asking for it pedestrians are passive victims, surely:

In 2004, 671 pedestrians were killed in road accidents in Great Britain. This was 21 per cent of all deaths from road accidents

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208

And so on.

As for a restaurant that flicked bogies in your food, are you really saying you would keep going and chow down on those bogies week in week out until the government comes to your rescue with the Soup (Bogey Prohibition) Regulations 2009 ??? Or would you just go to a bogey free restaurant?