The down side of the smoking ban

[Xiahou]

It seems sensible to me. Children should not be forced to sit there and breathe in second hand smoke which may well give them Lung Cancer. Why should they pay for someone else's mistakes?

They should also ban candy, pastries, video games and television in households with someone under 18 living there. All of those certainly do more harm to children than a little second hand smoke.

[CountArach]

They should also ban candy, pastries, video games and television in households with someone under 18 living there. All of those certainly do more harm to children than a little second hand smoke.

No so. Video games and Television have been proven to broaden the mind and improve the imagination. As to the candy and pastries, Parents should be keeping excess ammounts of these from their children in the first place, much like they should be with cigarettes.

[Slug For A Butt]

And also retard their intersocial skills which are underdeveloped because they spend all day sat on their own in front of the telly.

But back on topic. I'm one of the "buggers" that smokes and visits my local pub on a regular basis (until now it's got cold).
I'm one of the "buggers" that pays an inordinate amount of tax on my cigarettes that pays for NHS treatment of smoking related diseases many many times over (even ASH don't deny this). You want to ban smoking and pay 3p on the pound more in income tax to make up for the revenue loss? Deafening silence
I'm one of the buggers that believes pubs are a place that serve alcohol and therefore are NOT family places in the first place, so sod the lot of them and let them go to a park like my family used to.
I'm one of the "buggers" that is being treated like a pariah for doing something that is completely legal and that my government condones by taxing the cigarettes that are sold to me.
I'm one of the "buggers" that doesn't want to see groups of drunken lads outside pubs intimidating and abusing passing people just because they happen to be out there to have a cigarette. I see this happen all the time.
I'm one of the "buggers" that would appreciate being able to have a cigarette at the end of the bar in a pub if I was working the bar because bar staff don't get breaks but most of them smoke.
I'm one of the "buggers" that is sick and tired of what is rapidly becoming a fascist state influenced by fascist, one agenda lobby groups.

Etc etc...

Unfortunately, a lot of pubs are going to close this winter I feel because smokers (who make the majority of regular patrons in the North of England) will not want to sit outside in temperatures of -20,000 degrees to have a cigarette. Thus all the do-good lobby group types won't actually have a pub to visit on their once monthly outing with little baby Tarquin.
And to top it all, I have heard non smokers bitching about people sitting outside the pub smoking when the weather is nice because they want to sit there... Make your mind up, you want us in in the good weather and out in the bad???????

But let's at least look at the upside of smoking. It makes you look hard and attractive to women obviously.

You also have a choice about whether you want to associate with or otherwise be around smokers.

Are you for real? That is the most brain dead argument I have heard in this thread. You would choose your friends based on whether they smoke or not? Wow! You need to get some living under your belt.

[Papewaio]

Legal does not equal nice/ethical or smart.

Unfortunately, a lot of pubs are going to close this winter I feel because smokers (who make the majority of regular patrons in the North of England) will not want to sit outside in temperatures of -20,000 degrees to have a cigarette. Thus all the do-good lobby group types won't actually have a pub to visit on their once monthly outing with little baby Tarquin.

Most cities that have these laws have increased patronage at bars.

And to top it all, I have heard non smokers bitching about people sitting outside the pub smoking when the weather is nice because they want to sit there... Make your mind up, you want us in in the good weather and out in the bad???????

Cue violins.

But let's at least look at the upside of smoking. It makes you look hard and attractive to women obviously.

[Slug For A Butt]

Legal does not equal nice/ethical or smart.

No, but legal means legal pure and simple. And until it becomes illegal (which bizarrely I wouldn't have a problem with) I surely have as many rights as non smokers? I don't think that people that drive 4*4's in town are nice, but I dont want to ban them, they pay enough in fuel tax and car tax etc to be able to do it. This is supposed to be a free society after all.

Most cities that have these laws have increased patronage at bars.

You obviously don't live in England. And show me the facts if you can because I don't believe you.

Cue violins.

Typical non smokers hypocrisy. Imagine me sitting next to a non smoker and blowing smoke in their face intentionally (outside obviously). When they complain I could say the same as you did. But I wouldn't do that because I respect other people's rights, unlike you. And until it becomes illegal (which you won't want for financial reasons) just respect my rights instead of acting like fascist, chip on shoulder, society police.

You obviously don't have a sense of humour, that was a joke...

The only downside I can see is less stupid people killing themselves.

And Craterus, I'm far from stupid. It's my choice, I enjoy it and I know the risks. Luckily I'm putting enough in the pot by paying the outrageous taxes imposed on cigarettes to justify my treatment many times over. Hell, I'm paying for peoples IVF too...

[Ice]

They should also ban candy, pastries, video games and television in households with someone under 18 living there. All of those certainly do more harm to children than a little second hand smoke.

Did you just compare watching tv or playing a video game to involuntarily breathing in second hand smoke?

[Xiahou]

Did you just compare watching tv or playing a video game to involuntarily breathing in second hand smoke?

I'm saying that the long-term effects of being a junk food munching, cola couch potato are going to be substantially worse for a child than second hand smoke.

As to the candy and pastries, Parents should be keeping excess ammounts of these from their children in the first place, much like they should be with cigarettes.

I agree. The question becomes, then, should the government be who determines what good parenting practices are? Should the government legally mandate how much candy a parent can give a child, how much time they can spend sitting in front of the TV or how close to them a parent can stand when smoking a cigarette? Do we really want to go down that road?

I don't like cigarette smoke and think it's irresponsible for a parent to regularly be blowing smoke in their children's faces. But I also think it's irresponsible for parents to let their children grow up to be fat lazy turds. People just happen to be on about smoking because it's the current cause celebre.

[Papewaio]

I think there is a huge difference between voluntary ingesting something and having no choice in the matter.

If an individual chooses to eat 3 large pizzas I would not like to have to have a pizza as well just because I was 'down wind' of him.

[Xiahou]

I think there is a huge difference between voluntary ingesting something and having no choice in the matter.

I dont think so. We're talking about children here. If their parents keep the cupboards crammed full of junk food and allow their children to sit around all day chowing down on it, they will almost inevitably do so. Most children aren't informed enough to make smart decisions when it comes to nutrition and exercise- their parents need to instill them with healthy habits.

On the other hand, if you're talking about adults, you have a choice about what you want to eat and if you want to exercise. You also have a choice about whether you want to associate with or otherwise be around smokers.

[Viking]

Gah! There is no need to expose children for more unhealthy substances than what is necessary. We're talking about the brain dead activity called smoking, not the two-edged issue called TV. Nor was this thread about junkfood. Gah!

[Reverend Joe]

Gah! There is no need to expose children for more unhealthy substances than what is necessary. We're talking about the brain dead activity called smoking, not the two-edged issue called TV. Nor was this thread about junkfood. Gah!

TV is a one-edged issue, and so is the computer. Neither will do any good in the long run, and both promote the child to waste away his/her life in front of a screen. As for junkfood... same basic problem.

I refuse to believe that there can be any merit in allowing unfettered access to any of these things. If a parent is responsible, they will make sure that their child(ren) get outside and interact with other children a lot, and eat a healthy diet; as for smoking, just do it away from the kid(s.) HOWEVER: if a parent does not have the common sense to at least try to do a halfway-decent job, then that is the family's problem, nobody else's, so Uncle Sam, the Moral Majority, the anti-smoking fascista and everyone else can kindly off.

[Husar]

You also have a choice about whether you want to associate with or otherwise be around smokers.

That's harsh.
Sounds even worse than dumping good friends over politics.

But then if you walk around in the city or sit in a cafe you cannot always choose who smokes around you anyway.

I should get a skunk as a pet.

[Goofball]

I'm saying that the long-term effects of being a junk food munching, cola couch potato are going to be substantially worse for a child than second hand smoke.

How about the long term effects of second-hand marijuana smoke? Why should the government be able to mandate to me whether or not I can smoke marijuana in my own home, while my kids are sitting beside me on the couch?