Smoking Ban in Scotland

[Bez]

Scotland begins pub smoking ban

From now on smokers will have to use the street

A ban on smoking in public places - including

bars and restaurants - has come into effect in Scotland.

It is being hailed as a step forward for health but critics say it will cost jobs and infringe human rights.

More than a fifth of smokers in Scotland plan to flout the ban, which came into effect overnight, a poll by BBC Five Live suggests.

The impact will be watched closely in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, where bans have also been approved.

Last month MPs voted in favour of a total ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces in England, which is due to come into effect in the summer of 2007.

Northern Ireland is introducing a ban in April next year, while no date has been set yet in Wales.

'Healthier nation'

Scotland's Health Minister Andy Kerr acknowledged the significance of Sunday's action.

He said: "As a smoke-free nation Scotland can look forward to a healthier future.



The ban will give a warm glow to those who enjoy telling others what to do



Neil Rafferty

Pro-smoking group Forest



"A future where Scots live longer, families stay together longer and our young people are fitter and better prepared to make the most of their ambitions."

First Minister Jack McConnell said this was Scotland's "largest single step to improve its health for generations" and a day of pride for the nation.

Dr Peter Terry, chairman of BMA Scotland, said the day would be remembered as "the time Scotland took a bold and politically courageous step".

He added: "On behalf of doctors across Scotland, I thank the Scottish Parliament for introducing this legislation that will help save lives which, for too long, have been cut short by the deadly weed that is tobacco."

The smokers' lobby group Forest, however, has condemned the Scottish Executive, accusing ministers of misleading the public over the health impact and economic costs of the ban.

SCOTLAND'S SMOKING BAN

Smoking in an enclosed public place - £50 fine

Operators of premises face fines of £200 for allowing others to smoke or failing to display warnings

Enforced by environmental health officers

No smoking signs will carry a named person to whom a complaint can be made

Complaints can also be logged by calling 0845 130 7250

Ban covers most indoor places and workplaces, not homes

Smoking allowed in shelters which comply with regulations



The group's Scottish spokesman, Neil Rafferty, said: "The ban will do nothing to improve the health of the nation, but it will give a warm glow to those who enjoy telling others what to do.

"The anti-smoking fanatics will use the ban to victimise and stigmatise smokers even further.

"They have used abusive and dishonest methods to make smokers feel bad about themselves, even comparing smokers to heroin addicts."

Research conducted for Five Live by Scottish Opinion suggests 21% of smokers plan to ignore the ban.

Those in their teenage years or early 20s were most likely to do so, the poll of 1,000 adults found.

The Scottish Licensed Trade Association, which had called for a partial ban, fears 140 pubs could close and 2,500 jobs may be lost.

Beer gardens

Exemptions from the ban include designated rooms in some workplaces, including in adult care homes, hospices, offshore installations and submarines.

Jack McConnell said it was a day of pride for the nation



Smoking will also be allowed in police detention or interview rooms and in designated hotel bedrooms.

Almost 300 business across Scotland have lodged planning applications this year alone for shelters, canopies or beer gardens to make last-minute alterations in the run-up to the ban.

Individuals who flout the legislation face a fixed penalty of £50.

The manager or person in control of any no-smoking premises can be fined a fixed penalty of £200 for either allowing others to smoke there, or failing to display warning notices. Refusal or failure to pay the fine may result in prosecution and a fine of up to £2,500.

[gmc]

Hooray!!

I don't mind people smoking, it's their insistance that they have a right to force everybody else to join in that annoys me. Inconsiderate B^&&^^S

[buttercup]

im a smoker & have had some mixed feelings about the ban but this past week many of the homes across scotland have been talking about giving up

as much as i enjoy a ciggie after a meal or with a drink whilst im out, ultimately this ban can only be a good thing for the health of our nation

government tries everything on scotland first, then the following year its implemented to the rest of uk

i guess if the scots will put up with it, everyone will

here's hoping it works

[Peg]

Bans on smoking are becoming more and more popular over here. In West Virginnia, smoking is banned in all bars except those with standup gambling machines. Of course the state isn't going to ban it there. They stand to lose too much income. I find it rather ridiculous that you can't smoke in bars. It irritates the heck out of me that people go to a bar and whine about the smoke here in Ohio. Around my area, it is just as close for them to go to WV if they want a smoke free bar. I can understand no smoking in hospitals, but now they have banned smoking in your car on hospital property. What's next? In our own homes?

[weeder]

Bez.... They did it in Ireland.. They are doing it here state by state. They have killed business for restaurant bar owners every where, No matter how a person feels about smoking... I think the whole thing is becoming like a prison state tactic,Just wait till the government takes away a right that apalls the non smokers. Then everyone will realize what this action was the beginning of.......

[Richard Bell]

We had a municipal smoking ban come into effect two years ago. The warnings about business dropping precipitously were incorrect. It didn't happen.

If a factory or mine operated today with it's air filled with the level of toxins and carcinogens found in a typical smoky pub, it would be shut down, and rightly so. Why should patrons and employees of the hospitality industry be exposed to these poisons ?

R.B.

[Richard Bell]

Peg wrote: I can understand no smoking in hospitals, but now they have banned smoking in your car on hospital property. What's next? In our own homes?


If there are children in the home or car who are forced to inhale second hand smoke, then I would have an issue with it.

R.B.

[gmc]

weeder wrote: Bez.... They did it in Ireland.. They are doing it here state by state. They have killed business for restaurant bar owners every where, No matter how a person feels about smoking... I think the whole thing is becoming like a prison state tactic,Just wait till the government takes away a right that apalls the non smokers. Then everyone will realize what this action was the beginning of.......


What happened in ireland is that business dropped initially then rose as all those who avoided pubs because of the smoky atmosphere and the sheer unpleasantness started using them. The simple fact is smoking in pubs and restauraunts spoils the enjoyment for the vast majority that don't smoke and avopid the pubs as a consequence.

It's not taking away the right to smoke it's putting in place the right of non smokers not to be forced to inhale your second hand smoke.

smokers have every right to smoke, it stops at the end of my nose when they try and force me to join in.

[Raven]

I'm used to having to go outside. Working in hospitals gets you used to such things. And if I cant sit down to enjoy a dinner long enough without having to have a ciggy, then it's time to cut back.

At least I get the sunshine and fresh air when I go out to smoke!:yh_bigsmi

As for carcinogens and pollutants.......well at least my cigs have a filter on them! The air I breathe does not! And to use the lame argument of others, I protest the poisoning of the air I breathe by all those who EXPLODE methane into my breathing space! And the befouling of my atmosphere through neglect to use simple hygiene products! In the bars and pubs of course!:p

[lady cop]

ah, that is the one good thing about this snake-infested, alligator ridden, hot swamp of a state....outdoor beach bars!! i can smoke and not bother anyone. :-6

[minks]

lady cop wrote: ah, that is the one good thing about this snake-infested, alligator ridden, hot swamp of a state....outdoor beach bars!! i can smoke and not bother anyone. :-6


Careful PITA may come after you smokers for endangering the amimal life ahahahahahahahahaha

[lady cop]

minks wrote: Careful PITA may come after you smokers for endangering the amimal life ahahahahahahahahahawhat? lizards? lizard-lungs, the new social disease. BAAWWWAAAA

[minks]

lady cop wrote: what? lizards? lizard-lungs, the new social disease. BAAWWWAAAA


right up there with the dreaded fish lips from too much lipstick with fish scales in it ahahaha Ooooo look at those shimmery lips on that babe.

[lady cop]

minks wrote: right up there with the dreaded fish lips from too much lipstick with fish scales in it ahahaha Ooooo look at those shimmery lips on that babe.ugh!! is that what that is?? i spent 9 bucks on a lipgloss last week that had f**king sparkles in it! i had to throw it in the trash. ewwwwwww. sparkles??? yuck. i wouldn't use it at halloween!

[xpressbooks]

I am reminded that Adolph Hitler - not always the most accomodating of souls - was an enthusiastic anti-smoker yet he tolerated the habit in others. Is it not curious to find that Scotland is a less tolerant land than Nazi Germany? Clearly John Knox is alive and well..............

[xpressbooks]

'If there are children in the home or car who are forced to inhale second hand smoke, then I would have an issue with it.'



Actually, 99.99% of those of us over 50 were raised in an environment where smoking was universal. And we not only survived but were healthy. Anyone who believes the passive-smoking propaganda probably falls for flying saucers and Bermudan triangles. The claims of passive smoking run completely counter to collective experience

BB

(A non-smoker but happy to mix with those who do)

[RedGlitter]

xpressbooks wrote: 'If there are children in the home or car who are forced to inhale second hand smoke, then I would have an issue with it.'





Actually, 99.99% of those of us over 50 were raised in an environment where smoking was universal. And we not only survived but were healthy. Anyone who believes the passive-smoking propaganda probably falls for flying saucers and Bermudan triangles. The claims of passive smoking run completely counter to collective experience

BB

(A non-smoker but happy to mix with those who do)


There's a lot of ignorance in that statement. It is a proven fact that second hand smoke harms and sometimes kills. My generation grew up with lead paint. I suppose you're going to deny the toxic factor of that too.

Feel free to keep your own opinion on this, but please don't attempt to think for myself or others.

[xpressbooks]

I am afraid it is not 'proven' that second-hand smoke has especially harmful effects. It has simply been vociferously assumed by the anti-smoking lobby who, I am afraid, will resort to any degree of calumny to achieve their ends.

Had the effects of passive smoking been anything like as harmful as is claimed, very few of my generation - the healthiest on record - would have survived.

That is the weak point in your argument - the evidence that children who were continuously subjected to tobacco smoke (not to mention smog) grew up to be so healthy. (Paradoxically, the generation that seem to be the unhealthiest - obese and prone to just about every allergy in the book - are those who have been raised in a largely smoke-free environment).

I am aware that lead paint had an undesirable level of toxicity although, again, I suspect the effects were exaggerated.

BB

[RedGlitter]

Xpress,

It's not my argument it's yours. You are the one to tell us how secondhand smoke is A-OK. Instead of pooh-poohing the fact and slagging the antismoking industry, show us your proof that secondhand doesn't harm or kill. If using your generation is all you've got, that's a pretty lame foundation. Any doctor worth his salt will tell you secondhand is bad for you. Even those who work in the tobacco industry have said it's bad for us. What do you base your opinion on?

[xpressbooks]

I should have thought that using the healthy state of the immediate post-war generation as a basis for an argument was about as factual as you can get. No-one is suggesting that smoking is good for you but I am suggesting that its evels have been overstated for socio-political reasons. Simply because a doctor makes an assertion, it does not 'prove' the assertion. (Not so long ago a doctor succeeded in convincing 60 million people that Jews were vermin). In fact for every learned paper than appeared on the ills of passive smoking, there was an equally learned response contradicting the earlier. Better, I think, to form a judgement on the basis of the evidence of what youm can see in front of you.

Apart from that, I do not think it is a good thing for society to be dictated to. We should be mature enough to segregate ourselves informally without the need for devisive legislation.

[xpressbooks]

I think not. Although dramatic improvements in medicine had been made - chiefly thanks to the necessities of the war - the great thing about our generation was how little we used those facilities. I think the human body is a great deal more robust then you give it credit for being. Entering a burning building and breathing in might make your eyes water but I doubt if it would do much more.

[Accountable]

Private enterprise should not be forced to restrict otherwise legal behavior. Just a little more erosion of freedom. :-1

[xpressbooks]

I am not sure that the analogy between a burning building and a cigarette is a particularly apposite one. The point is that the claims made in respect of passive smoking are not borne out by actual experience and I don't believe that legislation based upon a false or distorted premise leads to good law.

[gmc]

xpressbooks wrote: I am not sure that the analogy between a burning building and a cigarette is a particularly apposite one. The point is that the claims made in respect of passive smoking are not borne out by actual experience and I don't believe that legislation based upon a false or distorted premise leads to good law.


Look it's quite simple. Smoking is a disgusting personal habit. If you choose to smoke then go ahead and do so. Now if you come to scotland you can still do so but what you cannot do is force me-a non smoker to join in by doing so in a confined public space.

Smoke if you want just stop insisting you have a right to make others join you and trying to insist that having that right taken away from you is an infringement of your civil liberties. I am delighted my right not to have someone elses cigarette smoke blown in my face is now enshrined in law.

If you choose not to believe the scientific evidence then fine, don't. As you make your way to an early grave just don't bleat that nobody told you.

[William Ess]

You may think that smoking is a disgusting habit but what of the feelings of those who take a different point of view? I am quite happy to be segregated in trains, restaurants, etc, but that, presuambly, is not enough for you.

[gmc]

William Ess wrote: You may think that smoking is a disgusting habit but what of the feelings of those who take a different point of view? I am quite happy to be segregated in trains, restaurants, etc, but that, presuambly, is not enough for you.


They're perfectly entitled to their own point of view. Segregation doesn't work, as epecially in restaurants and bars as the stuff drifts across. Apart from that many smokers demanded their right to smoke regardless-if you don't like it leave the bar was a typical attitude. If anything bars where food is served are going to see takings go up.

Too many had little respect for non smokers point of view and insisted they had a right to smoke regardless. Non smokers were expected just to accept it. Why should we?

[RedGlitter]

Smokers always bleat on about how they are considerate of nonsmokers, well the smoke doesn't know where the smoking section stops. That's the prroblem with letting people police themselves. It doesn't always work. The smoker's freedom ends where my nose and lungs begin. If they want to smoke in their homes and cars fine. That's private property and their domain. But in public places, that affects everyone and the healthier habit should prevail.



I don't know about how it's done in Scotland, where they get their tobacco, but smoking will never be banned from the USA because tobacco is such a heavy industry. Regardless that it causes cancer, the government isn't going to want to put those farmers out of work or lose revenue.

[William Ess]

It seems to me that you are deternined that an accommodation cannot be reached and that surely is the height of illiberal intolerance. At the same time to turn what may be an irritation into something far greater than it actually is, does not auger well for solial cohesion.

There is no reason why we cannot have smoking and non-smoking restaurants and pubs so that individuals can decide for themselves which they prefer. This would mean that the non-smoker would be well insulated. Smokers are, afetr all, one-third of the population (and, from what I am told, rising).

There are things that irritate me (garlic chewing and transistor radios) but to suggest banning them with the force of law would be, I suspect, an intolerance too far.

WE

[Rapunzel]

xpressbooks wrote: I am not sure that the analogy between a burning building and a cigarette is a particularly apposite one. The point is that the claims made in respect of passive smoking are not borne out by actual experience and I don't believe that legislation based upon a false or distorted premise leads to good law.


But surely the claims ARE borne out by the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. Roy Castle, of Record Breakers fame, died from lung cancer after spending years breathing in secondhand smoke whilst working as an entertainer in pubs and clubs.

I think there should be a ban on smoking in public places. Whenever a smoker smokes, the smoke wreathes around him and clings to him, so that even when he is NOT smoking, you can still smell the smoke strongly on his hair, clothes and breath. The smell of smoke also seems to suck the oxygen out of the air around that person, so simply to smell them leaves you choking and gasping for breath. If I have to walk past a smoker, I try to stand back or else I hold my breath as I pass. My daughter is a chronic asthmatic and she doesn't always notice smokers, but she is gasping for air whenever she passes one.

An accomodation CAN be reached if smokers would restrain themselves to smoking at home or in non-public places. After King's Cross it should be obvious why smoking should be banned on Public transport. Near my parent's home in Ireland, there is a pub which has put a sofa outside on its lawn. That is where all the smokers meet and congregate and where the smoke can dissipate into the night. It may not be totally fair to segregate smokers, but why should the rest of us have to choke on your fumes when you made the choice to smoke, not us?

[Rapunzel]

Pinky wrote: Rapz, while I agree with you in most part, if smokers go out into the open air to have a puff, what is the problem? Surely they are trying to be considerate to people inside? What else are they meant to do?

If you have ever been a smoker, you will realise that it is not that easy just to stop. It is more addictive than heroin, after all.

I am more than happy to go outside and smoke, so as to not pollute other people's air, however, I have siad this once on here, and I'll say it again - if non-smokers choose to stand near me and then complain, when I'm outside because I'm being considerate of others, I will tell them to sod off and move!!!

As for people who complain about it when going in pubs - come on, get real!

Pubs have always been smoky..you know what to expect, so why go in and then moan about it all night?

The smell of cheese makes me feel sick. Guess what? I just don't go in Pizza hut.

All this 'no-one should smoke anywhere ever' stuff really gets my back up.


Pinky, I do see how it is considered unfair and, as in all things in life, if people compromise then a solution can be reached.

Our little town has a small shopping mall which has banned smoking, but it also has a market where a lot of people walk and smoke. I have had my hand burned by people carrying ciggies as they walk and once someone burned a hole through my coat! If they could smoke in open areas away from the market, that would help a lot. As you say, people have always smoked in pubs which is fair enough, as long as food isn't being served.

That's so often the problem, government make laws and people argue with them!

If women ruled the world there'd be more compromise and we'd make things fairer! :p

[Felinessa]

I can understand the objections of non-smokers, especially when it comes to enclosed spaces, such as offices, bars, restaurants, pubs, etc. However, I have trouble with the notion that smoking outside causes so much unpleasantness. Especially when you live in a largish city, and especially if the city has a well-developed transit system, you are inhaling vast amounts of fumes from cars and buses passing by. A single bus stopping and starting will emit more fumes than a garrison of smokers (and more foul-smelling ones, too). So how is it that no one suggests we ban buses? How is it that so many non-smokers happily drive their power-cars, when these alone produce far much polution than smokers could? Is burnt gasoline so much more pleasant than cigarette smoke?

You see, I don't have a problem with trying to accomodate other people. I smoke and it didn't really bother me that I couldn't smoke in a pub anymore (Ottawa was one of the first on the band-wagon). But what I do have a problem with is hypocrisy.

One example is the cars.

Or, let's take alcohol, for another example. I don't drink, except for maybe a glass of wine once or twice a year (including New Year's champagne). And yet, it is almost impossible for me to eat in a restaurant or pub, especially the latter, and not smell beer. Bars are much worse, of course. But the smell of alcohol, which generally turns my stomach, is not the crux of the problem. We've all been harassed by drunks when walking down a busy street on a weekend night; we've all taken late buses and had to put up with people who not only stink to high heaven, but also burp, barf, and act in ways which are less than civilized. People are injured or die because of drunk drivers. And yet, I have seen absolutely no motion to regulate alcohol more or to crack down on alcohol abuse.

Do I care? Up to a certain point. Since I don't think it's my business to tell others what they put in their bodies, I've learned to stay away from establishments where alcohol abuse is likely to happen. I don't go to bars. I avoid Elgin St. on Friday and Saturday nights. I try not to take the last bus, unless I absolutely have to. I'm happy, the drunks are happy, everyone wins.

Thirdly, what is up with "free the weed"? So our government cracks down on smoking with one hand, while the other hand ponders the issue of decriminalizing marijuana? CRACKER, WHAT??? At least tobacco doesn't eat your brain :wah:

So I do think there is some lack of fairness when choosing whom to crack down on and whom to leave alone.

[RedGlitter]

The government crackdown on smoking is hypocritical at best. It's not going to give up its tobacco revenues. I am all for legalizing grass and as long as people don't drive while using it, I'm okay with that. I have serious doubts about its alleged negative effects.

[William Ess]

Rapunzel wrote: But surely the claims ARE borne out by the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. Roy Castle, of Record Breakers fame, died from lung cancer after spending years breathing in secondhand smoke whilst working as an entertainer in pubs and clubs.


I am afraid that the Castle Foundation is another case of jumping on a bandwagon. Over the years, thousands of people have played the trumpet (etc) in smoke filled dance halls and millions have spent their youthful nights dancing in them. Very few died as a result and one swallow doesn't make a summer.

[Accountable]

Rapunzel wrote: That's so often the problem, government make laws and people argue with them!

If women ruled the world there'd be more compromise and we'd make things fairer! :pUh huh :yh_eyebro





:D

[Accountable]

Why do people insist on gov't intervention? Why not just convince a pub or restaurant or three that they can make profits in the non-smoking niche?

[William Ess]

Accountable wrote: Why do people insist on gov't intervention? Why not just convince a pub or restaurant or three that they can make profits in the non-smoking niche?


That would indeed be the fair and just way of dealing with the problem. Unfortunately the anti-smoking faction see themselves as a crusade and crusaders do not believe in either fair play or compromise.

WE

[Rapunzel]

William Ess wrote: That would indeed be the fair and just way of dealing with the problem. Unfortunately the anti-smoking faction see themselves as a crusade and crusaders do not believe in either fair play or compromise.WE


That's a very sweeping statement!

Most people are middle of the road and happy to compromise!

But there is always going to be a loud-mouthed gobby element who shout their views continuously and usually without weighing up both sides of the argument!

Just because one small faction shouts loudly, doesn't mean they're shouting for all of us!

[William Ess]

Rapunzel wrote: That's a very sweeping statement!

Most people are middle of the road and happy to compromise!

But there is always going to be a loud-mouthed gobby element who shout their views continuously and usually without weighing up both sides of the argument!

Just because one small faction shouts loudly, doesn't mean they're shouting for all of us!


I haven't seen much indication of compromise from the anti-smokers in this debate! One of the problems that exacerbate the matter is that until recently smoking was universal and it was not until the 1970's that one started to come across non-smokers in significant numbers. (In the 1950's non-smokers were regarded in almost in the same light as homosexuals or vegetarians!).

Had smoking been invented last week then of course there would be a stronger case against it but to make something unlawful that a generation ago was socially acceptable is moving too quickly.

As for loud shouting small factions, goverment of this country has been by minority groups for years!

WE

[Lulu2]

It's been well over ten years since California made smoking illegal in workplaces. Smokers screamed and shouted and stamped their feet and threated to BOYCOTT bars, restaurants, etc, because they couldn't foul the air with their smoke anymore. Forgetting that it's impossible for a smoker to actually SMELL their own obnoxious, unhealthful fumes, they pretended not to realize how dangerous it is to impose that on others, whose only "offence" is trying to breathe/work/enjoy food in the same space as the smoker.

Guess what?

It all died down....and the same thing will happen in Scotland. People grow accustomed to clean air in public places and smoking in their own homes and cars. And in another decade, you'll have forgotten what all the fuss was about.

[William Ess]

I was in California a short time ago and went for a drink in a bar and was the only person there. Everyone was outside - er - smoking. The Landlord complained that since the ban they simply used his yard as a meeting place and brought their own drink with them. One of my sons lives in California where he is a psychiatrist - he says there is no shortage of raw material.

I am not a smoker but I do not like using Nazi tactics on those who do.

[RedGlitter]

Nazi tactics. Please.

The reason we need govt intervention is because as a lot, smokers are an inconsiderate breed, fouling up *everyone's* air with something that is unnecessary and dangerous. Thus forcing it upon all. If I wanted to use Nazi tactics, I'd make them all wear fishbowls over their heads so they could suck up all those fumes on their own.



Smokers talk about compromise, thinking a no smoking section in a restaurant is just that but they fail again to see the smoke trailing past the imaginary line. The proven fact is smoking causes cancer for smokers and nonsnmokers and it is not necessary (as in say the way exhaust spewing cars and buses are) sos hort of abolishing it, it should be controlled.

[Rapunzel]

RedGlitter wrote: Nazi tactics. Please.

The reason we need govt intervention is because as a lot, smokers are an inconsiderate breed, fouling up *everyone's* air with something that is unnecessary and dangerous. Thus forcing it upon all. If I wanted to use Nazi tactics, I'd make them all wear fishbowls over their heads so they could suck up all those fumes on their own.




:wah: Well said Red! :wah:

[Accountable]

I think it's cute that the same people crying for the gov't to oppress law-abiding citizens here are the same ones crying about their freedoms being squelched in the abortion thread.



Rapunzel wrote: Most people are middle of the road and happy to compromise!

Hear hear!

Lulu2 wrote:

It all died down....and the same thing will happen in Scotland. People grow accustomed to clean air in public places and smoking in their own homes and cars. And in another decade, you'll have forgotten what all the fuss was about.:yh_hypno Yeeesssss! Resistance is futile. Just relax and let the people that know better make the rules.

RedGlitter wrote: Nazi tactics. Please.

The reason we need govt intervention is because as a lot, smokers are an inconsiderate breed [...]As a breed?!? Oh yeh, perfectly rational line of thought there. :yh_eyebro



~~~~~~~~~~



If you don't like going to places where there are smokers, don't go to those places. If the place you'd like doesn't exist, there's a niche there for an enterprising entrepeneur to make a MINT.



But sure, that's too hard. Much easier to whine to daddy Bush to get your way, right?

[Felinessa]

I don't know, Red. Doesn't polution cause cancer? I haven't looked into the statistics, but if someone can get cancer from second-hand smoking, I bet they can get it from inhaling car fumes as well. And since all of us are more likely to come in contact with fumes than with second-hand smoke, I think it's logical that the first thing we should ban are cars. Of course, that's not feasible, because that would impact everyone negatively. There's no way around cars or transit, especially in North America where even medium cities have diameters of 20-25 miles. But that doesn't eliminate the fact that polution takes a much greater toll on both our lungs and the environment than cigarette smoking ever could.

So why not have some limitations on places open to smokers (offices, public buildings, libraries, theatres, etc, some bars and restaurants), and put the rest of the funding into alternative sources of energy and hybrid vehicles? Now that sounds like a compromise to me.

As far as the invisible line goes, if two sets of doors separate the restaurant sections and there is a good ventilation system in place, I doubt it that much smoke could travel. We had a smoking lounge at the airport until recently, and you couldn't tell what it was from the outside. And no, it's not true that smokers don't smell their nasty fumes: I can smell mine and I can definitely smell theirs (especially if they smoke the yucky unfiltered, hand-rolled kind, and most especially if they smoke a nasty cigar). So I could have sniffed the lounge from the outside if the smoke actually creeped out.

[gmc]

William Ess wrote: I haven't seen much indication of compromise from the anti-smokers in this debate! One of the problems that exacerbate the matter is that until recently smoking was universal and it was not until the 1970's that one started to come across non-smokers in significant numbers. (In the 1950's non-smokers were regarded in almost in the same light as homosexuals or vegetarians!).

Had smoking been invented last week then of course there would be a stronger case against it but to make something unlawful that a generation ago was socially acceptable is moving too quickly.

As for loud shouting small factions, goverment of this country has been by minority groups for years!

WE


Compromise means you accept the other has a valid point of view. I don't mind people smoking I just don't want to be forced to share. Too many smokers take the view they have a right to smoke regardless of others objections and insist on their right to do so anywhere they like. Their attitude is often not one of i respect your piont of view and desire not to join in but rather F97K you I'm doing it anyway.

Nobody is being forced to give up smoking all that has happened is that your right to impose on others has been removed. Incidentally with the support of the majority of the scottish people.

I remember the 70's as well, when women who went in to pubs were of a certain kind and if you wanted food all you got was a packet of crisps or salted peanuts. The posher bars had linoleum on the floor and drinking was a serious business you did standing up in a crowd. Taking your family far a bar meal was an unheard of concept.

The beer was crap, double Diamond tasted like warmed up **** and tennants isn't mush better, and lager drinkers were regarded as slightly effeminate and if you were a non smoking lager drinker you found yourself with space at the bar. Stella Artois used to be a poof's drink as I discovered much to my embarrassment in the Laughing Duck bar in Edinburgh, being an innocent I just fancied trying it and hadn't appreciated where I was. Now it's trendy which amuses me a great deal. Now we have lager louts and beer is the preserve of the beardie camra member. Attitudes change.

Non smokers in the seventies had the strength of character to stand up for themselves and not take up a disgusting habit just so they could fit in with the rest of their mates. They were their own men in a way smokers could never be because they didn't have the strenght of character to say no.

Ask any smoker if they enjoyed their first cigarette and most will say no. Weak willed gits that they are they persevered just so they could fit in with their mates and found themselves addicted to a drug called nicotine. Anyone who still claims nicotine is not a drug is an imbecile deluding themselves.

Stop feeling sorry for yourself, go outside and have a fag. (I'm assuming you are a smoker) Smokers are (literally) a dying breed. As you plan your early funeral remember the only one you can blame is yourself.

posted by felinissa

I don't know, Red. Doesn't polution cause cancer? I haven't looked into the statistics, but if someone can get cancer from second-hand smoking, I bet they can get it from inhaling car fumes as well. And since all of us are more likely to come in contact with fumes than with second-hand smoke, I think it's logical that the first thing we should ban are cars. Of course, that's not feasible, because that would impact everyone negatively. There's no way around cars or transit, especially in North America where even medium cities have diameters of 20-25 miles. But that doesn't eliminate the fact that polution takes a much greater toll on both our lungs and the environment than cigarette smoking ever could.


Course it does, it also causes asthma and other lung diseases as well. So did coal fires and we don't have them any more, we don't have unleaded petrol so our cities are not the fogbound sinks that they used top be.

Get behind an old car with unleaded petrol, have a sniff, feel your eyes get irritated and remember what it was like in a traffic jam in the old days. The tree huggers had a point.

Progress is often made against the protests of those with vested interests that don't want to change becaiuse they think it will lose them money. Meanwhile their more enlightened competitors set the pace and leave them behind eventually.

posted by accountable

I think it's cute that the same people crying for the gov't to oppress law-abiding citizens here are the same ones crying about their freedoms being squelched in the abortion thread.


Ah the Monty Python arguement. "help help I'm being oppressed"

Totally specious arguement. Most people appreciate the subject matter is quite different and will take differing viewpoints on different issues. Tell me. Do chain smoking anti-abortionists try and stop pregnant women smoking for the sake of the baby, or is that O.K?

Yeeesssss! Resistance is futile. Just relax and let the people that know better make the rules.

We will until we decide to kick the sods out of office. Every now and then we need to remind them who is really the boss because they do tend to forget who they work for.