Smoke Free Britain

maccat · Post by **maccat** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:18 am

The new no smoking law coming into effect in July is very unfair to all the smokers in this country. It is basically victimising all those who enjoy a cigarette. For some people it is their way of relieving stress.

How on earth they intend on policing this new law remains to be seen. For example when a smoker is in a pub or club having a few drinks he or she may be tempted to light up especially with a bit of Dutch courage after consuming alcohol. It will cause untold problems. If a person refuses to refrain from smoking, what happens then? Will the police be called out to every incident of this nature? We canâ€™t even control the drug problems in this country never mind policing the no-smoking law.

No doubt the original brains behind this crazy law is a non-smoker i.e. totally unaffected by this ruling.

For decadeâ€™s weâ€™ve managed with no-smoking areas in public buildings, so why we have to introduce a total ban is beyond me.

Another controversial aspect of this law is if prisoners are deprived of a cigarette as well as their freedom, it will lead to riots. In one American no-smoking prison, the inmates took hostages. Only willing to release them in exchange for cigarettes. If this is anything to go by, then a lot of problems are on their way in the judicial system.

If this law stays in place then no doubt a few years down the line, the government will be attempting to make smoking and selling cigarettes illegal.

gaiusjulii · Post by **gaiusjulii** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 1:18 pm

Pinky;649225 wrote: It's the last night of being able to puff away whilst having a pint, so I'm going to make the most of it. I reckon pubs will lose a lot of regulars...fags and booze go hand in hand, don't they?

They do but they shouldnt. As a non smoker I think its been way to long in coming,

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 3:47 am

gaiusjulii;1179987 wrote: They do but they shouldnt. As a non smoker I think its been way to long in coming,
So it's okay to take away others' freedom, so long as it's not yours?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 3:55 am

Accountable;1180150 wrote: So it's okay to take away others' freedom, so long as it's not yours?

Its not taking away an individuals freedoms. Smokers have the freedom to smoke. Its about not imposing it on others. It has an impact on those that choose not to.

Asking driver not to drive on the pavement doesnt restrict his freedom to drive but it lessens the impact it has on pedestrians

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:01 am

The pavement's public - owned by the public. Public law has no business placing restrictions on what privately owned pubs allow their patrons to do. Rather than taking legal action to force all pubs (most of which an individual nonsmoker will never visit) to bend to a nonsmoker's will, why not convince one's local pub to cater to nonsmokers, or open a nonsmoking pub oneself?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:22 am

Accountable;1180153 wrote: The pavement's public - owned by the public. Public law has no business placing restrictions on what privately owned pubs allow their patrons to do. Rather than taking legal action to force all pubs (most of which an individual nonsmoker will never visit) to bend to a nonsmoker's will, why not convince one's local pub to cater to nonsmokers, or open a nonsmoking pub oneself?

Of course it does. Even privately owned clubs abide by rules and regulations. If the law has restrictions on what patrons can do, whether that be alcohol related, age related or smoke related then those have to be adhered to.

Pubs are not private, exclusive places. They are public establishments, where families or individuals ( including children ) can enjoy a drink. Its no different to retricting smoking in a restaraunt.

My friends who smoke dont seem to think their rights are breached because they are asked to step outside or to another room, to smoke.

I think smoking clubs are a good idea. I have no problem if people who smoke want to enjoy the atmosphere they create. That wouldnt impact on those that didnt smoke because those that didnt would probably not go. Thats different from making all pubs - who are by definition public places - a smoking free for all

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 5:59 am

I don't care if people smoke away from me as I don't want to breathe in their smoke.

I'm just so sick of people throwing their cigarettes on the ground. During the summer months I clean up about 50 or more cigs on my lawn.

Post by **Sunshine** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 6:43 am

I respect those who don't smoke and really think they have the right to not want to inhale my second hand smoke. It is smelly for those who don' smoke. Many pubs in my area now have very nice outside areas for the smokers to go. I am sure that their profits would be decreased quite a bit if smoking was prohibited totally.

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 7:42 am

I have just recently given up smoking ( insert smug smile here) but it didt really bother me that i had to go outside to smoke,, i could understand the reasoning behind it. What i cant understand is the fact you have to walk two miles away form the entrance to the hospital,,, or even other buildings in some cases before you can have a cigarette

what is the reason for that? if you are outside that should be good enough,, its just total red tape gone mad to say you have to be outside the grounds altogether,, really bad especially for those having to stay in hospital:(

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:39 am

Snowfire;1180154 wrote: Of course it does. Even privately owned clubs abide by rules and regulations. If the law has restrictions on what patrons can do, whether that be alcohol related, age related or smoke related then those have to be adhered to.

Pubs are not private, exclusive places. They are public establishments, where families or individuals ( including children ) can enjoy a drink. Its no different to retricting smoking in a restaraunt.

My friends who smoke dont seem to think their rights are breached because they are asked to step outside or to another room, to smoke.

I think smoking clubs are a good idea. I have no problem if people who smoke want to enjoy the atmosphere they create. That wouldnt impact on those that didnt smoke because those that didnt would probably not go. Thats different from making all pubs - who are by definition public places - a smoking free for allBut there's no need for force of law. If smoking clubs are a good idea, then non-smoking clubs are also a good idea. The same can be said for pubs with smoking, non-smoking, or mixed rooms or areas. Let the local patronage decide, rather than activists in London who will never darken the door..

gaiusjulii · Post by **gaiusjulii** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:45 am

Accountable;1180198 wrote: But there's no need for force of law. If smoking clubs are a good idea, then non-smoking clubs are also a good idea. The same can be said for pubs with smoking, non-smoking, or mixed rooms or areas. Let the local patronage decide, rather than activists in London who will never darken the door..

segregating the smoking and non-smoking party goers is a silly idea your creating a them and me society. you might as well start saying its ok to make single sex or single color clubs also... most places have designated outdoor smoking areas i dont see what the problem is.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:29 am

gaiusjulii;1180218 wrote: segregating the smoking and non-smoking party goers is a silly idea your creating a them and me society. you might as well start saying its ok to make single sex or single color clubs also... most places have designated outdoor smoking areas i dont see what the problem is.
There are gay bars, black bars, hispanic bars, etc etc etc. Nobody seems to raise a fuss. The problem is when you get the government involved to force an issue that might or might not occur naturally. We should let it occur naturally.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:32 pm

Accountable;1180153 wrote: The pavement's public - owned by the public. Public law has no business placing restrictions on what privately owned pubs allow their patrons to do. Rather than taking legal action to force all pubs (most of which an individual nonsmoker will never visit) to bend to a nonsmoker's will, why not convince one's local pub to cater to nonsmokers, or open a nonsmoking pub oneself?

A pub is not a private place by definition, it is open to members of the public and therefore administered by public law.

Smokers, by the very nature of their addiction, are imposing on the health of those around them and this effect is far worse in an enclosed area.

The law states that smokers are not allowed to so endanger the health of others in any publicly accessible enclosed space such as offices, shops or places of public assembly (theatres, restaurants, pubs, etc).

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 2:09 pm

Bryn Mawr;1180265 wrote: A pub is not a private place by definition, it is open to members of the public and therefore administered by public law.

and that public law is too intrusive, imo. That's all I'm saying.

gaiusjulii · Post by **gaiusjulii** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 2:26 pm

Accountable;1180225 wrote: There are gay bars, black bars, hispanic bars, etc etc etc. Nobody seems to raise a fuss. The problem is when you get the government involved to force an issue that might or might not occur naturally. We should let it occur naturally.

Unfortunately the process you say should occur naturally was never going to happen, smokers are happy to continue blowing smoke in crowded rooms regardless of the health risk to others. after all they did have the best part of a century to do so. I dont usually condone government meddling but on this occasion they did the right thing. Imo smokers would continue smoking until told not to by the law its the nature of the addiction.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 2:38 pm

Accountable;1180310 wrote: and that public law is too intrusive, imo. That's all I'm saying.

I'd tend to disagree on the grounds that the actions of the smokers are harming everyone around them - certainly it is far more pleasant in the office since smoking was banned there.

No massive feeling on the legal side though - on the practical side, most people I know agree that pubs are better places to visit now the smoke has gone and that includes several smokers.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 2:43 pm

gaiusjulii;1180318 wrote: Unfortunately the process you say should occur naturally was never going to happen, smokers are happy to continue blowing smoke in crowded rooms regardless of the health risk to others. after all they did have the best part of a century to do so. I dont usually condone government meddling but on this occasion they did the right thing. Imo smokers would continue smoking until told not to by the law its the nature of the addiction.Why shouldn't they? It's a legal activity. In my country, a proprietor can deny service to anyone not willing to play by the established rules (with the exception of ethnic considerations). Isn't it that way in your country? Smoking & non-smoking areas were set up before the law mandated it. If (before the law changed) a proprietor decided to make his establishment totally smoke free, he had that option, just as he could make it a cigar bar. Aren't you condoning the meddling this time because you personally benefit, even if only psychologically?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 2:46 pm

Accountable;1180323 wrote: Why shouldn't they? It's a legal activity. In my country, a proprietor can deny service to anyone not willing to play by the established rules (with the exception of ethnic considerations). Isn't it that way in your country? Smoking & non-smoking areas were set up before the law mandated it. If (before the law changed) a proprietor decided to make his establishment totally smoke free, he had that option, just as he could make it a cigar bar. Aren't you condoning the meddling this time because you personally benefit, even if only psychologically?

Oh you better believe it. Meddle away if it prohibits others from influencing my health

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 2:51 pm

Accountable;1180323 wrote: Why shouldn't they? It's a legal activity. In my country, a proprietor can deny service to anyone not willing to play by the established rules (with the exception of ethnic considerations). Isn't it that way in your country? Smoking & non-smoking areas were set up before the law mandated it. If (before the law changed) a proprietor decided to make his establishment totally smoke free, he had that option, just as he could make it a cigar bar. Aren't you condoning the meddling this time because you personally benefit, even if only psychologically?

Simple economics - no publican is going to turn away a significant proportion of his clientÃ¨le in the hope of getting an improved attendance from the rest.

Personally, I find the government's stance hypocritical - either smoking is a such a serious health risk to both smokers and to those around them that it justifies a ban or not. The current actions stink of a compromise determined by the existing tax revenue from the sale of tobacco.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 3:50 pm

Bryn Mawr;1180326 wrote: Simple economics - no publican is going to turn away a significant proportion of his clientÃ¨le in the hope of getting an improved attendance from the rest.

Personally, I find the government's stance hypocritical - either smoking is a such a serious health risk to both smokers and to those around them that it justifies a ban or not. The current actions stink of a compromise determined by the existing tax revenue from the sale of tobacco.
I agree to the bolded statement. Fortunately, we in the US still, mostly, have the right (at least for the time being) to life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness -- even if that pursuit is bad for our health.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 3:53 pm

Accountable;1180346 wrote: I agree to the bolded statement. Fortunately, we in the US still, mostly, have the right (at least for the time being) to life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness -- even if that pursuit is bad for our health.

And when it is bad for the health of those around you?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 3:56 pm

Accountable;1180346 wrote: I agree to the bolded statement. Fortunately, we in the US still, mostly, have the right (at least for the time being) to life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness -- even if that pursuit is bad for our health.

As do we. I'm not objecting to the persuit of happiness if that indeed is what smoking is to some people. My problem is the impact it has in public places, on those whose pursuit of happiness involves clean air, eyes that dont sting, clothes that dont reak of old dog ends and a decent ale untainted by stale smoke.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:00 pm

Bryn Mawr;1180348 wrote: And when it is bad for the health of those around you?

Snowfire;1180350 wrote: As do we. I'm not objecting to the persuit of happiness if that indeed is what smoking is to some people. My problem is the impact it has in public places, on those whose pursuit of happiness involves clean air, eyes that dont sting, clothes that dont reak of old dog ends and a decent ale untainted by stale smoke.
No one has to patronise a pub that allows smoking.

Sorry ... No one had to patronise a pub that allowed smoking before activists that didn't want their particular pub to reek of tobacco forced all of them to ban smoking.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:07 pm

Accountable;1180353 wrote: No one has to patronise a pub that allows smoking.

Sorry ... No one had to patronise a pub that allowed smoking before activists that didn't want their particular pub to reek of tobacco forced all of them to ban smoking.

The difference now, is that both smoking and non smoking groups of friends - and lets face it , thats most groups - can now enjoy the same establishments and each others company. The only hassle is the occasional visit to a smoking area. Thats not a HUGE amount meddling in someones enjoyment of a quite pint down the local

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:07 pm

Accountable;1180353 wrote: No one has to patronise a pub that allows smoking.

Sorry ... No one had to patronise a pub that allowed smoking before activists that didn't want their particular pub to reek of tobacco forced all of them to ban smoking.

I go back to the point that was made about the driver's right to drive on the sidewalk - banning it restricts his rights but preserves the greater right of those who wish to pursue their life in health.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 7:59 pm

Kathy Ellen;1180175 wrote: I don't care if people smoke away from me as I don't want to breathe in their smoke.

I'm just so sick of people throwing their cigarettes on the ground. During the summer months I clean up about 50 or more cigs on my lawn.

Granted, I do smoke KE, but would never throw it on your lawn. I have a little cachet thingy to throw them in for the beach. Very handy.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:16 pm

Kathy Ellen;1180175 wrote: I don't care if people smoke away from me as I don't want to breathe in their smoke.

I'm just so sick of people throwing their cigarettes on the ground. During the summer months I clean up about 50 or more cigs on my lawn.

I am a smoker, but I respect the rights of anyone that I am around, if they don't want me to smoke.........I don't.

It's common courtesy, respect and just the knowing why they do not want to be around smoke.

- I never throw my butts anywhere.....there are either in my car ashtray or if I go outdoors somewhere, I have a tiny tiny ashtray in my purse to butt them out in.......even driving my own car and in my own home..........I will not smoke if anyone asks me not to.

Everyone that does smoke must respect the wishes of others.

I do not smoke at homes where I visit if they are non-smokers...I take it outside and smoke it, and put it in an ashtray.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:43 am

Accountable;1180323 wrote: In my country, a proprietor can deny service to anyone not willing to play by the established rules (with the exception of ethnic considerations). Isn't it that way in your country?

Not in the UK. Non-smoking pubs were never a success in themselves. Legislation forced all pubs to be non-smoking. This is a major contributory factor to the closure of these establishments.

notobaccocampaign · Post by **notobaccocampaign** » Wed May 27, 2009 2:20 am

it's a good idea to have a smoke-free country like Britain. and eventually other countries will follow the same regulations. let us support World No Tobacco Day.

On May 31, 2009, we are celebrating the annual WORLD NO TOBACCO DAY. This campaign will focus on both primary and secondary smoking, the right to clean air and prevention of addiction to nicotine. Let's join the cause as countries from all parts of the globe join hand in hand in promoting a future free of tobacco. You can get more information by going to this link

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed May 27, 2009 4:15 am

notobaccocampaign;1194918 wrote: let us support World No Tobacco Day.

On May 31, 2009, we are celebrating the annual WORLD NO TOBACCO DAY.
Sure! Freedom's way overrated anyway.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Wed May 27, 2009 4:57 am

Wonder how far away the day is when government decides to make us all look more presentable by forcing us into uniforms befitting our social or career "rank".

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun May 31, 2009 2:42 pm

hoppy;1194939 wrote: Wonder how far away the day is when government decides to make us all look more presentable by forcing us into uniforms befitting our social or career "rank".

About a million years - you certainly cannot be suggesting it as a serious possibility.