Is a blanket ban on smoking an infirngement on human rights by taking away freedom of choice?

Answer 1

I have answered a number of questions like this, so, I hope you will forgive me for not wanting to go on at length about it again. I basically agree with you, by the way. I have been prepared to compromise with non-smokers, perhaps I mean, anti-smokers, regarding the banning of smoking in the workplace, cinemas, theatres and similar public places. Mainly, because I think that it is a fire risk, and it does discolour and pollute the furnishings, somewhat. I don't accept the nonsense about passive smoking, any intelligent person must know that it is grossly exaggerated. Even Professor Doll, the first person to connect smoking with cancer, accepted this. Incidentally, cigarettes produced much more tar in his day. (Also no filters).

I draw the line though at banning smoking in Public Houses. Smoking, drinking, and resolving the worlds problems, have always been the meat and veg. of public houses, it is why they are there, it is their raison d'etre. I have even been prepared to make a compromise here, let the owners of the establishment, together with their customers decide whether to allow smoking or not. Even that, is not good enough, and you can't even smoke in a bus shelter. There are about 17 million smokers in the UK, that is one hell of a minority. It has reached the point of meanness and vindictiveness. Intolerance breeds persecution.

Most of these intolerant people are probably against many other things too, they seem to specialise in it. I would much prefer the company of a sociable smoker than a moralising prig, who probably never uses pubs.

When a non-smoker leaves his sanitised home, he is in a smoke free enviroment for at least 99.9% of the time. Are non-smokers really that mean that they can't cut smokers some slack in the one place that smoking has a tradition going back centuries, the pub.

If the poor dears are so sensitive, why don't they improve air conditioning systems? that would also help us to avoid breathing in germs viruses etc, far more dangerous than diluted cigarette smoke. Pubs weren't created for hyper sensitive, nannying control freaks. I am going to say it, because it is true, It is the increasing influence of women in society/Government that has helped lead to this nannying intolerant culture. Anti-smoking intolerence has been imposed on us, with the help of indoctrination, rather than demanded from the bottom up by ordinary people.

So, I agree with you, but I also detest the Human Rights Act, spawn of the EU. It is the EU that has helped create this left-wing nannying culture, and turned us all into a bunch of old women.
I use the term 'old women' in a generic sense, please don't take it personally.

Answer 2

As an occasional smoker I get a bit annoyed by the way people get worked up about a bit of cigarette smoke, particularly in the street. Folks are quite happy to wander about town breathing in all the petrol and diesel fumes all those multitudes of vehicles can chuck out. Do we ever hear about banning vehicles from our cities on the grounds of health. No of course not. Why is that? Because almost everyone relies on some form of internal combustion engined vehicle to get them there in the first place and they wouldn't want THEIR liberties curtailing. Unfortunately for smokers they are in the minority. The more of us there are and the closer we are packed together the worse this kind of paranoia will become. I personally would sooner spend an hour in a closed building with a dozen smokers than with a chugging internal combustion engine. I'd have more chance of walking away at the end of the hour with the former than the latter. Remember smoking doesn't kill anyone. It may kill you earlier than would otherwise have been the case, but everyone dies at least once from something or other. There is NO escape.

Answer 3

Yes, it is infringing on rights, but then you have to consider the right not to be affected by smoking. Either way, someone is going to complaint. In PA, they were thinking of making a law stating that if your business pulls in 80% of it's gross sales or income (I don't remember), then you can allow people to smoke. BAsically, bars can still have smoking. All the non-smokers can go to restaurant bars and all the smokers can go to bar bars. (Smoking and drinking go hand in hand). As far as the rest, banning smoking outside is ridiculous because (unless you are intentionallu bowing smoke in peoples faces) non-smokers would not be harmed. In public indoor places...its understandable. Most smokers are used to going outside. Actually, its a very good way to make friends. If you ever notice, many smokers are considerate...standing in a corner or group. Non-smokers can avoid that and usually smokers will avoid non-smokers so they don't get dirty looks. As far as people that do not make reasonable efforts to keep their smoke away from others...they are just asshols.

Also, the comment about smokers putting a strain on the health system...that is just biased speculation. You're health insurance rates aren't higher because of smoking. Cancer is SOOO common currently it doesn't even matter if you smoke or don't. There are many people that get cancer from smoking and many that don't. There are many non-smokers that get cancer. I am NOT saying that smoking is healthy because it is not! However, there are MANY MANY MANY other things that are straining health care today and it is unfair to blame 1 class of citizens because that is what the media and the government is focusing on at the current moment.

If you actually read all this...I appreciate your patience!

*it shouldn't be side v. side. It should be both working to balance!

Answer 4

Yes it is.
Smoking is banned in more and more places.Cinemas,pubs,restaurants etc
But I believe people should be given the choice and not have legisllation ruled against them.
Why not allow the cinemas,pubs and restaurants decide for themselves if they wish to be smoking or non smoking rather than have it imposed by law.
That way I would have a choice of where I wish to go.
Smoking increases the risk of disease ,that is a fact but some people still wish to smoke.I have yet to see any positive evidence that so called "secondary smoking" even exists.
Believe it or not I am a non-smoker.If smokers want to kill themselves,let them get on with it.

Answer 5

it's an infringement pure and simple. as regards non-smokers not breathing smoke i suggest segrigation. For those timid fellows who want to live to experience alziemers and all those other lovely debilitating diseases - non-smoking pubs. probably those winebars you find yuppies in. for those who recognise that it is the fate of mankind to die at some point - smoking pubs, ie proper pubs.
Easy.
in a culture obsessed with so-called choice why don't we have the choice how we treat our bodies?
it amuses me that speeding is taken less seriously than substance abuse... driving too fast can harm other motorists, pedestrians and cyclists, substance abuse only harms the user.
Why is smoking marijuana worse than speeding? i don't get it.
if you want people to stop smoking the only answer is education.
the evidence for passive smoking is inconclusive by the way, i am aware of many heavy smokers who didn't die of lung cancer or any of those other scary diseases they advertise on the packet. i'm also aware of many non-smokers who die of cancer and those same scary diseases.
Smoking is risky. yeah... so is bungy jumping. skydiving. sailing a boat can be risky. but i'm sure i'm putting others less at risk than people who do these things.

also... i'm a big boy & i'll make my own decisions!

veritas has written the most intelligent response to this subject i've ever read. & i've yet to meet a non-smoker in a pub who minds if i smoke.

there is another thing... what is the biggest cause of aging and decay in the human species (& any other life form for that matter)? oxygen. one of the most corrosive substances known to man, & cannot exist without it. we are going to die someday. but that doesn't mean you have to stop me from living.
if you legalise marijuana then hell yes ban tobacco, i'll trade i destructive drug for a destructive one. if not, leave me alone to live my life and stop meddling. smokers fund the nhs, you'll thank us when you get cancer of the colon.

'millions of non-smokers die every year' bill hicks
'it's just tobacco, the healthiest thing for you' woody allen

Answer 6

Yes, but then so is a blanket ban on heroin use and a blanket ban on stepping in front of trains.

These things all effect other people. Smokers are major users of health services and either waste money paid by tax payers or increase insurance (according to the system in place). They also pollute both the air and the environment with *** ends.

You may have a right to smoke but I have a right to fresh air (even outside I can get smoke stinking me up). How do the smokers rights outweigh mine?

Answer 7

There is no recognized freedom of choice in this country. Otherwise we could choose to do or not to do whatever we pleased. Kids could choose not to go to school. I could choose to carry a gun without a permit. An alcoholic could choose to drink a fifth of whiskey before getting behind the wheel of an automobile. The list of insanity is endless.

There is a document called the United States Constitution that might clear up some of your misperceptions. Personally, I think smoking is a disgusting habit that is not only harmful to the health of individuals and others around them, it smells disgusting.

Answer 8

seems to me you only get freedom of choice if your in a minority n we smokers are these days so i guess you could say yes it is taking away our human rights but on the other hand what about the non smokers human rights to having cleaner air n not passive smoking.

Answer 9

I am a non-smoker since 2001 but as far as I am concerned I do not have the right to tell anyone not to smoke. Some people look down on smokers, maybe they should take a good look at themselves.

Answer 10

I am a non-smoker and particularly do not care to hang around smokers because I am very intolerant of nicotine, have allergic reactions - instant headache and nose bleed - and cannot stand the stench on smokers - smelly everything. However, I think it is too invasive and way out of line for government to tell people what they can and cannot do in their private time. It is appropraite to simply inform and/or warn people of the danger involved and refuse government assistance with any resulting consequences.