The Smoking Ban...(UK) Don't you feel cheated by the government?

Question

The new legislation comes into force on July 1st 2007. The question is, why have I had to put up with inhaling other people's smoke in public for 8 years? Smoking is disgusting, irresponsible, smelly and expensive. The only advantage of it is that it puts tar and chemicals in your lungs...no hang on that's also bad. Why has it taken our government so long to prevent non-smokers inhaling smoke passively. In this health and safety-concious country, surely this should have been much, MUCH sooner due to the health implications?

Answer 1

You would think so, but smoking brings in much needed revenue, which is why they haven't had a ban before now, for fear of upsetting the smokers who might then actually quit this disgusting habit and therefore not provide the revenue needed, However, it's taken the government this long to be able to understand the figures, and realise that smoking related diseases cost more for the NHS than the actual cigarettes are bringing in.

Answer 2

Just had to respond a bit to modo_komo

'our society is totally reliant on people's ability to drive cars. If cars were banned, society, as we know it, would cease'
I have to disagree - commercial road transport is built into our infrastructure but private road use is way higher than it needs to be.

The change in emphasis that an all-out smoking ban would make on the health service would primarily be a reduced pressure on research into treating those dieases, and perhaps more resources to research other illnesses. However, as the dieases caused by smoking will still be taxing the health service for a generation and a half to come, we ourselves will see little of the benefits of this. The savings the NHS would make on treating smoking-related diseases would be large - but please do not expect these savings to be passed on to other (would you say 'more deserving'?) patients. The savings would go exactly where the savings made from cutting back on staffing go now - straight into the pockets of the middle and upper management.

'The only right smokers are losing is the right to breath it into other people's faces and drop their butts everywhere' it is already agains most local council's byelaws to drop butts, same as any other litter. Where I live (Berkshire), you can be fined £75 on the spot for doing so.

Other posters are right about the tax as well - there will suddenly be a big hole in the Treasuary which I would bet everyone is going to have to fill - smokers or not.

I smoke, but love the fact I will be able to go to a bar and not come home reeking of smoke. While I will miss smoking with a drink or a coffee, I alrady go outside to smoke at my flat, at work, my parent's house and at my friends' houses, so what difference will it really make? None, except that nagging fact that someone else made this decision for me....

Answer 3

In a way yes, I can endure a little passive smoking but not too much. Fact is you can't avoid pollutants and carcinogens in this world, I think a bigger issue is car exhaust fumes, everyone drives and we are draining our oil supplies, it's wrecking the atmosphere and climate and it's poisonous. People die every year from Carbon Monoxide poisoning!
An alternative fuel which is healthier ideally totally non-toxic (we live in hope) should be developed and implemented, unfortunately that's expensive and people want to drive fast cars and not slower electric ones, industry doesn't want the cost of developing water/solar/alternative cars.
At least something is being done about the smoking. On the other side I oppose the idea of a nanny state but there's a balance to be found somehow.
Why has it taken 8 years?, as other people have said: it's about money, smoking is bad for us but good for the government's pocket.

Answer 4

I wouldn't like to be part of any such campaign...there is corruption in almost all levels in India, the politicians being the most corrupt...the Police don't seem too eager to touch them, like they were in dis case...what SS did was horrible and Delhi police deserve all d accolades for apprehending them, but going beyond a level just to crucify these three doesn't look all l that civil....a life ban and some token jail sentence would be punishment enough.....

Answer 5

No i don't feel cheated (i'm a smoke yes but never have smoked out of the house in restraunts etc and never smoke around on smokers if my kids are in the house I go out doors)
I would like to also point out that the Smoking in public places ban has been in force in Scotland since MARCH this year.

Answer 6

I'm always amazed when I read some people's responses on this topic.

For example: comparing smoking to the car industry is a bad argument in favour of smoking.
Unfortunately, our society is totally reliant on people's ability to drive cars. If cars were banned, society, as we know it, would cease. This is not the case with smoking. Some things would change, but, on the whole, life would continue as it has.

It is true that smoking carries a lot of tax weight, but that is no reason to not stop it. Because prices in something else might rise is not really a good enough reason to stop children being exposed to passive smoke.

Imagine the drop in the number of patients needing care for heart and lung problems as a result of a ban on smoking.
As well as saving lives, it would take considerable weight off of the struggling health service. You never know, the savings may cover the loss in tax revenue.

Lastly, the ban is only on smoking in public. Nobody is taking away your right to chose whether or not you smoke.
The only right smokers are losing is the right to breath it into other people's faces and drop their butts everywhere.

Answer 7

Your right but the government get so much money from smokers i.e the tax on a packet of fags! They needed to drag it out for as long as they can.
Smoking is a drug addition to nicotine. and the government decided to use the smokers as a way of gaining money. The only problem now is a lot of smokers will give up smoking so where will they get the tax money form next????

Answer 8

Not going to add much to the debate but I do dislike smokers who always use the puerile if you don't like it tough approach - we pay our way etc.; or I don't like your car smell - frankly what amazes me is that as a non-smoker for my whole life I have had to put up with a dwindling group of people who pollute the air and risk others health. Now there are just some 20% of people in the UK who smoke who want to act as though they are a persecuted minority in need of protection. Simple thing is 80% of people choose not to smoke. I don't want smoke in my drink, coffee, cafe, restaurant or anywhere else. And yep you know what if you all stop great! If the taxes go up yippee don't care as life willbe better for not having to smell that crap you smoke

Answer 9

It will be so nice to finally go out again to the pub or a restaurant, to have a social life again.

I think the delay has partially been due to tax considerations, partially down to the extreme lobbying by the certain companies and the scientists and lawyers who have been paid to put forward the idea that second hand smoke can't hurt anyone.

Still, now that the Government has seen the error of it's ways, it is going to recoup the monies lost by people giving up smoking, by taxing us for using the roads.

We cannot win.

Answer 10

The worst thing that could happen is for the smokers to all give up smoking. See how much your taxes would increase by?

If you have a good look at air quality then you may realise smoking is not the real problem but car exhausts and factories spewing out tons of irritants which effect breathing.