How can smokers complain about the new ban to be introduced?

Question

There is proof that passive smoking is harmful so surely it is a basic human right not to be poisoned by other peoples smoke so how can they(smokers) moan about having their human rights infringed? and surely it is a step in the right direction giving out the message to youngsters that smikng isn't socially accepted? btw ( I am a smoker but I respect other peoples rights) I simply have no argument. What right do I have to harm other peoples health?So just what is the pro smokers argument?

Answer 1

I'm a smoker, but I've always respected the rights of people who don't smoke. In addition to the health risks, I can understand how someone just plain wouldn't want to smell smoke while eating or enjoying some other event. So even before smoking bans swept the nation, I never smoked in public places.

However, I disagree with smoking bans to the extent that private business owners should have the right to allow smoking in their facilities; for example, in bars. All that would be needed would be a sign stating that smoking is allowed. Then one could either choose to enter, or not. Seems reasonable to me.

Answer 2

The harm of passive smoke has been refuted on several levels and is not nearly as accepted as it was 20 years ago. Not only that but it is more an infringement on business owners than it is on smokers. Why can't a pub owner decide if he wants a smoke free pub? Why does big brother have to decide. It is just another small freedom being taken away, personally I don't really care if it is banned or not, but it is an infringement on freedom. Nicotine has been proven to be more addictive than cocaine and heroin, so why is it legal at all? Because it is a tax windfall. If there is lost tax revenue from this ban, who do you think is going to pay for it. Everyone, including the non-smokers. Prehaps you think that payng over 50% of your wages in income tax, fuel tax, luxury tax, road tax, and other hidden taxes is not enough, but I do.

Answer 3

The smoking ban in public spaces is good and really can't be complained about....in enclosed spaces; where the smoke will linger and therefore affect other people's rights. The cause for complaint surely is that this ban apparently can be enforceable in car parks (for example) attached to public buildings!! This means that smokers can't even nip outside for a smoke where the social risks to bystanders are surely negligible! It smacks of yet another governmental knee-jerk reaction, badly thought through: either make cigarettes illegal completely or give smokers a little lee-way. Btw I am a non-smoker.

Answer 4

We had a local smoking ban of all local places and family dining. Restaurants could allow smoking after 9pm because after 9 families were home and it's mainly social hours. We had a big uproar about it, but you know everybody is okay with it now. Honestly, I think how we did it was the best. During hours when families (with children) are out no smoking. You usually only spend an hour or two eating anyways. Then after 9pm when it's not so much eating, but social smoking sections are is allowed. Also smoking is allowed in place that make like over 3/4 of their profit from alcohol (bars). I think it does meet people half way.

Answer 5

The option to smoke is a right, in this country everybody has the right to do what they choose to do. alcohol is a drug which in excess consumption kills, maims, tears apart families etc. Why, if we can ban the use of a certain drug why not another. Sure, passive smoking is not right and nor is the disposal of butts in the street. Why cant smokers have designated establishments where they can enjoy a cigarette? Because non smokers will go there and complain. If you dont like 2nd hand smoke, stop hanging around with your family, friends and colleagues who smoke, go to a different bar, start hanging out in libraries rather than bars. Smokers have less rights than non smokers yet who does all the whining??

Answer 6

The smoking ban is simply a waste of time. Segmenting smoking is not the right aproach.

The law should say it is illegal to smoke in the presence of a non-smoker as the smoker is subjecting them to passive smoke. Which is equal to intensionally poisoning the non-smokers.

I was at the bus stop the other day and the amount of smoke I was inhaling for two smokers was so much I had to move away from the place. Why should it be legal for these bloks inconvience me?

Answer 7

I repeat, and completely agree with the previously submitted comments below :-

Why cant smokers have designated establishments where they can enjoy a cigarette? Because non smokers will go there and complain. If you dont like 2nd hand smoke, stop hanging around with your family, friends and colleagues who smoke, go to a different bar, start hanging out in libraries rather than bars. Smokers have less rights than non smokers yet who does all the whining??

We, in Britain, are living in what can only be called a Police-State.
Today it's a never-ending crusade against smokers (20-25% of the population). This will be followed by the anti-drinking campaigners, more pressure by the health-police on our eating habits, further taxes on car drivers, more guilt piled on us by the 'Save the Planet' looneys, etc, etc, etc.

Answer 8

Firstly, the link between passive smoking, although proven, has not yet been pubilcly contrasted with other risks to pulmonary, cardiac and general health. What is the risk from my inhalation of vehicle fumes? Both cigarette smoke and vehicle exhaust have benzo chemicals that are contained within the generic description of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The same chemicals manifest in the Maillard reaction, that occurs when meat is browned in an oven.

As a smoker of a pipe, and occasional cigars, I am prepared to accept the risk to myself, but, until I see evidence publicly displayed, that the risk of inhalation by non-smokers of the by-products found in fumes caused by burning that do not originate from tobacco are less than those caused by passive smoking, I will remain opposed to the smoking ban, as an infringement to my human rights. After all, the Polycyclics (PCBs) released from diesel exhaust are particulate, and if these particles chance to lodge in the lung of a non-smoker, what redress does such a person have. Are they being made aware of this danger to the same extent that people are being made aware of the risks of passive smoking.

Our human rights are being eroded rapidly. In England, Parliament is increasingly passing bills that end up in legislation as crimes of strict liability. This means that you can be convicted of a crime even though you had no intention to carry out the crime (in Common Law, the Prosecution has to prove not only that the crime was committes [actus reus], and that there was an intention of the accused to commit the crime [mens rea-guilty mind]. With offences of strict liability, the guilty mind need not be proven. Ergo, one passes a red traffic light to make space for an ambulance to get by, and you can be convicted of an offence. The legislation re smoking is just one way that our freedoms are being gradually, and insiduously, eroded.

I would support the right of the non-smoker to be free of ***-fumes, but this can be achieved by means of separation and ventilation. Pubs, particularly wet-trade pubs (those that do not serve cooked food, and depend for their trade on drinkers), can have two bars, and the smoking bar can be screened off from the servery. Smokers will have to enter the non smoking area to buy their drinks (this protects the staff).

If logic is pursued to its grisly end, drinking alcohol in pubs will be banned, inasmuch that the risk of an intoxicated person turning violent and assaulting the bar person will be deemed prejudicial to the health and safety of the staff. So we can all drink at home, outside of all social controls, smoke our heads off, use illegal substances, and annoy our neighbours by playing music at excessive volumes until dawn supervenes, or we all conk out. There ain't much redress against this - yet.

Answer 9

I am smoker who has managed to stop, but I still think that this witch hunt against the smokers is unfair, the non smokers always had their place in public places and restaurants so the smokers should have the some privilege. What a lot of you do not seem to understand is that quiting is extremely difficult, if it was cocaine you would get help, and nicotine is harder to give up.

Answer 10

There is too much talk about fundamental human rights on this issue.

I thought human rights were about:

Freedom from fear of persecution (no, smokers, I don't mean you - I mean real persecution that puts people in fear of their lives);

Freedom from discrimination (no, smokers, you can't rank alongside victims of institutional racism and sexism);

Freedom from torture (no, non-smokers, an hour in a smoky pub doesn't put you up there with Saddam's victims)

and suchlike.

The competing arguments seem to me:

PRO-BAN Simple health improvement issues; The wishes (notice I didn't say RIGHTS) of the majority to enjoy a smoke free environment.

ANTI-BAN Freedom of the individual, how much should the state decide how private companies (restaurants, pubs) run their businesses?

The tax issue is a complex one, but it seems to me that thanks to smokers, I, a non-smoker pay less tax since:

Smokers pay more tax on their cigarettes

Smokers die younger so spend less years drawing pensions.

I'm not sure about the cost of treating smoking related diseases, but doesn't everyone die of something? The NHS will have to bear the cost of treating my non-smoking related fatal disease, when my time comes.

I've had a long rant - I think I'm just about in favour of the ban, but it's about my personal comfort in pubs, restaurants etc, not any "fundamental human right" I have.