RE: The smoking ban?

Question

I'm a smoker but don't own a car, does that mean people should have to switch off their engines as I walk through the street?

Ha, what a bunch of self righteous fecktards we have here today. Do you not use plastic wrappings, fossil fuels, aerosols or wear sweat-shop made brand name clothing?

Answer 1

Ha ha I agree its not fair they are taking away our right to choose! Iv said it before and I doubt this will be the last time make food houses non somking make non food houses smokeing! Then everyone is happy!"

And before you non smokers go all crazy with-"what about our freedom of choice not to breath your smoke!" You will have freedom of choice you can go to the pub down the road where they are a non smokers pub! At least that way you can have the choice your not forced into anythin!

Plus think of the possible job losses that could occure from little pubs closing who rely on their local trade many of which could be those terrible smokers. The doo gooders dont think far enough ahead....

Answer 2

You can choose to be a non-smoker or an intolerant anti-smoker. At the very least, smoking should be allowed in those pubs, where the owner decides to allow it. If not, the owner may choose to have a no smoking pub. That seems fair, and staff can choose where to work according to their predilections. But make no mistake, the affects of so called passive smoking have been massively exaggerated to gain support for the anti-smoking campaign.

What people don't seem to understand is that intolerance becomes persecution and it spreads to other things. If you are a smoker, you are a pariah, but if you take drugs, and probably commit crime to feed the habit, you are regarded as a victim.

You are quite right, motor vehicles emit far more dangerous fumes, and there are toxins in so many other everyday substances, not to mention food, that, why the overboard obsession with smoking. Why not improve ventilation.

The hysterical smoking ban (particularly in pubs) is a testament to the power of the government, supported by the media, to whip up a storm based on false information, and to use this to indoctrinate a gullible public into doing its work for it.

Answer 3

I am an ex smoker (always the worst!) and whilst I don't agree with the government telling us what we can and cant do, I must say I cant wait for the smoking ban.

Yes i expect we all use things we shouldn't, but its absolutely awful trying to enjoy a night out or a meal with someone puffing second hand smoke your way, and smelling like an old ashtray when you get home. Non smoking areas have never worked as smoke travels. But I also appreciate that smokers want to enjoy a night out too, and what happens when smokers and non smokers go out together. I really cant see how it will work.

Answer 4

I object to the smoking ban because:

a). Cafes etc should be allowed to provide areas where people can smoke- to be fair to their customers...
That would mean people can still enjoy a drink with a cigarette i.e. if you're stressed...

b). Whenever someone dies of a (stress-related) heart attack & they are a cigarette smoker, that is classified as death caused by smoking (& so are a lot of other conditions) which means the statistics to "prove" the link / dangers are grossly inadequate
(& smokers do help pay for the NHS...)

c) Where I live, you cannot go out on the streets after 6pm because of all the grown-up kids swaying about gang-style, very obnoxiously & swearing their heads off AGGRESSIVELY because they are already drunk!
They think they are so "in" & kool but my child thinks they're CRAZY.

They should also BAN ALCOHOL to be fair, as that has screwed up & killed countless millions of lives, whilst costing tax-payers HUGE sums...

d). If tobacco is now classed as harmful & it means by using these we are actually "self-harming"
then surely madly encouraging petrol sales
which cause poisonus fumes to spew out of the backsides of our cars, trains, planes etc.,
should be classified as harmful,
especially as that is linked to global warming which threatens the lives of countless millions of people, & possibly our survival as a species!

e). The government's hypocrisy is astounding! Their decisions often have harmful consequences
EG. This nation has recently lost 100 good men illegally because of duplicity. Surely the government's ill-thought out, economic & war mongering policies
should be classified as harmful to humans too?

The list of contenders goes on...

f). Chemical-based pesticides, herbicides, insecticides

g). pumping sewage into the sea

h). Nuclear energy...

Answer 5

In some places if you're idling more than 10 seconds you have to turn off your engine. So yes, I guess so BUT as an ex smoker it's really not that big of a deal. Public smoking has been banned for a few years now and if I was still a smoker I wouldn't care. My boyfriend smokes and he deals.

Answer 6

As an ex smoker I can sympathise. However, the one thing that annoys me when I go on a night out, (apart from how expensive it is now because of all the binge drinkers who've caused the government to hick up the prices) is coming home stinking of cigarettes!

Answer 7

Yippeee, no smoking, I can't WAIT! I've spent all my life (well, the old-enough-to be-going-out-bit) putting up with breathing in people's manky smell of smoke. Now, in the essence of fairness, all the smokers are going to have to put up with my non-smelliness inside bars. AND you don't potentially get killed for it either! What a deal. Pity they can't put a ban on people who wear enormous quantities of reeking perfumes as well. Or have BO. And yes, or idling cars, I don't own one either and I'd LOVE to have no emissions from them. Then again, I do eat, and I'm sure my food will have to be transported by lorry at some point in the food chain...hmmm. Complex. As for the taxes going up as the government has no revenue because smokers stop smoking, I'm sure my National Insurance bill will go down to compensate, due to the downturn of having to support people with lung cancer, whether due to direct or passive smoking. Then again, maybe people who smoke can just carry on, and get Darwin awards....and reduce the population, and then there'll be more space for me and all my non-smelliness.

Answer 8

Only those who chose to buy SUVs. It's all relative, just as there are let offensive options for smokers (patches guys, chew) there are certainly more responsible vehicle choices for drivers.


hehe care fumes aren't as deadly as smoke. I could lock myself in a garage with 20 smokers for an hour and emerge much more alive than being locked in a garage with a running car.

Answer 9

You got a point there, I am a smoker but I don't pollute the air half as much as the vehicles out there, why the heck can't they just leave us alone, and as for the non-smokers if you don't want to inhale my fumes then stay clear of me when I smoke, they say smoking kills you but a cars fumes are more potent to any human being than any damn cigarette is.
Yes if that is what it takes for govenment to realise that cars are also polluting the air, with all the crap that comes out of the exhaust.

Answer 10

I think they should have too turn off their engines, they are putting out more smoke than you do. I think the smoking ban is because the tobacco companies pissed off some politicians, you know how them Liberal are, their way or they get with the Media and turn it into some kind of conspiracy or bad for the health thing. Before some one starts making allegations , I do not smoke.