From 1st July, a smoking ban will be implemented in England, to ban all smoking in pubs.Thousands of Council workers will be trained and employed, at a cost of millions, to go into pubs undercover and fine anybody found lighting up.
The law was applied in Scotland without any major problems. Trade is now booming, will it work here?
70% of the country don't smoke, 30% do. Should non - smokers be exposed to smoke?
Will there be trouble in pubs if smokers are told to stub out their cigarrette?
Should smokers be forced to smoke outside of all public places or is that unfair?
Should the Government outlaw cigarrettes completely?
Will landlords go out of business?
2007-02-16
11:22:34
·
8 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Law Enforcement & Police
What an absolute waste of time and resources,councils would be fairer if they spent the money on essential services,people should be free to smoke if they want to,in a pub or bar etc. a room should be put aside for smoking,like the smoke rooms in old pubs where cigars and pipes could be smoked,before anyone jumps in here, I do not and never have smoked!
2007-02-17 01:28:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The councils already enforce numerous laws and who said anything about entrapment?that is illegal.This new law is just another on a very long list that council officers have to deal with.
If cigarettes are outlawed then you might as well put up signs saying heres a new bussiness opportunity for organised crime.In pubs if people dont conform they will be asked to leave and if necessary ejected a landlord already has that power.
2007-02-17 04:16:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by frankturk50 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Training for those who have to deal with the consequences of bad law is essential.
Once a law is in place it needs to be enforced or it becomes a farce.
In the case of the smoking situation sufficient people have consistently made enough noise for it to become interesting for the politicians to get involved. They need helpers, so any minority issue that can be beefed up is worth pedalling if it gets your leaflets out and your votes in.
Whilst I agree with the efforts to reduce smoking, the argument that it will save the NHS money is nonsense. It may delay the day you arrive in hospital, or change the reason you arrive, but one day you will arrive (or die trying). In the meantime you will have consumed perhaps 10 times as much value in Doctors and nurses time and pills/ operations etc.
Will you have had a better quality of life? That should be the case, not not necessarily a longer one, and for that reason alone attempts to tackle all addictions are beneficial.
If they were truly serious they would ban the sale and manufacture of tobacco products in this country, but that would expose their hypocrisy over drugs like cannabis. The laws on which have been relaxed because so many of them smoked the stuff at university and may still be regular users.
2007-02-16 20:39:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by noeusuperstate 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Well to implement the system is really simple.They don't need people to entrap smokers.The proprieter of any public institution MUST comply with the law.If a smoker lights up he/she is told to leave the premises.If they refuse the proprieter calls the police.This transition will occur smoothly and without incident.Far from being detrimental to business it increases it.One only has to look at public transport,theatre,dining out etc all are better for this ban.Only the alcohol trade believes this is a bad law.Bet they don't want sued by thier bar staff for not providing a smoke free work place.
2007-02-16 20:07:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
If a landlord wants to allow people to smoke on his premises then that should be ok, people who don't want to mingle with smokers can go elsewhere where smoking is not allowed.
It is not for the government to have a say on this matter, but if the government want to ban smoking altogether then that's what they should do as it is with other drugs.
2007-02-17 09:20:09
·
answer #5
·
answered by mr bump 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
MY own opion, I think it is an invasion of privacy, what about the drunk drivers who kill more people in a shorter period of time that have no choice but as a non-smoker you can choose to walk out or move. WE don't live in a communism nation but inch by inch its a cinch. What will it be next-obesity-they gonna weigh everybody that tries to go in McDonalds. It's a crock. Why not put seat belts on our childrens buses and quit worrying aBOUT THE SMALL STUFF.I DON'T THINK IT IS A PROBLEM, A KID GOING TO WAR IS SOMETHING TO WORRY ABOUT. SECOND HAND SMOKE IS NOTHING, GET UP AND MOVE.
2007-02-16 19:37:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Smokers pay for the right to dig their own graves with golden shovels, not to ruin my health! So looking forward to having a pint and a meal in a smoke free pub. Bus shelters in the rain, you're waiting for a bus and someone sits next to you and lights up, choose, breath their $h1t or get wet. ARGH!!!
2007-02-16 19:33:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by Avon 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
no pubs will not go out of business
2007-02-16 20:15:23
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋