Soon smoking will soon be banned in pubs, should the next thing banned be that other social ill...alcohol?

Question

Steve C - People do get killed from just one night on a binge. Tell me how many new smokers have been killed after a day. And there are alcohol related murders and assaults...or is that acceptable?

Answer 1

I agree, of course I do love to drink, but it seems that people in power are going after other issues less dangerous. Like pot for example. There are no immediate negative effects. Even the long term effects are minimal. But alcohol can kill within a night, or get you killed in a car, or make you gain a huge stomach, etc. Smoking is already banned in Washington, (where I'm from) in all indoor spaces including pubs/bars. It seems to me that you should be able to smoke whatever you want. And that drinking should be a little more looked at than these others.

Answer 2

Not strictly true, part of the problem here is how much it now costs to actually go out and have a drink, the government and the breweries are as much to blame for dwindling numbers in pubs. There is an organisation called CAMRA campaign for real ale and their figures are something like 46 pubs pubs closing every month, that was long before the smoking ban came into force. There are many other factors besides, not necessarily just because of the smoking ban. I bet you if it was reintroduced tomorrow it wouldn't change much, there's been dwindling numbers for a long time. well that may your experience but not mine, most of the people i know drink beer, and i am fully awake thank you. No need to get shirty. I would just putting across a point.

Answer 3

So alcohol only causes harm to those who imbibe it, unlike second hand smoke which kills others?? For a start, to say that second hand smoke kills is a complete exageration - what propaganderous nonsense have people been listening to? And to say that alcohol only affects those that drink it is just as much an exageration. What about the countless pissed up chavs that loiter the streets on a weekend evening, spewing up in gutters, causing fights, damaging property and wasting police time that the hard working tax payer funds? Ever heard of drink drivers that rob people of their lives behind the wheel of a car?

Let me make it clear that I am a non smoker and a drinker. I am just fed up with this country's constant desire to try and infringe upon peoples lifestyles and the sheep-like bleating of the masses who agree with whatever the government tells them. Just let the ban brigade carry on you repressed idiots - next time it may well be a ban on something you enjoy.

Answer 4

Below I've looked at smoking, but in relation to alcohol, it wouldn't be the first time. Look at the prohibition laws in the States. Realistically, up to a point, more education on alcohol is a really good thing. We have the DrinkAwre campign for a start ( http://www.drinkaware.co.uk ) here and already they are talking about warning on wine.

Binge drinking is just a ridiculous problem, especially among teenagers and young adults in the UK. They have...
*Bah, don't get me started, I'm old and grumpy!!!

It's rather nasty really, if you think about it. They know they have to ban cigarette ahead, so they (Labour) introduce 24 hour drinking to push up the revenue from alcohol. Then, inch by inch, they find evidence that it's bad for you and wrack up the tax on booze (even more) to make up the losses. What a bunch of hypocrits, eh! And planning for this they relax the gambling laws and introduce super-casinos.

However we look at it, if you live in the UK, you are so screwed!

For the legal - official standpoints on smoking (in the UK)

http://www.smokefreeengland.co.uk/...
and
http://www.gosmokefree.co.uk/
Both run by the NHS in conjuction with the NHS

Doesn't especially answer your question but whichever side of the smoking / no smoking lobby you stand on, there are three factors you can't escape:

1. Cigarette company are making billions,despite the huge chunk taken in taxes and it costs a LOT to smoke

2. Even the cigarette companies (now) freely admin - It WILL affect your health, It can and frequently does KILL.

3. In the UK at any rate, the ban kicks in in full force and those that does like it will have to suck it up! (pun intended)

No prizes for guessing which side of the fences I sit on, but you have to wonder - You have a product with absolutely no benefits, that is proven you harm or kill you and those around you, but the manufacturers are inviolate. It's not corporate manslaughter is you are stupid enough to ignore the advice and warnings they (now) give in big bold letters but don't want you to take.

Hmmm?

I have a site on smoking as it happens. Not really populated but I only put it in this month, but there's a forum with polls for folk to vent their own views:

http://www.smokingrelated.com/smokingfor...

Rather good video on the site too, (from YouTube) by a teenager doing media studies

Answer 5

No, but smoking kills others not just the smokers, and some of us dont like the smell.

Lets keep alcohol for the over 25's only.

Answer 6

Lots of good points here...though I agree most with "xfilian1". Let's face it: there are dangers in almost EVERYthing we do. This smoking ban is just opening the door.
Where I live, there's a "click it or ticket" law. I can be fined for not wearing my seatbelt.
What is happening? None of us have minds of our own? Have we lost the ability to make decisions that are in our best interests and the interests of our families? You wonder why the term "sheep" is tossed about so frequently around here.

Answer 7

Absolutely right. Alcohol related illnesses cost industry millions every year with people taking time off to get over their hangovers.

A large proportion of crime is carried out under the influence of alcohol, not to mention the street fights in any town or village up and down the country on a Friday/Saturday night.

However, the government will never, ever take any action to restrict the availability of alcohol because of the tax revenue it raises; the same applies to tobacco.

Government [of which ever colour] will never take positive action of these 2 huge generators of income, thereby confirming the hypocrisy of those who assume to tell us what is best for us.

Answer 8

No one has ever been forced to patronize or work for an establishment that allows smoking.

Their are plenty of places non-smokers can go who's owners choose not to allow smoking.

If you don't want to breath second hand smoke don't go to an establishment that allows smoking.
The second hand smoke argument does not hold water.

You don't have a right to go to a smoking alowed pub and then throw a fit about people smoking in it.

Answer 9

They did bann alcohol once. It didnt last to long though....being a smoker myself, we can still smoke in bars and restaurant. I think MS, TN, LA, and the other southern states will be the last ones to pass this law. I think they should still make bars that you can smoke in, they should just put up signs making all customers aware that smoking is allowed in the bar

Answer 10

No, because they can't pretend that alcohol directly hurts others standing around like they do with second-hand smoke. They'll just continue to tax the hell out of it. It's quite the money-maker, you know...Especially in states like mine (WA) that have state-controlled liquor sales.

By the way - the air you breath in driving to the pub is more harmful than the hour of second-hand smoke you might injest. Let's be honest with ourselves, folks...Smoking bans are for the convenience, NOT health, of non-smokers. If the government was worried about our lungs, there are a million things more dangerous to us than the occasional second-hand smoke (that you can easily avoid by going into non-smoking establishments).