For or against the smoking ban?

Question

Wow, some brilliant answers both sides.

What i have found so far with the answers is that non smokers are for comprimise, ex smokers are not hmm.

Answer 1

I presume that this is a uk based question on the impeding ban on smoking in public places? I am a smoker and have given it up in the past. I think im a polite smoker for instance if there is someone eating or if i am in the company of none smokers i wont light up or i will move away i think thats only polite, however my view with this is that we a rapidly becomeing a " police state " there is also the arguement that yes giving up will benifit perhaps millions and help free up resources in the NHS, however the downside is the revenue lost by people giving up will have to be clawed back from somewhere so you will see an increase in prices as taxes are put up to compenaste for this,(for example i like everybody pay tax on my earnings however i was shocked to find out that when i put money in to a savings account im taxed again on it ! so thats two lots of tax on the same moeny) i also believe and i have seen first hand that local economies will suffer as well the amount of small pubs near me which are either closing or have leases up for grabs is astounding ! this " the local" is another piece of the true british identity will soon disappear as people will go to the local alcohol outlet and buy what they want and invite friends round, i also believe that as an adult i have the right to decide what i do and where, i totally agree that there should be a smoking room in pubs as there used to be we would be happy with that and im sure there are enough people out there who do smoke the enable pubs to staff them adequatley and thus keep everyone happy.

And if the governement was serious why not ban the sale of tobaco completley? or is that because of the revenue they would loose ?

Answer 2

I am totally for the smoking ban, i am sick of going to pubs and clubs and coming home smelling like an ash tray. I run professionally and one night out costs me 2 days training. I dont see why us healthy people should suffer because of a disgusting habbit. I hope that one day that tobacco will be completely banned, then perhaps my taxes will go down as smokers wont be demanding health care on the NHS. This would reduce the intake by atleast 15%. For eevery 1000 male smokers the average cost on the NHS is £350,000 every 10 years an £300,000 for females. The costs are rediculous when u realise that there are 13 million smokers in the uk which amounts to £4,225,000,032 every 10 years, this is what would be saved over medical costs alone. Under tax perposes it would save the average 45 year working person a £1000. Also it would save 1 million working hours per week that the smokers waste on *** breaks. These are just a few of the problems and costs caused by tobacco.

Answer 3

I am a smoker but not addicted. I know this because I may not need another cigarette for a year at a time. I only smoke when I am stressed. I suffer hypothyroidism so my metabolism can't keep up with stress, it makes my heart muck up. I also have autism so I get stressed very easy in new situations and particularly in public where there is too much for an autistic mind to take in at once. But that is not the only reason I am against the smoking ban. I could understand if they made a law requiring separate areas for smokers with no chance of contamination of non smoker areas but otherwise it is demonising a simple choice. I believe it should be a right of every person to choose what they do as long as they don't harm others. If they choose to smoke or drink then so be it. Thanks to the ban the smokers at my college will have to miss lessons on a Tuesday just cos they have to walk two miles to get out of college grounds and to a legal smoking space. Not a distance that can be travelled in the 20 min lunch break we get. This is clearly a lead up to a complete ban on smoking, making it a substance. In case no one has noticed, banning substances these days increases their usage. Kids want to break rules no matter how you tell them why those rules are there. Take away those rules and they live more sensibly believe it or not.

Answer 4

Speaking as a smoker for 40 years plus, I agree to a partial ban but this nanny state govt has gone over the top and come up with a law that is seriously flawed because they have no foresight whatsoever and will be difficult to enforce.
There are many parts of England where the police only go round in at least pairs if not mob handed.
What chance the scab council man in dirty white mac with clip board.
Thus the scum areas will smoke in pubs and pubs in respectable areas will eventually close leaving some 200,000 part time bar staff out of work.
Another point is works vans. Who can say which is a works van and which is a private van at 70 mph on the M6.
Who can say which is a private hire vehicle and which is a private car at 70 MPH on the M62

A football match is now no smoking , how will attendances suffer?

Go to the local rec and watch the local amateurs, better game ,often free and have a ***..

I would suggest that all us smokers should agree to not smoking in shops but should boycott all pubs,clubs,cafes,football grounds,bingo halls,amusement arcades in fact anywhere that costs us where we can't smoke.
I have tried it for the last 6 months and found it no hardship.
Give it 6 months and all commerce will be up in arms.
As soon as the FAT CATS are suffering we will get a satisfactory compromise.
As I said at the beginning,I am not against a partial ban and respect the non-smokers position.
A partial ban would help me to cut down if not even to give up, but a mandatory law only gives the incentive to get round it at every opportunity.
This govt has no foreight or understanding of the human race and has reduced us to a third world country

Answer 5

In fact, if a smoker wants to go on a break, some employers force the employee to change clothes, smoke, then change back all within their smoking break. I worked in a pub in '04 and it gets frustrating always having the smoke. Now I realise that I'm on your turf but there are common sense things that need to happen. People deserve the right to breathe easy. One who's not a smoker cannot go into a popular pub without having to deal with the smoke. Second-hand smoke is extremely harmful to others. There is not just a topic of an annoyance here, but an actual health hazard. Having said all this, taking away a smoking break altogether, may be a bit harsh. Perhaps easing off of the smoking breaks would be more beneficial. Here in CA, smoking in public places has decreased the popularity of the ciggy.
Breathing is a right and so smokers are invasive. I'm extremely happy that England has finally caught up with CA.

Answer 6

Against! In a 'free market' economy the market will decide. Pubs should have a choice, then it would soon become obvious what the public wanted. If pubs with a smoking ban were making more profit than those who allowed smoking then landlords would soon introduce a ban without the need for any legislation.
If the government is so keen to protect our health then why not go a step further and introduce a ban on alcohol in pubs! Alcohol is responsible for far more social problems than smoking. Oh, and while they are at it, ban eating in restaurants as we are all obese!

Answer 7

Against. We have suffered this ban in Scotland for over a year and I only hope that the English can mount a challenge as we have failed to do so. I particularly hate coming to a Scottish Airport where you cannot smoke after a long flight when you have been banned from smoking. Areas should be set aside for those in need. Not every pub has to be non smoking but I could guarantee that if publicans had the choice most would opt to allow smoking. I agree that in places where food is served we should not smoke but object strongly to the total ban in all kinds of places. Smoking outside of Scottish pubs is indeed a very social activity as even the non smokers join us for the crack but it is a miserable time during a Scottish winter when the wind and rain are blowing through the allotted shelter space. Come on you English protest strongly and perhaps we can yet find some compromise on this issue which would suit smokers and non smokers alike.

Answer 8

Hi, I am a smoker but don't often go to pubs or clubs, I did stop for 18 months but did not deney anone else a cigarette.
Some people are heavy drinkers and I think these people are more offensive in public than smokers!! at least smokers don't get violent or abusive! or drive cars and kill people.
I think the solution should be, smoking and non smoking venues then at least peole would have the chioce, as it is, what is the choice?
I also know people that don't smoke cigarettes but smoke cannibis, that is a lot more damaging to us than fags, and it stinks, but each to their own I suppose. I am just fed up with being dictated to, as to what I can and cant do.
And finally when we have all stopped smoking, all the non smokers can then complain about all the extra tax they will have to pay to make up for tax the government will lose from the sale of tobacco products. Either way we all lose out.

Answer 9

these laws have been in place for nearly a decade. In fact, if a smoker wants to go on a break, some employers force the employee to change clothes, smoke, then change back all within their smoking break. I worked in a pub in '04 and it gets frustrating always having the smoke. Now I realise that I'm on your turf but there are common sense things that need to happen. People deserve the right to breathe easy. One who's not a smoker cannot go into a popular pub without having to deal with the smoke. Second-hand smoke is extremely harmful to others. There is not just a topic of an annoyance here, but an actual health hazard. Having said all this, taking away a smoking break altogether, may be a bit harsh. Perhaps easing off of the smoking breaks would be more beneficial. Here in CA, smoking in public places has decreased the popularity of the ciggy.
Breathing is a right and so smokers are invasive. I'm extremely ha

Answer 10

As an ex-smoker I am totally against the current perecution of smokers. The passive smoking arguement is utter rubbish and there is no scientific evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps that is why the bunch of crooks in Brussells, led by the mad cow communist President, have voted themselves the right to have smoking rooms in their workplace.

Smoking is a legal pursuit and this legislation removes a smokers rights as enshrined in The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, and British Law. The right to carry out a legitamate pursuit without fear or harassment.

Not that the Ban It Brigade care about anyone's rights except their own. They ought to be sectioned as being mentally unbalanced.

Some idiot anti-smoker was actually calling for a ban on the nicotene gel that pubs and restaraunts are planning to hand out to their customers. Ban It seems to be their new religion.