Public smoking will be banned in July 2007. How do you feel about this and will it change your lifestyle?

Question

This ban is happening in the UK. I'm interested how this ban will effect the social habits of smokers and non-smokers and if the ban is generally welcomed as a good thing.

Answer 1

I don't live in the U.K., but I disagree with the public smoking ban. The anti-smoking movement has gotten out of hand. People are entitled to their opinions, but, whether they choose to see it or not, smoking bans are just another way to "chip away" at our freedom. There could be compromises made, but the anti-smoking groups are unwilling.

Those who are cheering for what they perceive as a victory should be mindful of the fact that something they enjoy may very well be taken from them one day. Smoking in public places is just another freedom lost. People think they have won freedom- the so called freedom to breathe fresh air. But government officials and politicians don't care about you any more than the cigarette manufacturers. Their only concern is for the rich people and companies who are lining their pockets. The automobile industry, the oil industry, the meat and dairy industries, and so on- They are responsible for much of the air pollution that we are forced to breathe each day. But they are also the politicians' bread and butter, therefore actions are not taken against them. Better to keep us blind and ignorant by siding with the popular anti-smoking movement.

Anyone who contributes to industries that pollute while complaining about smokers is nothing less than a hypocrite.
You want to stomp out my cigarette while supporting the world's worst polluters. Shame on you. If you don't want to breathe the smoke, try acting like an adult and make the choice to not visit establishments that permit smoking.
Demanding that business owners prohibit smoking is no different than demanding that people not smoke in their own homes. Whoever owns the property should make the decision. Because, after all, no one is forcing you to enter. Fighting for smoking bans is the equivalent of admitting that you are too stupid to make decisions which you feel are right for you and those whom you are responsible for. And it is literally fighting for buisness owners to be robbed of their right to decide how they run their buisnesses. The solution to your problem is simple- Don't visit, or work for, establishments in which smoking is allowed.

I believe that I have an even greater right to smoke since tobacco is taxed. Who do people think they are to tell me that I can't smoke in public places when I pay a lot of money to the government for that very right? I don't see anyone fighting to end tobacco taxation. Fair is fair- If you rob me of my right to smoke in public places then my tobacco purchases shouldn't help pay for anything that society benefits from.

For those who argue that smokers help to keep people safe by smoking in their own homes, in their vehicles, etc..., I suggest you re-think your logic. In case you haven't noticed, smoke floats. The smoke from my cigarettes will end up outside. You will eventually breathe second hand smoke regardless.

There are many people who are against smoking altogether and believe that it should be outlawed. One of their arguments is that it costs a great deal of money to treat smokers for medical conditions and that society "foots" the bill for those who are uninsured. Yes, society "foots" the bill for the uninsured. But this is not a valid argument against smoking, as society foots the bill for ALL who are uninsured (not just smokers). Should we illegalize unhealthy foods and beverages? Or how about illegalizing perfume and cologne since they cause violent reactions in those who are allergic.
Sound ridiculous? It isn't any more ridiculous than smoking bans that are based upon illogical arguments, misinformation, and ignorance.

In 1998 the United States Supreme Court threw out the E.P.A.'s study, which claimed that second hand smoke kills, and called it junk science. I agree with the Supreme Court. I don't believe that second hand smoke kills. And neither do many of you, otherwise you wouldn't visit establishments in which smoking is permitted. Many of you aren't at all concerned about the effects of cigarette smoke on your health. You're just annoyed.


"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
--Ben Franklin


Something to think about-

( From: http://www.forces.org/forum/files/derrick.htm )

WHAT DOES THE LATEST WHO STUDY MEAN?

From: Derrick
To:
Subject: Hi
Date: Jan. 30, 2003

I'm researching all of the studies done about the dangers of second hand smoke, and I've read on your site of the many studies that say that second hand smoke isn't really that dangerous. But then I came across this news item about a World Health Organization/International Agency for Research on Cancer study that seems pretty comprehensive and concludes that second-hand smoke does have plenty of harmful effects!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2053840.stm

Do you have any kind of rebuttal to this study? Anything I can say to prove that second hand smoke isn't that dangerous to others? Or are they right, in fact?

Thank you!
Derrick

Dear Derrick,

Thank you for writing, as you give us yet another opportunity to clarify a fundamental point. You, and other readers, seem to think that we show only "studies that say that second hand smoke isn't really that dangerous". That is not so. With the exception of a few studies that are unavailable to the public we refer to/report ALL the studies on second hand smoke. There really aren't that many. Many of the secondhand smoke studies are recycled to support specific political agendas.

The WHO IARC study you refer to is one of those. The press releases were sent to the media months before the study was actually released. In fact, the study is still unavailable to the public. The specific reason for which it was released is to counter a 15-year study issued by the IARC in 1998. That study examined a large population base in Europe directly. It's conclusion that secondhand smoke is not a hazard dismayed the WHO so the organization attempted to bury it. The latest IARC study "buries" the previous study while simultaneously transforming the thoroughly debunked methodology used by the EPA in its secondhand smoke report into a new incarnation that scientists aren't even allowed to see!

What is the problem, then? Simple NONE of the studies shows a risk elevation that is sufficient to raise concern; "public health" has just DECIDED to get concerned for reasons that have nothing to do with science.

At worse, SOME studies get to 40-50% risk increment; others show no risk increment at all. Some even show a health benefit for those who are exposed to secondhand smoke. The average is about 8-12% risk elevation. Now, we know for a fact that risk elevations smaller than 200% (some even say 300%) DO NOT PROVE that the risk even exists, due to the immense amount of variables, errors, biases, etc. present in studies that ask often the grandchildren of a long-dead person whether mom/dad was exposed to passive smoke, for how long, etc. These types of studies with such small risk increases are really prove nothing at all.

OK. You do not believe us. Who are we to say something like that, after all? Do you believe more authoritative sources, maybe? How about the National Cancer Institute? "In epidemiologic research, relative risks of less than 2 [that is, 100% increment of risk] are considered small and usually very difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias or effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." (NCI, "Abortion and Possible Risks for Breast Cancer; Analysis and Inconsistencies", October 26, 1994).

Why the passive smoke hysteria, then? The answer is equally simple "public health" attacked small relative risk in the case of abortion causing breast cancer because liberal abortion rules are sacred among the "public health" establishment. Smaller relative risks aren't attacked in the context of second hand smoke -- and indeed, are touted -- because smoking is politically incorrect, and because the pharmaceutical giants foot the bills of antismoking activists and their junk science, to obtain an ever bigger share of public money for campaigns that induce "addicts" to quit smoking with smoking cessation "therapies", conveniently made available by Big Pharma at dear price. Get it?

The latest WHO/IARC "study"is just a recycled compendium (meta-analysis) of the same type of pre-existing junk science for passive smoke. And even after immense manipulations and massages to the databases, picking only the most significant (for their political purposes) data, what is the risk elevation? THIRTY PERCENT, far smaller than the 200% required to establish that a risk even exists!

To close (and this is very important, Derrick), don't be victim of the Inquisition-style reversed burden of proof. You don't have "to prove that second hand smoke isn't dangerous to others". YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE -- that is the first law of real science, perverted by the pandemic of the antismoking corruption we are fighting. IT IS THOSE WHO MAKE THE CLAIM WHO HAVE TO PROVE A POSITIVE, that is, that facts corroborate the claim -- read that second hand smoke hurts people. So far, an insignificant 30% risk elevation is ALL they could muster - and the methodology to get at that puny 30% is already quite manipulated, and very questionable. All the rest is just self-serving propaganda and state-promoted rhetoric.

We part with you with a recommendation buy Steven Milloy's Junk Science Judo - Self-Defence Against Health Scarers & Scams. It is all explained there, for smoking and for hundreds of other scares -- including the scam of the Smoking (active and passive) Attributable Fraction, used to calculate the non-existing "deaths" for passive smoke, and the questionable (and otherwise un-quantifiable) number of deaths for primary smoke. After reading that book, you'll know how junk science really works - and you can even create your own epidemic! Just do not forget to wear a white coat, first. Conning people on their health is the fastest-growing industry in the world. A significant job opportunity to consider today; you can make a lot of money fast -- if you can manage to silence your conscience.

Regards,

FORCES International

Answer 2

Actually it's only happening in England. A similar ban is already in force in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It also does not prohibit smoking in public, only smoking in buildings that are open to the public. Smoking in the street is fine.

I live in Scotland, and the ban has really caused very few problems indeed to the average person. The only sad thing is that a couple of Middle Eastern bars, which used to offer hookahs, have closed, and a few pubs have lost money. But people don't seem to mind stepping outside to smoke, and I know a lot of people who find it rather a good social experience, and even meet new people.

I'd say that, overall, most people are perfectly happy with the ban.

Answer 3

Here in Minnesota (Minneapolis-St. Paul area) & North Dakota (Fargo-Grand Forks), they have presented smoking bans.. some are in place, while others will take affect in a few weeks. I am not a smoker, however I have been around smokers since I was little (my parents, certain relatives, and of course friends). The second-hand smoke is a nuisance on account it can seep into your clothes, even your hair – and also cause health-related problems in the future, such as asthma and unfortunately certain cancers (lung cancer for example). At any rate, it will be nice to go to a nice sit-down restaurant and not worry smelling like an ashtray after you have a nice meal with friends, family, or that significant other. I have heard the ban could affect businesses, and I can totally visualize that. I am curious as to how the local bars & local legions (VFW) will be affected because some enjoy a cigarette with their desired alcoholic drink (perhaps, a bowl of peanuts or popcorn too, lol).

Answer 4

Just get used to it. It's been Law in Scotland and Ireland for ages. I smoke and I think it's a great idea. Smoking is a really anti-social habit, and I don't even smoke in my own flat, out of respect for the people who come round that don't, and hate the smell, and the damage to their health. It's been no surprise that a total ban is coming into force. 20 years ago you could have a smoke on the upstairs of a bus, and smoke on a train. Slowly, the areas where smoking is acceptable have been reduced. I'd like to see something more done about underage drinking, and the violence caused by inebriated people. I think it's a disgrace seeing cigarette stubs littering the streets, but I also think it's a disgrace to see them covered over with chewing gum. There will be the nay-sayers who think this is an invasion of their civil liberties, but I bet they'd be moaning if I threw hot coffee over them, just because I could. Peoples health is far more important, and many smokers agree with the decision.

Answer 5

In Scotland last year smoking was banned thats ok if you don't smoke but for those who do are now discriminated for doing so.In edinburgh if you drop a cigarette on road or pavement are caught you get a £50 fine and 1 week to pay which is pretty harsh By way am a smoker and the ban hasnt put me off one bit.

Answer 6

I will be so happy if in all countries in the world public smoking
will be banned because smoking will have bad effect to the non smokers around them.The smokers make the dirty air which is against with the health condition.Poluted air by cars,buses,smokers and factories will make this world warme
r and worse to be lived,besides that most forest trees were cut for illegal logging and for factories and community deve lopments.
Smoking will bring diseases such as cancer,hypertension,he
art attack,unhealthy babies or premature birth etc..Smoking is against with islamic teaching because it will dangerous our healthy and smoking is burning our money without any benefit.
God hates something there is useless..Smoking in Jakarta the capital city of Indonesia has beeen banned since one year ago but it is lack of supervising so there are still many non obedient people smoking in public area without punish ment and penalty.

Answer 7

I wish it were happening here in the United States. I almost got excited when I read your question.

As a non-smoker, I would love to be able to go somewhere and not have to smell a stupid cigarette burning. I know smokers have the right to smoke if they want, but let them do in their own personal spaces. Don't screw up my dining experience and don't shirk your responsibilities in the workplace by taking a smoke break when you should be working. I'm working, we're both making the same amount of money per hour and yet the smoker feels as if he/she has a god-given right to drop what he/she is doing and puff away.

Maybe it will happen here...but not for a very long time. :(

Answer 8

I am an ex-smoker that is looking forward to the ban. When I did smoke I was considerate and wouldn't smoke in crowds, near children etc but so many are just so rude when it comes to smoking. It will be nice when I take my son out, we won't have to find non smoking areas, sadly though I can't stop the people in the bus queue from smoking next to him! Also I go bingo every week and I always come out stinking of smoke and with a wheezy chest.

Answer 9

~I'm an ex-smoker. Here in the states, there was a law passed that you won't be able to smoke in bingo halls or taverns/bars.
I think they are taking away even more smoker's rights. They already pay a lot of taxes by smoking, and have been banned from almost everywhere else.
On the other hand, it'll be nice to play bingo and be able to breathe.~

Answer 10

I live in New York and they banned public smoking a couple years ago- People complained about it a lot to begin with but now the only difference it has made is that people smoke outside of bars. I don't know anyone who has quit smoking because of it. I don't smoke so I definitely like it a lot more now, I think that they need to focus on people smoking around kids now though especially with all the new studies linking early heart disease to exposure of second hand smoke.

Another Yahoo ID said that it is chipping away at freedom- I think that people who smoke in public are chipping away at my freedom to breath air and not smoke

Answer 11

I don't mind either way. I quit 5 months ago. I don't think that peoples lives are suddenly going to be longer due to it though. Passive smoking usually effects the people who live with smokers or work in smokey environments not those who go to a pub once a week. If this was the case we would probably all die from lung cancer. As I say, I don't really mind seeing as it doesn't really effect me.