do you believe the smoking ban is an attack against our human rights and our nanny state going extreme?

Answer 1

Not at all.

What makes you think that?

Answer 2

Yes it most definately is, I find drunks and yobs more of a hazard than any smoker, particularly when they are driving a motor vehicle. It seems that to allow a person to smoke a cigarette on your premises may cost you £1000.00 s, but if you let them get drunk and wreck your place you will recieve nothing, but not be fined. The smoke emitted from a 30 second flight of a transatlantic airplane would be more hazardous than the average villages, cigarette output in a lifetime. Its a well known and recognised fact, but why doesn't anyone fine the airlines?. Double standards comes to mind?. The money collected from tobacco tax pays for the NHS and a bit more, considering the losses made by the missmanagers in the NHS, they need that tax. So when you cannot be treated for lack of funds, go down to your local smokefree pub' club, or whatever, and rue the spitefull, ill concieved, illogical, decision taken by your local village idiot masquerading as a peoples ball less counciller, he won't be able to get you any health help either. You all deserve what you get, and get what you deserve.

Answer 3

I am a smoker and agree with the smoking ban to a certain degree. I don't think it's fair to make non-smokers breathe my smoke, but I smoke in my own home or outside, disposing of the end in a bin. The real issues regarding smoking have nothing to do with smoking itself, it is what is being smoked that is a problem. Any ideas how many chemicals are added to cigarettes and rolling tobacco? Anyone know what they are? Probably not as the companies producing these products do not want you to know. Seeing as you cannot tax a natural product, such as a tobacco plant ever wondered why they put such high taxes on it. Only a modified natural product can be taxed. Would the health risks associated with smoking be as high if we were smoking homegrown, unmodified tobacco. It seems to me that rather than a smoking ban, there should be a ban on the production and sale of cigarettes as we currently know them. It's interesting how cannabis and other drugs are illegal considering the small number of deaths related to their use in comparison to the massive numbers of deaths related to cigarette smoking, that goes for alcohol too. It is my human right to smoke tobacco, it is also my human right to be able to smoke pure, unaltered tobacco at a price that is based on its value rather than an way for a corrupt government to fulfill it's greed.

Answer 4

Not only is it an attack on our human rights it is also a witch hunt for which will not stop until everybody has given up smoking. I still like smoking and will only give up if I wish to, if that means going to prison then so be it. The reason why I said about prison very simply is because I can see an eventual all out ban where you cannot smoke even outside as the so called medical experts will soon be saying people can become ill through taking in somebody else's smoke outside, this whole thing reminds me of dictatorship, ie the non-smokers being the dictators.

Answer 5

I guess that it's the tip of the iceberg. Years ago people didn't interfere with each others lives that much and the world was a happier place. Take the 1950's where families had strong moral teachings and everyone had the decency to not interfere with someone elses business. Now people like to contribute what they think even though they know nothing about the situation. It started with the whole 'teachers can't hit children' bit and moved on to classic greats such as 'if you see a person smacking their child you can report them for abuse'. Hence we now have the great gangs on street corners who like to throw bottles at you. The do gooders are still saying it is possible to raise kids without hitting yet I see the proof as suggesting otherwise. It's the same with this smoking ban. Everyone is interfering with others lives thinking that the world will be a better place yet it won't be. People are messing up the world by misguided acts of kindness. This is the beginning and it will get worse. They recently had a report about fat children being taken away from their parents and Prince Charles said he wanted McDonalds banned. Welcome to the new world....have fun...or actually don't because we won't let you!

Answer 6

Personally, as a non smoker who grew up in a smoking house i think it is very a good idea. Yes it's using the Nanny State to enforce it, but it is actually a positive thing that will help the majority rather than the usual knee jerk reaction laws this government introduce with no thought for their long term effects.
Alcohol is a problem as well, but at least you having a pint doesn't destroy my liver! My human rights give me the right to a healthy life, yours don't give you the right to slowly poison me.

Next up has to be a ban on smoking whilst driving. How can it be safe for someone to hold a 500 degree stick of burning paper in their hand, and ingest a sedative drug whilst driving, yet I'd get 3 points for talking on my phone or even drinking water?
Also i think the '*** ends are litter campaign; should be stepped up. Yes they are small but just look at the floor pretty much anywhere you go and you will see them all over the place. Some people seem to thing 'the rain washes them away', erm hello, its a cotton filter, it just sits there for years! And please smokers, when you open a new pack, don't just drop the wrappings on the floor as well!

Answer 7

Attack against human your human rights - no. What about the human rights of non-smokers?

Nanny state going extreme - seems to be. As the years go by.

Answer 8

No, I think the smoking ban is a great idea, because I play in a band and have to breathe the air in smoky pubs all the time. But what is a bit nanny state is the fact I am legally obliged to put up a "No smoking" sign in my car, because it is a company car and therefore a "place of work"!

Answer 9

hm whilst i can agree with the non smokers as to why should they put up with smells/second hand smoke and its risks i can also see the point of the smokers as to the right to their freedom so really the point as i see it is this...

'how far are you willing to allow the government to make that decision for you and do you actually trust the people in government to ensure it is for You're benefit and not Their agenda's'

after all why cant they allow specific smoking pubs and specific non smoking pubs or cafes or bars etc whilst keeping the bans in work places and areas where health is a primary concern such as hospitals.

a total ban is saying they assume responsibility for this whether you agree with it or not as they feel you are NOT ABLE to make that decision yourself, and if they can get as personal as smoking what else will come under this national call to safety.

so answer me this do you believe the government always acts in the best interests of its people or are their times when you feel that it is more their own agendas that forms the policies that dictate to your lives, and how much are you prepared/ willing to let them do it.

first it was things like hoodies now its smoking what will be next cars? after all the environment is the next crisis on the agenda so could they be next?

just the thoughts of a non smoker

Answer 10

No. Smoking is an attack on my human rights.
Smoking has been roved to kill, to add to other people's bad health. It should have been banned years ago.
I have asthma. My mother smoked while she was pregnant and while I was growing up. think it added to my condition.

Answer 11

Yes, it is too extreme. There's no where for smokers to go. What is wrong with SMOKING and NON SMOKING pubs - or making all existing pubs NON SMOKING but allow smokers to start new ones of their own?

Whilst I fully appreciate the right of non-smokers to breathe fresh air (although in any big city I would suggest that that is impossible anyway – I think traffic fumes are far more dangerous), having no compromises at all is simply dictatorship.

Who is next to be targeted … drinkers, obese people or those who eat certain kinds of foods only?