Am I the only non-smoker who thinks this smoking ban is just another Government assault of civil liberties?

Question

Big Ste <--- You don't have to breathe clean air. Any walk down a traffic congested street will remind you of that.

Answer 1

No I for one totally agree with you....... There should be places for all to go including smokers.... There should be non-smoking pubs and smoking pubs with workers that don't mind too. My civil rights have been taken away without consultation. I am sure there is a law against that

Answer 2

I'm a non-smoker, but I believe smoking bans are an assault on our civil liberties. As long as cigarettes are a legal substance, government should have no right to ban the use of such products. As an independent business owner, I should have the right to either ban smoking or allow smoking in my store, bar, restaurant or office. But the government has no right to tell smokers where they can or cannot smoke.
If smoking is such a serious health issue (and I'm certain it is), WHY won't the government ban the manufacture, distribution and sale of cigarettes? Could it be because the government doesn't want to give up all that lucrative tax revenue it gets from cigarette manufacturers, distributors and sellers?? -RKO- 07/01/07

Answer 3

I am also a non-smoker but I don't think this is a Goverment assault on our liberties. After all, they recieved far more in taxes from smokers than smokers took out of the N.H.S. No, this is just a very vociferous mob of would be puritans (so far as smoking is concerned) and therefore bigots who want to control. Once the smoking is done for, they'll turn their attention to some other matter that people enjoy. I wonder how many of these anti-smokers are FAT.

Answer 4

If the Government had stuck to it's manifesto of 2005 then this question would not be relevant.
As it is they renaged and imposed a carpet ban. So yes I agree it is a major assaul on civil liberties.
for those of you who can't remember the manifesto it went like this.

A ban on all places except private clubs and public houses not serving food.

Had they stuck to this then both non-smokers and smokers would have been left with a choice of where to frequent. As it is they have simply ostracised over 10 million residents of this "democratic" society of ours.

PS. While agreeing the smell of tobacco is not the nicest thing in the world there is yet to be established a link between passive smoking and lung cancer.

Answer 5

Your not alone with your thoughts on this or your words to Big Ste. It seems he's not to worried about his health otherwise he wouldn't be down the pub as alcohol is proven to do you harm and second hand smoke isn't. Wouldn't surprise me if he drives and puts more of the fumes in the air that I have to breathe in each day with no choice in the matter, where as if the law was made fair there could be smoking and none smoking areas in pubs giving him the choice to go in whichever he prefered. Never mind, he'll soon get what we mean when they start on the drinkers.

Answer 6

Just as it infringed my civil liberties to have a smoker puffing his or her smoke in my face !! I didnt up until now have a choice and now I am glad this has happened. I am sure the many asthma sufferers in this country and those with other lung conditions will be happy.

There is nothing worse than trying to have a conversation with someone who has just had a cigarette, they smell awful and depending on the brand of tobacco if thats strong I dont know about anyone else but it sets me off on a coughing fit.

Sorry if you feel you rights are infringed but now its been balanced so the non smokers have rights too. Just think how much money you would save if you gave up smoking altogether, work it out you may find the benefit outways you feeling of assault.

Answer 7

If any Government can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that second hand smoke causes anything, because so far this has not been done, then I will agree to the ban. However, until this proof is there, and it's really not a full indagerment to those around me when I lite up, then yes it's an assault on civil liberties. Most smokers will respect non-smokers, all you have to do is ask them, in a kind way, to please not smoke around you-and most will comply, however, if you're rude about it-don't be suprised if they blow a big cloud in your face.

Answer 8

I doubt it, but there's a more important principle at stake.

As many of the people who have commented on this question indicate, a smoker exercising their (now former right) is not a neutral act. The balance of all rights, inalienable or conferred is against the responsibility that that right confers. Smoking in the presence of non-smokers results in damage to their health. So, sorry but if smokers have the right to damage their health, they also have a responsibility not to damage the health of all those present whilst they do it.

An interesting comparison is the right won (relatively recently) by Texans not to wear motorbike helmets; the legal requirement of wearing one has applied only to younger riders in Texas since 1997. The responsibility of these older riders was limited perhaps only to their loved ones. With no state health-care, there exists no duty of care to ensure that the state health-care system was unnecessarily burdened and - as far as other road users were concerned - an informed choice on the use or non-use of a helmet had been made, which whilst not absolving them of any legal liability in the event of an accident, absolves them of the responsibility of the additional injuries caused by the absence of a helmet.

Answer 9

no, you're not.
Decades ago, government waged a war against the hemp industry in order to give the lumber industry an advantage. Big lumber boss had a cousin in the FBI.
Recently, tobacco industry is being attacked to replace a mild mood balancer like tobacco with pharmaceuticals like Prozac.
On the other hand, tobacco has been so grossly contaminated with insecticides and additives that the commercial cigarette additive will give you cancer, not the tobacco.
In foreign countries where tobacco additives are less or absent, smoking related cancer is relationally less or absent.
As for 'clean air', LOL! There is no such thing anywhere close to 'civilization'.

Answer 10

As a fellow non smoker we would desire to stay in society that's for all. You look unnormally unresistant to cigarette smoke than maximum folk even to different non human beings who smoke. yet human beings who smoke are of their tens of millions and the government that surpassed the legistation on your prefer gets investment from human beings who smoke. Passing regulations shouldn't remedy the undertaking because of the fact the undertaking is social that's sponsored up with the aid of taxation. human beings who smoke pay tax to smoke then subsequently they experience they paid for the privilage to smoke. that's honest adequate, they have paid to smoke not - to not smoke with the aid of taxation with the aid of tobacco. Blanket bans on smoking generally comes with stupid regulations which incorporate if smoke from a cigarette trails over your backyard fence that's offender while somewhat exterior it won't injury as this is going to easily be a scent. human beings who smoke are addicts that are provided their habit with the aid of regulation. the government enable tobacco revenues and salary. changing the attitudes of smoking will do greater beneficial than bans.

Answer 11

hate the stuff I'm a gym instructor and ciggs are out of the question for me, i was smoking about 40 a day 10 years ago. I'm well chuffed at this. clean the air