h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Smoking should be banned in public places!

It should, if not get completely illegalised, be confined to private homes and/functions.

You cannot use drink in the same scenario since people aren't addicted to drink, unless alcoholics, and almost no-one drinks in the daytime.

And those have a drink aren't getting a straw and blowing lager up your nose if you're in the vacinity.

What on Earth do you mean 'almost no one drinks in the daytime' . Open a pub door at lunch time, you'll see lots of people.

You haven't been to small industrial towns, eh?

I grew up in one.

! Must be just where I come from then or just you...

Not me. I grew up in one, I now live in another. In both places, pubs have people in all day. There might be a slump around 1300, but there's people. I'm in the East Midlands, incidently.

Never seen more than 5/6 during a weekday (unless a wedding or something).

... Which is quite a few in a pokey little six by six pub.

*raises eyebrow*

Well, a pub that only has room about 20 people is quarter full then.

Normally the popular pubs around here have about 10-15 people in during the day. More between 1200-1400, and between 1600-1800. They're pretty full then.

Only in private houses?

So I can't walk down the street with a cigarette but every man and his wife can motor on past putting out hugely greater amounts of toxins, carcinogens and carbon monoxide that my smoke?

Do people never think this argument out??

My word, how often have I heard that argument, generally from smokers without cars. Many things cause air pollution, but most of them, including cars, serve some sort of practical purpose, however much it may be an indicator as to the level of decadence our society has reached. I do not own a car, I am not trying to defend the use of personal motorised transport. However, smoking, other than to feed the weakness of addiction, serves no practical purpose. It makes money for some people and it hits the health and wallets of others.

As for the actual debate - I don't mind people smoking around me. I'm vey aware that if I'm inhaling smoke, it's my choice to move away from it. So, no, a ban shouldn't be forced upon businesses - maybe encouraged, but certainly not enforced.

Well I don't have to walk behind car exhausts. And cars generally move faster than me so the wind isn't wafting carbon monoxide in my face. AND you can't get addicted to car driving unless you're from Wind in the Willows!

Ah, but you take precident if a smoker comes and smokes around you. Why should you move?

I make a point of only smoking either outside away from non-somkers, or in the pub.

How do you know they're non-smokers?

Well I generally smoke in college and the non-smokers are the ones not trying to borrow a cigarette from you or smoking themselves. I usually walk down the street smoking so I can use your argument for cars and In a pub I see the fact that it'll be smokey as a given.

Hell yes is generally my first reaction too. I would rather eat lunch in an outhouse than a room full of smokers. If there were never another tobacco product used I might actually weep for joy. I lost my mother to lung cancer less than 2 years ago. HOWEVER... (you knew that was coming, didn't you) I can remove myself from places where people are smoking. I can choose not to patronize businesses that allow smoking. I don't feel I have the right to tell someone they can't engage in self destructive behavior. In addition, it seems a slippery slope. Can't smoke. Now we ban alcohol. Next is fatty food. Now a curfew to make sure that everyone gets a minimum of 8 hours sleep. Where does it end? Therefore, I can't support a ban on smoking.

I agree with your point that an overzealous government, telling us what to do and what not, isn't what we should be aiming for. I believe people should have the right to make their own decisions in life, which should not necessarily be the "right" ones.

The examples you are giving - alcohol, fat, etc. - do differ from smoking, however, in that they are merely harmful to the "offender", whereas smoking clearly has an impact on the "innocent bystander" (no pun intended, despite my nick). In cases where consumption of these substances *is* harmful to others, e.g. driving under the influence, a ban has been imposed already. I don't think anyone in their right mind would want to object to that.

I think it is fair to say that people are free to do as they please, as long as they do not directly harm others with their actions. Smoking clearly does and therefore a ban, in my opinion, could be justified.

JAIB

Certainly. Not only cigarette smoke which smokers puff around is hazardous; generally they don't throw cigarette buts in waste bin. Whenever I take my son to any park, he starts picking up those cigarette buts. In some parks you hardly see green grass but cigarette buts scattered every where.

Some people smoke even when children are playing around and some will say sorry they know they shouldn't but.....

"The examples you are giving - alcohol, fat, etc. - do differ from smoking, however, in that they are merely harmful to the "offender", whereas smoking clearly has an impact on the "innocent bystander"..."

How about the money the NHS spends on treating heart disease etc. caused by obesity and alcohol abuse? How about the money spent treating liver damage, or the like? I'd say the innocent bystander is being affected. How about families torn apart by alcohol?
I'm an ex-smoker and frankly, don't like being around smoke. So I make the effort to not be. I'd hate to live in a society where we were even more nanny-state than we are already.
Another point, smokers contribute far more than most to the government coffers in the form of £4 a pack in tax. I say lets cut them some slack.