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

What with the smoking ban coming into effect in one week, I was wondering what people's opinions on the ban are...

Smoking will be prohibited in pretty much all enclosed or mostly-enclosed public spaces and workplaces from July 1st.

So how are all you smokers and non-smokers feeling about this? Are you ready?

I'm ready to have to sweep up outside my front door at least twice a day once it comes in. I'm ready to no longer be able to use the pavements at night as they are full up of smokers outside pubs. and I'm ready to just about turn into a recluse as I won't be welcome anymore in pubs.

In most parts of Canada, this has been life for along time. I think smoking in the work-place was done away with in '88 or '89. Most provinces have had smoke out of public places for atleast a decade. As a smoker, I don't find it much of a problem, nor do I see hordes of folks clogging up sidewalks. Life goes on, for us smokers, for the pubs, for everyone.

*this from one with a personal smoking history of 35'ish years*

We've had a smoking ban here in the Icy North since June 2005 and it turned out well. Smoking is still allowed outdoors, so smokers can go out and have and smoke at the same time.

I'm happy with this since it means I can go out with friends, have a meal or a drink without being half choked by smoke. I'm not allgeric or anything, but sitting in a pub can be awful due to the excess smoking.

In the pub i use the vast majority are smokers.It is not a foody place,it is a pub.The landlord,also a mate and smoker, is at his wits end.He has a garden where he has erected a sort of tent thing to keep off the rain,all very well in the summer but pretty useless in the winter.It would have been a better law if choices could be made,after all you have to be an adult to go into a pub,so why not have pubs that allow smoking and pubs that are smoke free?

They've decided to go down the route of removing all choice as we're obviously deemed by those who we elect to govern us to half-whitted to do it ourselves, yet they hungrily take the four quid odds of tax I pay on each and every packet in order to subsidise the governments coffers. Where I live, there are two non smoking pubs, and four other pubs nearby, each of the four pubs has non smoking areas, and/or designated no smoking between certain hours in those areas wehre food is serbed, come the smoking ban that variety and choice will be gone and at least two of those pubs I can't see continueing long after the smoking ban comes in.

Traveller in Time smoking outside
"Just when will the ban against excess perfume become effective ?

There are many shops and public places where the undoubtably toxic vapours of supposedly nice smells take your breath. "

Speaking as someone who was a smoker for 35 years, up until last year - I agree that there should be choices. There should be room for everyone - if a pub wants to be non-smoking - fine - if a pub or other public place wants to provide separate smoking areas - fine - just don't treat us like children who can't decide for ourselves! Who do they think they are? And why do we accept it?

In NZ we've had smoke free public indoor spaces for a few years now. Yeah there was a lot of grumbling at the time, but most places and people have adjusted.

No-one is denying smokers their choice to smoke. Rather, the burden of difficulty has been put on the smoker (who has to find an outdoor place to smoke) rather than on everyone else (who previously had to put up with the health hazard and unpleasantness in many situations). IMO that is where the burden should be, with the smoker.

>>.It would have been a better law if choices could be made,after all you have to be an adult to go into a pub,so why not have pubs that allow smoking and pubs that are smoke free?<<

In NZ the govt push for the legislation was a public health issue i.e. they believed that because of the number of health problems caused by smoking (and not just cancer), that the public had the right to be protected, and that the state had the right to limit the damage being done by cigarette smoke.

The reason for not allowing both smoking and non-smoking pubs is that smoking pubs still have to employ staff, and those staff have the same right to health protection as everyone working elsewhere. There is no way around that issue from an employment safety perspective. You can't for instance advertise for smoking only staff, as that would be discriminatory (as well as daft). Also a government committed to public health couldn't countenance such employment practice because what does the employee do if they want to stop smoking? They would technically then lose their job (or put up with the health risk).

I think there are also issues of secondhand smoke creating different problems (worse?) than firsthand.

I'm just waiting for the first court case where a child sues the parents for smoking in the home.

Might sound ridiculous, but I can see it happening.

The point of all these stupid, petty, self-righteous laws is that society has changed. There used to be certain agreed standards of behaviour that didn't need to be codified. This worked perfectly well. But with the capitulation of personal responsibility, the decline of the community and the rise of avaricious personal injury lawyers, these laws are increasing. Barely a week goes by without another petty rule becoming law.

Health & Safety is an important issue, but that is getting to be beyond a joke now. But any criticism of H&S is met with the standard cry of 'We're here to save lives'. Certainly, when the issue is working practices in a refinery this is appropriate, but when it gets to the stage that Scotrail bans teaspoons from staffrooms because of the health risk you've got to wonder if it's rules for the sake of rules.

In reply to kea's post raising health issues,i still do not get it.If you were a non smoker you would not want a job in a smoking pub,you would go for a job in a smoke free one.If it is a health issue,why don't the goverment just close down pubs all together? after all the alcohol sold in them is doing untold damage to everbodys health,it seems a bit selective.After July 1st.we can all happily drink ourselves to death but we can't have a smoke to go with it.My landlord has now come up with his own solution,as he spends little or no time in his own lounge above the bar he will invite us to go up there and enjoy a ciggy and a pint when ever we want,it's either that or sit in an empty pub on his own

You have an excellent landlord, bluesue

I disagree with this ban as a matter of principle- I'm with SWL. It should be something that communities can decide rather than something that is imposed on them.

From the practical angle, I'm not that fussed. I expect that I'll either go to pubs less or smoke less.

As far as health issues go, there is little solid evidence that second-hand smoke increases one's risk of getting lung cancer (indeed, several studies have found that exposure to second-hand smoke can *decrease* one's risk!) However, studies have found that second-hand smoke does increase the incidence of asthma and similar respiratory problems.

It does seem daft that, as RF (sorry if it was someone else) said above, you can drink yourself to death but not smoke at the same time. I wish that Parliament would look at things sensibly and realise how much damage alcohol does, how little damage cannabis does and any number of similar things. If they must pass laws, I want them based on facts if nothing else.

And when will cars be banned? I'm fed up of the smell, the noise and inhaling the harmful fumes cars produce!!

Van

I think that there should be a licensing law for smoking venues, same as there is for drinking venues. As has been pointed out, why would you work there if you didn't smoke?

From my long experience of bar staff and waiting staff, they *all* smoke. no *staff* are being protected by these rules, so stop pretending that this is being done as a staff benefit.

There is no reason not to have smoking pubs. It's just H&S fascism.

RF

Did you hear me mention your name RF?! And it wasn't even you who said what I referred to, it was Bluesue.

Neither of the two teenagers I know that work in the local bistro smoke.

Also consider the pregnant woman who needs a part time job and the only suitable job going is in the local pub because she lives in the country.

It IS about health and safety. I'm willing to bet quite a large sum of money that in places where smoking is banned the proportion of nonsmoking staff increases. But in places that still allow smoking there are non-smokers that have to work in places where people smoke.

Several of the above posts are bordering on the stupid IMO. No-one is being denied the right to smoke, so why speak as if you are?


>>If it is a health issue,why don't the goverment just close down pubs all together? after all the alcohol sold in them is doing untold damage to everbodys health,it seems a bit selective.After July 1st.we can all happily drink ourselves to death but we can't have a smoke to go with it.<<

Because that evil socialist interferring government does in fact support freedom of choice. There are some restrictions on alcohol, to protect the public interest, but essentially if you want to drink yourself into a grave you are free to do so. Likewise with smoking. If you want to smoke you can even to the extent that it kills you. What you cannot do any more is force the detrimental side effects of your habit onto other people in an arbitary way. If you really want to draw an analogy between smoking and drinking then it would be akin to every time you had a drink in a room with someone else, you forced alcohol down their throat. Silly isn't it.

I'll say it one more time:

NO-ONE IS STOPPING YOU FROM SMOKING.

Duh.


>>
And when will cars be banned? I'm fed up of the smell, the noise and inhaling the harmful fumes cars produce!!
<<

Well I imagine cars will be banned around the same time as smoking i.e. never. Smoking hasn't been banned. Do I have to say it again? And yet again the analogy is wrong. We have restrictions in the pollution from cars, and there will be even more restrictions in the future as the impact of increased car use on health gets worse. In the same way that we now have restrictions on cigarette use. But not a ban.



Essentially, the issue comes down to who has the most right to space? I think public spaces should be smoke free because such a space is accessible to both smokers and non-smokers. But a smokefilled place explicitly excludes people who cannot tolerate smoke and thus is by definition a place of priviledge.

My local pub has adapted very well to the new law a few years ago. It was a new garden bar which everyone likes, plus a covered, sheltered courtyard for smokers when it's raining. Smokers come and go from this space, and there is a sense of a sub culture there which I think is a good thing. People who smoke have a shared experience, and it's good that they don't share it with everyone. On any given night there are always far more people in the pub than in the smokers area, simply because most people have accepted that non-smoking space is a perfectly valid way to socialise. I am quite grateful as it means I can go to pubs again now and not get sick.


*


>>I think that there should be a licensing law for smoking venues, same as there is for drinking venues. <<

This is an interesting idea, and one I'm not totally against. So long as they were actually smoking venues, not just being used as a way around the new law. Maybe they could be like methadone clinics, where the addiction is acknowledged and allowed some leeway by society.

This one's going to backfire on the gov'm't.
Consider this - if there are 10 million smokers, all paying £25 per week in tax, and they're forced to give up, where will the gov'm't get the TWELVE THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED MILLION POUNDS from each year?

Everybody will have to pay more tax - non-smokers included.

...and much much more of tax payers' money will be saved since smoke related illness costs a lot.

Smokers paid well over the odds for any NHS treatment - now we'll all have to pay extra.

I doubt that.

For instance.

In 2004 £22 000 000 were spent in one city, (Stockholm, Sweden 1 million inhabitants) to treat patients with lung cancer.

That's just one rather small city and only one disease...