Smoking ban UK

[MrColossal]

If it benefits no one, why do people smoke? I don't buy the arguement that they smoke because they are stupid or that they were ALL pressured into doing it and none of them enjoy it and it's only because they are addicted.

Why don't we just strongly advise against smoking since we won't ban other risky behaviour. You can get cancer from alcohol and other health problems, do we want to ban that too? How about banning marathon work schedules or requiring people to sleep 7.5 hours a day by law because lack of sleep can lead to health and societal problems. Do I hate smoke filled rooms and smoker's cough and the smell and all that of smoking? Yes, but that means nothing in regards to what other human beings do with their bodies.

[Hammerite]

I think its because the effects can affect people around who have no intention of smoking.

[Erenan]

No, I agree. But it isn't a ban at all, as Nikolas said. It's just a new rule about where you can and can't smoke. My stance is where things lie right now: that people should be required to go outside so that people who don't want to breathe the smoke don't have to. Personally, I'd be happier if no one in the world smoked, used drugs, followed too closely on the freeway, stole, or murdered, because these are all stupid and bad things to do, in my opinion. But I understand that not all stupid or bad things should be illegal. It's stupid and bad for me to lie to my wife (usually). But should I go to jail or pay a fine if I do? Of course not. That's silly. For smoking inside pubs or restaurants? Sure. That seems fair to me.

[Nikolas]

I didn't start calling it a ban... I don't think of it as a 100% ban (like drugs), but let's face itL forcing someone not to smoke at:
* your office (perfect sense)
* restaurants (perfect sense)
* bars/pubs (not exactly reasonable)
* your home (WOW! Why?!?!?!?!!)
is pretty absolute. Especially when people are starting to complain that the streets out of pubs and bars are getting smokey and dirty. In a little while they will also ban the street smoking? That is 100% then!

Everybody would be happier without murders, drugs, alcohol, smoking etc, but we all know from sci-fi that this would lead to no good. (and I really believe so, actually)

[Erenan]

I didn't say you called it a ban. I was saying that you already made the point I was about to make. But whether it's unreasonable not to allow smoking inside pubs is open for debate. Like I said, my brother's band plays at bars, and I wouldn't go support them at their shows if the room was full of smoke, and I'd be surprised if they would even bother to play at bars if the room was full of smoke. People don't and shouldn't have the right to smoke wherever and whenever the hell they please, but everyone deserves the right not to have to breathe other people's smoke. Is it so much to ask for people to go outside? No, I don't think so. And in a few years, no one will even care any longer. They'll get used to it and forget that they ever complained in the first place.

And I would never, ever, ever allow anyone to smoke in my home. Not in a million billion years.

And my point was that we can't and needn't ban everything. All the same, I can't see how nobody smoking, drinking, murdering, etc. of their own volition would be a bad thing.

[Nacho]

Do I hate smoke filled rooms and smoker's cough and the smell and all that of smoking? Yes, but that means nothing in regards to what other human beings do WITH THEIR BODIES.

Smoking only annoys me because smoke moves out the bourdary of the body of the smoker jumping into the bodies of non-smokers. Thing that alcohol, heart attacks for marathon runners, or not sleeping enough doesn't do.

Smoking is not a "normal" vicious that only affects the person with the vicious. If you drink, you can get pissed till fainting without molesting anyone. Smoking is more like shouting aloud. It annoys lots of people in a radio of 2/5 meters... and the worst of it is that the "annoy" is still there after the person with the "vicious" is away! I see differences between this "bad habit" and some others.

[Adamski]

Yes, but that means nothing in regards to what other human beings do with their bodies.

I used to hold the opinion that hey, it's fine with me that people ingest whatever they want into their bodies no matter how damaging it might be - it's their choice after all. After watching a close family member being suffocated to death by cancerous tumours, whose last written words (being unable to talk for about a year due to a tracheotomy) were 'morphine' in agonised handwriting, my stanced changed. When I see people I know or care about putting addictive yet 'socially acceptable' poisons into their bodies without the slightest of concerns as to the health risks it really does upset and fustrate me, because I am terrified that I will have to witness someone else experience such an agonising and futile end to their life.

Bill Hicks once said "what buisness is it of yours what chemicals I put into my body if I do not harm another living being" (or something to that effect). Sorry Bill, but it's a complete fallacy to think that you can perform an act that will harm only yourself, because the effects of anything you do will be felt by the people who care about you.

[MrColossal]

And that's fine Adam, as long as you don't expect other people to share [or support forcing them to share] those feelings.

[Pumaman]

Driving at a road and a kid appears in front of you. Usually there is NO TIME to hit the breaks. Speed plays an important part.

But how can a kid "appear in front of you"? They had to appear from somewhere, and if the road is lined with parked cars or something then you should slow down appropriately so that you can stop safely if necessary.

You seem to be implying that people should just drive around town everywhere at 30 mph, and if a kid steps out into the road then just slam on your brakes and hope for the best. But how about paying attention to the road, driving at 40 mph where it's wide and open, and then slowing to 20 mph where there are kids, parked cars, etc?

UK has variable speed limits, which do take into account weather, traffic, and other anomalities (but mainly the two I mentioned, at least to my knowledge).

Variable speed limits cover about 1% of roads and can only take into account traffic levels. They're just dumb, computer-controlled, limits.

Are you trying to say that people are incapable of driving at a safe speed? If your speedometer was broken, would you instantly crash because you'd be incapable of judging a safe speed for yourself?

Are you really trying to prove that speeding is fine, and that there are other things at fault, but not speeding, and additionally that there should be no speed limit?

What I'm trying to say is that yes, speed is very important and that driving too fast is dangerous. But, "too fast" does NOT mean exceeding whatever the speed limit happens to be -- it means driving at a speed where you are unable to stop within the distance that you know to be clear.

If you drink, you can get pissed till fainting without molesting anyone.

I'm not so sure about that, just ask AGA.

[Adamski]

And that's fine Adam, as long as you don't expect other people to share [or support forcing them to share] those feelings.

I'm not sure what you mean. Is it unreasonable of me to suggest that self destruction hurts the people around you in varying degrees of severity?

[MrColossal]

I didn't say it was unreasonable. I totally accept what you say and understand it. I was saying that what would be unreasonable is if you then took that experience and said "There should be a law."

As far as smoking is concerned, there are laws, the socially [if arbitrary] number of 21 [in the US at least] years of age was chosen as a start date for a human to be able to make decisions, good or bad, for their body in regards to smoking. If someone decides to smoke and does not feel they have to or does not care to take into consideration the people around them that may be affected by that decision, that's their fault.

You might not be talking about the ban on smoking when you posted but I was equating your post to the topic. There in the confusion lies?

[Becky]

Raise the tax on it, ban it in public places, more advertising to demonstrate the detrimental health effects.  Whilst making tobacco outright illegal is not something that I think is sensible, there must be a stronger emphasis on getting people to quit, and hammering home the disgusting and unhealthy habit it is.  I would also like to see more research done into second-hand smoke...whilst I do not necessarily buy into the "second-hand-smoke causes cancer" bandwagon, I know that for me personally the smoke causes my asthma to worsen, and my allergies flare up if I am in a heavily smoky atmosphere, such as a bar, pub and even a train station full of stressed smoking commuters.

[Pumaman]

In fact, now that smoking is banned in public places isn't this the ideal time to legalise cannabis, and use the tax revenues from that to make up for the shortfall from tobacco?

[big brother]

In the US alone, about 50,000 people die every year from alcohol related accidents. Cigarette smoking kills about 400,000 people annually.

In the entire history of mankind, there has never been record of a single mortality caused by marijuana.

I abhor cigarettes personally, but I can see the up side. Employees that smoke get more breaks, and now that public smoking is restricted in many places, there are additional social benefits. For instance, I see a lot of guys meeting girls outside of bars when someone needs a light or a cigarette. It's quiet enough to hold an actual conversation and no friends around to interfere.

[Adamski]

I didn't say it was unreasonable. I totally accept what you say and understand it. I was saying that what would be unreasonable is if you then took that experience and said "There should be a law."

As far as smoking is concerned, there are laws, the socially [if arbitrary] number of 21 [in the US at least] years of age was chosen as a start date for a human to be able to make decisions, good or bad, for their body in regards to smoking. If someone decides to smoke and does not feel they have to or does not care to take into consideration the people around them that may be affected by that decision, that's their fault.

You might not be talking about the ban on smoking when you posted but I was equating your post to the topic. There in the confusion lies?

Even if you take out the emotional attachment, smoking in a public place is still a nusiance and a health risk to me. If someone decides to smoke and does not feel they have to or does not care to take into consideration the people around them that may be affected by that decision, saying to myself "oh well, it's their fault they're doing this to themselves!" does not make the fact that I'm going to cop a lung-full of nicotine, tar, carbon monoxide, cyanide, arsenic, radium, polonium, yadayada go away in a puff of, er, smoke. So yes, I do think a ban on smoking in public places is a good thing.

[Becky]

I don't personally have any issues with legalising what are currently illegal drugs.  The current system creates criminals out of people who need help, not criminalisation, encourages black market production and dangerous compounds, and could be blamed for some gang violence.  As long as there is again tax revenue on it, and enough education about the dangers of excessive usage.

[BOYD1981]

this thread got me thinking, there are all these adverts about giving up smoking, and the health risks, but there is no real strong campaign preventing people from smoking in the first place (surely starting to smoke is a lot harder than giving up), something like this aimed at young children would be ideal although i think kids who grow up around parents who smoke around their children (which in my opinion should be made illegal as they don't really have a choice in the matter, whereas anyone going to a pub or club does) are far more likely to smoke because by the time they're teenagers they're pretty much already addicted to nicotine without even having lit up once.
four members of my family recently gave up smoking and found it quite easy due to the fact they wanted to give up, i think many smokers just make excuses not to and convince themselves beforehand that it's going to be impossible for them.
but for me this ban is semi-pointless and creates a worse problem, which is people smoking in the streets, the other day in town i had a bloke standing next to me at the traffic lights smoking away, and then later a group of young girls walked past me blowing their smoke around. i would much rather smoking was limited to certain indoor areas than done outside.

[Becky]

i think kids who grow up around parents who smoke around their children (which in my opinion should be made illegal as they don't really have a choice in the matter, whereas anyone going to a pub or club does) are far more likely to smoke because by the time they're teenagers they're pretty much already addicted to nicotine without even having lit up once.

Whilst not necessarily wrong, I don't think I'm addicted to nicotine, despite living for 19 years with two parents who smoke.  I'm just more tolerant towards the smoke from one particular brand.

[neelhound]

i have relatives who smoke often, however whenever they do they go outside as there are usually many children around. My main concern against smoking is that hospitals get clogged up with them quite often and people who have other problems may be left out, and smokers asked for what they got.

[Nikolas]

But how can a kid "appear in front of you"? They had to appear from somewhere, and if the road is lined with parked cars or something then you should slow down appropriately so that you can stop safely if necessary.

they're playing, the balls slips on the road, a kid chasses the ball. Is that impossible to happen? Trying to cross the road somewhere, and they drop something, thus they stop. Etc... there are many ways for a kid to appear in front of you when you least expect it. Because in all honesty, when driving in town do you keep your eyes open all the time in case something pops in front of you? You do assume that there is some common sense, or a parent around to hold kids... But sadly this is not always the case. And then again you keep refering to my examples

You seem to be implying that people should just drive around town everywhere at 30 mph, and if a kid steps out into the road then just slam on your brakes and hope for the best. But how about paying attention to the road, driving at 40 mph where it's wide and open, and then slowing to 20 mph where there are kids, parked cars, etc?

No I'm not implying that. the 30 number was again an example. A406 has a 50 MPH limit, other roads 40 etc. Not everything is a flat 30.

I'm not either implying that people should not pay attention but drive under the speed limits.

I'm just saying that in most cases (not every case of course) speed limits do make sense. The have to do with the road, the traffic, the % of someone falling in front of your car by accident, etc... And yes, where is wide and open (A4 for example (the continuation of M4, coming from Reading etc)) has a 40 MPH limit, not 30. When it goes into picaddily circus it goes to 30. Doesn't it make sense? Going out of the city around Ealing it goes to 50 and then the top (70).

Variable speed limits cover about 1% of roads and can only take into account traffic levels. They're just dumb, computer-controlled, limits.

You have certainly been more than me in the uk, but my experience from around London is that they take weather into account, traffic, accidents, blockage in lanes (and indicate at some points which lane is closed, M1, and M25 for example) and (can't remember what else. Could be that). What else would you like a semiautomatic system to take into account?

Are you trying to say that people are incapable of driving at a safe speed? If your speedometer was broken, would you instantly crash because you'd be incapable of judging a safe speed for yourself?

Not exactly. I'm saying that speeding can be dangerous as other things in life and yet we do it.

I'm saying that in most cases the speed limits do make sense. You seem to dissagree.

What I'm trying to say is that yes, speed is very important and that driving too fast is dangerous. But, "too fast" does NOT mean exceeding whatever the speed limit happens to be -- it means driving at a speed where you are unable to stop within the distance that you know to be clear.

Ok, but instead of having everyone deciding what is too fast, which is hugely dangerous, believe me (I've driven in Syria... brrrrrr), the state sets the rules. And I have to say that I find most rules reasonable in the UK (regarding speeding, let's go into everything else please).


Don't assume that everyone has the same common sense that you may have, and that when seeing a school, they will hit 20 MPH. They may miss the school, they may never've been there before, they may disregard the school, assuming that no kid will jump, but bottom line is that a sign with a big 20 in front does make sense. Can you suggest that the state should take out that 20 MPH sign, and leave it to the judgement of all drivers?



Regarding smoking, Adam brought something to my mind.

Father in law (remember I was looking for a tablet for him in another thread?). He has had cancer in lungs (left with one), 4ple bypass, and heart condition. That thing started at the age of 48 :'(. He is 60 and still alive. Completely lucky. Truth is that I don't know how long he will last. Both his daughter started smoking after the problems of their father, and his wife has never quit. I can really NOT explain that. I mean you get you own father 3 times in the hospital with plenty of chances to DIE and still you don't quit!

I have no idea what I would do if it was my father, although I love him dearly. Still I don't talk to my mother in law about it, only because I know it will have the opposite effect. And I know this is killing her... MY wife quit 4 years ago, thankfully! She does miss it but hey, we can't have everything in life.

Loosing someone from whatever cause will affect everybody around, but it is an illusion to think that by not smoking we will never lose them. Maybe a bit later, but we will in the end. About suffering and everything that Adam mentions, I really see what he means, but there is a weird balance in my head:

Father in law needs desperately to go on a diet. alternative is... death
Father in law won't go on a diet. Food is the one thing that really brings joy to his life.

What to do? Either way he has a really bad health. Deprive him of "all" happiness? To get a few more... days/weeks/months/maybe years? Give him all he wants and "kill him early"?
I just don't know, and it's a sincere question.

BOYD: I think that you're right. Extensive smoke in you environement may addict you, or make you more likely to take up smoking in the first place