The smoking ban issue (again)

If posting on an internet forum is the only prerequisite for having a sad and empty life, we're all suspect AG! I think there should be a ban on farting. Nothing worse than sitting on an airplane next to somebody farting the whole trip. Now that's MURDER! Can't even light one up, else you’d get arrested.

Oh, RD, it's not the posting; it's the continual torrent of malice that grows wearisome. Why not think of something that actually contributes to the debate instead of just slagging one particular member off?

I’m quite happy about the forthcoming ban – simply for the selfish reason that I’m weak willed and constantly falling off the wagon on the smoking front especially in a pub situation. Those smokers I regularly steal fags from in this manner are probably looking forward to the ban too. On the cost front though - nah. Tobacco does bring more money into the public purse than it costs the country – now more than ever. Everyone knows that statistics are crap and never exact – but the gap is so huge on this one that even if you had the same amount again of passive smokers, costing the NHS – it still wouldn’t get close to making it a net loss. I suppose you could try and argue that more passive smokers than smokers fall seriously ill from smoking related diseases, but then the insurance companies are going to get terribly confused. Anyway, who dies a cheap death these days? Not many. Although my cousin died of lung cancer last year, and he only cost – one GP visit – one biopsy and one consultant to say there’s no point I’m afraid mate. He even had the decency to die in his own bed. He smoked 40 a day since he was about 14. Someone clever can do the maths, but I don’t think he should feel too guilty about it. Also, on average, smokers skip the last eight years of their state pension. Jolly considerate of them I reckon.

Think of it as farting.

pass me a hankie someone.

You're right, 2lou. I'm sorry about your cousin. I had a relative die of lung cancer, too, only it was more protracted. *sniff sniff* Can you smell something? Phew!

I can! I think it's hot air. Clue - it's not coming from my mouth.

or my arse either for that matter.

I'm not a smoker, but I don't support a ban on smoking in pubs. If there's such a demand, why don't the government let pub owners decide? Surely the people who don't like smokey atmospheres will rush to support those establishments which choose to become smoke-free? I spent some time in LA this month, (where a public smoking ban is in force, I believe) and the bars are complete crap. (mostly because North America has more of a stuff-your-face culture than a murder-your-liver one) The only plus side is that all the smokers congregate in their little ghettoes and end up chatting, meaning the social reinforcement of smoking is increased rather than diminished. People end up connecting over their shared loved of blackening their lungs - I kind of felt jealous. Kind of.

I smell Jasper.

Banning smoking in pubs as a means of protecting people from passive smoke is idiotic. Most people go to pubs for the purpose of drinking and smoking. That's the last place it should be banned. Ban it in the workplace (and yes I am aware that a pub is a workplace) but not in a pub. At least that way, anyone who wants to smoke, has somewhere to go where they will not be bothering anyone who wants to avoid passive smoke.

"Banning smoking in pubs as a means of protecting people from passive smoke is idiotic." No, it isn't. "Most people go to pubs for the purpose of drinking and smoking." No, they don't. *Some* people do. Many others go just for drinking, or maybe, if they're skint, just for socialising. I know at least three people who would *like* to spend more time in pubs, but always have to leave early because the smoke is literally so thick that it makes them cough, or brings on an asthma attack. The rest of us have to put up with our clothes stinking to high heaven, which isn't fun when you've only got one scarf. Add to that the fact that many smokers are only social or casual smokers, and probably wouldn't smoke at all if the pub atmosphere didn't encourage it. They'd still go to the same pubs, whether or not there was a smoking ban, and wouldn't really give a toss that they couldn't smoke there. And I'm not taking this 'go somewhere else' shit. I have favourite pubs. I want to go to them. "Surely the people who don't like smokey atmospheres will rush to support those establishments which choose to become smoke-free?" Oh yeah. Great. "Coming to the pub, Jon?" "Righto, but if it's alright with you guys me and the non-smokers will be across the road in the No Smoking pub. We can chat via text message." The ban is long overdue. I sometimes like a smoky atmosphere, and I sympathise with not being able to do something that you need to do to relax, but the arguments against it either weak or hysterical ("omg! What next? I'm not allowed to eat Mars Bars?") I can't believe that there's anyone against it who isn't either a smoker, or hopelessly unsympathetic to the myriad of people who find cigarette smoke foul and hazardous. ~ This be where I keeps me treasures: www.tyrants.co.uk This be where I goes to get me fix: www.fuselit.co.uk Yarr.

But that is going to happen anyway as it has in Ireland, all the smokers will be outside in the smokers garden, non-smokers inside texting 'hurry up it's your round!'

Lazy! It's likely to be a far shorter distance to the beer garden than to the nearest Non Smoking pub. Casual smokers will go out for a cigarette the same way they do when they're in your house. ~ This be where I keeps me treasures: www.tyrants.co.uk This be where I goes to get me fix: www.fuselit.co.uk Yarr.

but the arguments against it either weak or hysterical True, but the arguments that get wheeled out for it are almost all of the "it makes pubs unpleasant for me" variety (see this thread for a good example) which is equally weak. They legislated on the basis of a public health issue, often citing seatbelts at the time, but the evidence for the danger of second hand smoke is frankly pathetic. And really, what have we become if we can't put up with each others repellent and slightly dangerous habits. Basically I do not believe governments should be in the business of shaping society, they only have two levers to pull, taxation and legislation, the former is almost entirely ineffective, the latter an extraordinarily blunt instrument with frequent unforseen consequences (e.g. smoking amoungst 18-25 yr olds in ireland has gone UP since the ban there). Society can and does change for the better, but slowly, the attitude to drunk driving is a good example, and smoking is becoming more and more unpopular and increasing amounts of pubs have large smoke free sections anyway. Not only is this law draconian, but it is unnecessary.

Draconian? Please tell me you're kidding. It would be Draconian if they were employing thugs to tear the cigarettes from your hands and beat you up for handling them. You're making the gross error of mixing up 'repellent' and 'slightly dangerous' with something that seriously aggravates a lot of people's conditions straight away, and is *very* dangerous in the long term. At the same time, smoking doesn't do *anyone* any good. There is no good argument for it. You cannot go an inch beyond the realms of freedom of choice. Unnecessary? Possibly, depending on how likely you really think it is that smoking is going downhill. But your argument makes no sense. Would it be more acceptable to you if a law was passed against smoking at such a time as its popularity *wasn't* decreasing? Laws are *supposed* to reflect changing public attitudes. They should be in line with the times. If smoking is now becoming recognised as a serious public health issue, then this is exactly the right time for the law. The fact is, absolutely nothing bad can happen as a result of this law, beyond mild discomfort and disgruntlement for a minority of people. Meanwhile, a lot of good is likely to come of it. ~ This be where I keeps me treasures: www.tyrants.co.uk This be where I goes to get me fix: www.fuselit.co.uk Yarr.

"The fact is, absolutely nothing bad can happen as a result of this law, beyond mild discomfort and disgruntlement for a minority of people. Meanwhile, a lot of good is likely to come of it." That is the identical arguement against the law: the existing condition only causes mild discomfort and disgruntlement for a minority. The passive smoke story is a red herring. The real issue is social control. I'm a non-smoker and a non-drinker, so I personally don't care what anyone does in a pub because I'm almost never in one and when I am, I don't smoke or drink. I'm not bothered by others who do, however, even though cigarette smoke and the smell of warm beer is mildly repellent to me. And I stand by my original statement that most people go to pubs to smoke--provided they are smokers in the first place, especially since it has been banned so many other places. Now it's banned there. It doesn't affect me directly, but I do rebel at the pompous attitude of the anti-smoking lobby. It reminds me of the people who love animals and unborn children so much that they are willing to murder people who work in test labs and abortion clinics to make their point.

yeah it's a hyperbole, I apologise. But it does fit some of the criteria of draconian, it is uncompromising, there was a compromise and they didn't take it. My argument is simple, that goverment has no business making this sort of law, the minor (if anything - really it is that hard to prove) health benefit to non-smokers is not enough to justify the intrusion. I also think it belittles us as a society that we can't just grin and bare it. I had a run of scarves the last few christmasses and now have a surfeit, I could send you one if you like.

"That is the identical arguement against the law: the existing condition only causes mild discomfort and disgruntlement for a minority. The passive smoke story is a red herring." Identical argument? Don't talk such utter rot. You cannot possibly argue that smoking is actually, in any way, *good*, and that what is suffered because of it equates to only 'mild discomfort and disgruntlement for a minority'. At its *least* destructive, it can still cause more temporary harm than not smoking can to anyone in their whole life. Roy Castle died of lung cancer without ever smoking a cigarette. All he did was play trumpet in Jazz clubs. You cannot tell me that even one life is worth it. Yes, there is an issue of social control. Just as there is in all laws. And there's always a difficult balance between letting people have the freedom to take their own life into their hands, and restricting their freedom when it comes to hurting other people. But the argument here is clear; as long as passive smoking *can* cause death, and long-term illness in people, laws should be in place to limit its effect. "I do rebel at the pompous attitude of the anti-smoking lobby." I think this, rather than any semblance of logic, informs your entire view on the matter. Personally, I'm a very, very occasional smoker (less and less as I get older,) and I like drinking at pubs with friends. I can understand smokers feeling got at, but there's just no good reason not to do it, and that's what pisses me off here. The arguments for it are cogent. Even if the evidence of passive smoking *were* dicey (and I don't see that it is,) the simple fact that more people will find it easier to stop smoking, while many others will be less at risk because of it, far outweighs the minor convenience for some of *not* having a ban. ~ This be where I keeps me treasures: www.tyrants.co.uk This be where I goes to get me fix: www.fuselit.co.uk Yarr.

"My argument is simple, that goverment has no business making this sort of law, the minor (if anything - really it is that hard to prove) health benefit to non-smokers is not enough to justify the intrusion." Whether or not you believe what stats there are is up to you, but I find it easy to believe in the longterm damage when I see my friends getting ill after just as hour in a smoky environment. It's not just about the non-smokers too. It's also about the on-off smokers - people for whom smoking laws make the difference being a smoker or not being a smoker. I've known so many people who've wanted to give up smoking, but found it incredibly difficult to do so when they spend a lot of their time in a social environment that encourages smoking, as pubs do. As well as that, pretty much everyone I know who has ever started smoking while I've known them began doing it in pubs first. I'm not saying it's going to change things for everyone, but it *can* make a difference for a significant number, and that alone, when coupled with what we know about passive smoking, justifies the intrusion. "I also think it belittles us as a society that we can't just grin and bare it." I would think it pretty crap of a society to 'grin and bare it' while individuals within it are dying of cancer. "I had a run of scarves the last few christmasses and now have a surfeit, I could send you one if you like." Thanks for the offer, but I can ride it out. ~ This be where I keeps me treasures: www.tyrants.co.uk This be where I goes to get me fix: www.fuselit.co.uk Yarr.

Smoking is good. Not all the time, not everywhere...but if I didn't think it was good, I wouldn't do it. I think the whole smoking ban thing is nothing more than "feel good" politics designed to pick on something available and defenseless. Smoking is a personal freedom. You legislate that freedom away, what's next? Fat people...that'll be next. What after that...? Anybody don't like my smoking, tough shit. Go stand somewhere else. I don't like looking at ugly people, but I'm forced to.

Just when I thought my case couldn't get any stronger, RD arrives on the scene to make all smokers look like arrogant, fucked up little weasels. ~ This be where I keeps me treasures: www.tyrants.co.uk This be where I goes to get me fix: www.fuselit.co.uk Yarr.

Having to go to my local, have a few scoops and not accompany them with a few tugs on a B&H is going to be tough. I'm not one for popping outside for a quick chug - we all know what happens when a bunch of pissed-up yocals congregate outside pubs. But it's a wise policy. I applaud the gov. for going all-out and stamping a total ban. They'll always be less casualties from passive smoking than there is for violent, drunken behaviour, but you can guarantee that this smoking ban, fuelled with a couple of pints and a loss of inhibition, is gonna prove a gold mine for the piggy bank!

75% of the population are going to have their way. The ban will happen, get over it.

Anything to get your dander up hen! Pull my finger.

'A custom loathsome to the eye, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black stinking fume thereof, nearest resembling the horrible stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless.' James 1st Of England 1604. Arr, they knew a thing or two in them days.

Hee Hee. Pesoid said fags. :) I'm just kidding, personaly I don't care what happens with the ban. I got my mom to quit smoking when I was seven. That's enough for me.

I think RD realises that a smoking ban is a slippery slope, Jon. Once they start legislating against the fat and the ugly, he's fucked.

Hey, I'm building powerful muscles that allow me to sit for long periods of time without tiring. I've already been fucked...why do you think I smoke?

The ban doesn't particularly bother me, though I'm a smoker. I do know of pubs though where there is about one non-smoking regular, and that includes staff, I'm sure these types of businesses will go under, though I imagine they'll just ignore the ban. As for bringing on asthma etc. which they undoubtedly do, what about traffic congestion, that's pumping out more fumes that can iritate these conditions, best we all stay in doors aye! nobody

So, what does everyone think about this ban on smoking then? Me? I was brought up in a pub and had a smokers cough by the age of 19 and I didn't smoke at the time. also, You can get arrested for having sex in public and that doesn't hurt anyone so why should you be allowed to start a small fire several inches from total strangers? Fine, ban smoking but then ban drinking and eating to excess too, As far as cost to society goes alcohol and calories do far greater damage than smoking ever could.

Erm, they're not banning *smoking*, per se, just smoking in enclosed public places... which suits me fine. I do wish they'd ban Tesco jam doughnuts, though... those things are *lethal*.

Colorado's Governor just signed the smoking ban bill here. Next time we go fishing together, I intend to light up a big cigar in the canoe. He can take his own fish off the hook from now on too.

Yes Ely, you thicko, they're not banning smoking how stupid of you. Thank heavens we have Archergirl to explain in words of what syllable exactly what the forthcoming law is. Otherwise, we might think it means allsorts.

This isn't about the flammable smoking issues being discussed here - having just read the whole thread, I simply wanted to bear witness to the apparent attempt at bullying by 'celery soup'. I have a quick question for Mr/Ms Soup: where are your stories/poems on this 'abctales' website? Takes a bit of courage to put up some genuinely creative writing, doesn't it.

I don't have any. Its a readers site too 'galfreda'.

p.s, if you're interested in creative writing, you might want to edit your post and stick a question mark on the end there. Bad sentence structure sweetstuff.

This is better than television.

"As far as cost to society goes alcohol and calories do far greater damage than smoking ever could." Alcohol maybe? But calories? If Ely's being serious the pernicious effects of 24 hour media are even worse than I previously thought. Calories are a very good thing. People who don't eat enough, die. The idea of the state making a judgement on what counts as 'eating to excess' is extremely disturbing. Most people in Britain are very cynical about the intelligence and motivations of politicians. Comparatively speaking, I don't think British politicians are espcially stupid or corrupt but I don't really see the benefit of getting them to make and more intrusions into people's personal lives. Do we actually want anyone to take any personal responsibility for anything at all? Maybe we should all just get the local council to do our weekly shopping and send it round in a van.

Celery - you are being over provocative and personal. Please desist.

Thank you, galfreda, for noticing. I'd like to mention how much I enjoy reading your poetry. Can we please have more? I'm not sure what percentage of the populace actually -is- willing to take personal responsibility, and I can think of several people who would looove the council to do their shopping for them, as well as pay them money for 'looking' for work while they use the allowance to pay for their fags and booze. Not that I'm cynical, or anything...

Yes, and so is Archergirl. She does it so consistently that people leave the site rather than suffer her obnoxious bullying. Don't they Tony? So why don't you tell her the same? Eh, Tony? Calories, yes. Check the diabetes levels in the UK. Obesity costs the NHS a fortune, and I work for EMIS, so I know. (FACT). Smoking (in proportion to the taxes gained from it) does not. The facts are grossly obvious. Much like our American cousins.

Another reason to avoid family reunions.

…50-a-day smoker Helen Webster, 48, from Falkirk, condemned the ban. She said: "It has made us feel like criminals. You pay enough for fags as it is in taxes, so I think it is completely unfair." Ah, that explains it, Ms. Webster is Scottish. I recall when I lived in Scotland that a lot of the locals there thought this new law was absolutely insane. I await the time when police have to raid a pub because people are still smoking inside. "Sorry, pal, I am going to have to take yoo to the station." "Erm?" "Yoo's smokin, pal, it's against the law." "Ah right." The smoker drops the cigarette onto the floor and treads on it, putting it out. "Now ahm not smokin', am I?"

*sniff sniff* Gawd, there's that stink again. Wish they'd do it in the loo...

And that's not personal and provocative in which way? You see, I'm a little confused as how it's one rule for one, and one rule for another?

I stared at Holmes who stood next to the WH Smith stand in Liverpool Street station smoking a cigarette. "Holmes, dear God, you can't smoke that here!" I exclaimed, mortified that a passing policeman might arrest my colleague for his crime. "Why ever not? Do you see the well-equipped ventilators, the extremely high ceiling, the fact that even five feet away nobody can smell my cigarette, as the fumes are whisked away to the atmosphere via that huge vent above us." "I do. I think it's because they don't want to pick up discarded cigarette butts Holmes." Holmes nodded sagely at this.

Dearest celery soup, I am taking RadioDenver's advice, which is, every time you decide to say something nasty to and/or about me, I'll simply pretend someone's farted. You'll notice I've not assaulted your character, your intelligence, your job history, your personal taste, etc. But the fact of the matter is, you are consistently rude to me, and rather than descend into a slagging match with you, I'd prefer to treat you like the bad smell you create with your unpleasantness. Simple as that. I may argue with people; I may disagree with them, but I don't bully. Full stop. If you want to engage in kiddie schoolyard fights, I'd suggest you try finding a different site.

You'd think people would have better things to do wouldnt ya? Wish I had so much time on my hands.

Dearest Archergirl, I am not the one trailing around making inane jokes about farts everytime another person speaks. How do you reconcile response of yours whlst maintaining you are uninterested in schoolyard behaviour? You stop treating everyone like three year olds, I'll get off your back.