Smoking Ban

[RainyDay]

I will go on believing that the potential damaging effects of a whiff of smoke in the outside air are negligible compared to the rest of contaminants in the city.

I'm not claiming damaging effects. For the record, I've never asked a smoker not to smoke, other than when in a designated non-smoking area.

But I do believe that it would be simple good manners to

a) not litter butts
b) not smoke in areas where your smoke will be difficult for others to avoid (e.g. queues, crowded platforms etc).

 

[stuart]

It's a bit difficult to move away ........ when walking on the path behind a smoker - Should I speed up (taking in their smoke all the time until I pass them) or slow down and delay my journey, just to get some fresh air?

But I do believe that it would be simple good manners to

a) not litter butts
b) not smoke in areas where your smoke will be difficult for others to avoid (e.g. queues, crowded platforms etc).

Is smoking while walking bad manners also?

As I stated earlier I believe smoking should be banned outright but until it is I will either make an effort to have it banned or not bother moaning about it

I will not complain that it is bad manners just because I disagree with it

 

[podgerodge]

But I do believe that it would be simple good manners to

a) not litter butts
b) not smoke in areas where your smoke will be difficult for others to avoid (e.g. queues, crowded platforms etc).

So do I - I would generally ensure I had a few feet of free space around me !

As I stated earlier I believe smoking should be banned outright

On what basis could it be - if it were banned due to "passive smoking" outdoors then they'll have to ban a lot more than smoking.

 

[stuart]

On what basis could it be - if it were banned due to "passive smoking" outdoors then they'll have to ban a lot more than smoking.

The sale of tobacco could be banned, and I believe it should be

 

[kazbah]

The sale of tobacco could be banned, and I believe it should be

It will never happen - the government makes way too much money on excise duty. I know you can argue it can be offset by healthcare later but they still make a profit.

 

[podgerodge]

Not sure I can agree with Stuart. The banning of stuff just because it is harmful if consumed would be like prohibition. Anyway, for what reason could it be banned, surely it's up to individuals if they want to take risks with their health and they've banned it inside now so what's the problem?

To be honest I worry when I hear statements like "it should be banned" , if people in government acted like that on personal feelings I'd be worried!

 

[kazbah]

It's bad enough we are condemned and shunned like pariahs without being forced underground

 

[Sherman]

The banning of stuff just because it is harmful if consumed would be like prohibition.

What about heroin? Your argument makes absolutely no sense. Tobacco has killed as many people over the last hundred years as wars have.

Tobacco has killed over 100million people in the 20th Century and [broken link removed]

Anyway, for what reason could it be banned, surely it's up to individuals if they want to take risks with their health

See above links. Usually, I would agree with this argument - however, when you've dealing with highly addictive substances, it is standard medical opinion that prevention is better than cure. If making life difficult for existing smokers prevents kids from starting in the first place, I'm all for it.

While I don't want to get into the smoking outdoors argument raging above, I think the net point is this: Active v. Passive. In other words, by choosing to smoke outdoors, smokers are for want of a better way to put it, by their actions actively altering the 'balance' outdoors - non-smokers who object to smoke being blown at them are not actively doing anything - they merely want to enjoy the non-altered situation that occurs naturally i.e. a smoke free breath of fresh air. Hope that makes sense!

 

[podgerodge]

What about heroin? Your argument makes absolutely no sense.

Smokers don't go around robbing/killing people to get a fix - at least not until the government put the price up by another few quid!

Lots of things kill lots of people - alcohol, cars, airplanes, gluttony, etc etc.

by choosing to smoke outdoors, smokers are for want of a better way to put it, by their actions actively altering the 'balance' outdoors

Sorry - I didn't think I had CHOSEN to smoke outdoors, I thought I was forced to!

 

[Sherman]

Sorry - I didn't think I had CHOSEN to smoke outdoors, I thought I was forced to!

No-one is forcing you to smoke at all - you always have the option of giving up you know

 

[ajapale]

Please try to keep the discussion rational/polite. Thanks

 

[stuart]

It's bad enough we are condemned and shunned like pariahs without being forced underground

I would not shun someone for smoking in a public open air place
They have a right to have a cigarette or twenty

But tobacco is a highly addictive drug and smoking of tobacco kills 1 in 4 users (info on side of box)

As long as it is legal then each person should be able to choose for themselves if they smoke

It is just that most governments see fit to have outright bans on certain drugs that cause harm to society and/or individuals and I can see certain similarities between some of those and tobacco

 

[kazbah]

I think it is highly unlikely that the government will ban cigarettes outright. I am disappointed at some of the views expressed in this thread. I don't like being made feel like I am impolite/rude/bad mannered.

What about if my vice was buying expensive petrol-guzzling cars with lots of emissions which is a comparable risk to by-passers health/air quality as passive smoke outdoors.

I wouldn't smoke in a queue or where I didn't have at least a few feet radius to myself but I see no problem with smoking outside bars/restaurants or outside eateries. People who make their disapproval obvious really irk me. I'm going to have to think of some comeback for the disapproving looks, tuts, sighs and coughing.

 

[DrMoriarty]

I'm going to have to think of some comeback for the disapproving looks, tuts, sighs and coughing.

Gift idea for you, kasbah...
[Warning: rude word!]

 

[kazbah]

I like it - bit hard to explain why you're wandering around with a mug though - a TShirt would be the biz though

 

[DrMoriarty]

Yeah, I looked, but nada. Anyway, my wife won't let me wear rude T-shirts anymore...

 

[podgerodge]

Please try to keep the discussion rational/polite. Thanks

When was it not rational or polite?! Grr, I'm going out for a smoke!


Hehe - this one HAS to take the biscuit:

 

[RainyDay]

I will not complain that it is bad manners just because I disagree with it

I complain not because I disagree with it, but because it impacts on me.

the government makes way too much money on excise duty. I know you can argue it can be offset by healthcare later but they still make a profit.

SMokers are a net cost to the state - Check out ash.co.uk or who.org or otc.ie for the details if you wish.

 

[stuart]

I complain not because I disagree with it, but because it impacts on me.

In what way does someone smoking walking down the road impact on you?
Seriously, are you saying that just being near someone who is smoking effects you

I'm not claiming damaging effects.

You already stated that there is no damaging effects to you if is smoking in the open air

So how would it impact on you?

 

[RainyDay]

Smelling someone else's second hand smoke is awful - it stinks. It gets up my nose, literally & metaphorically. I can smell their smoke off my clothes & hair an hour later.

If I feel the need to break wind in public, I make damn sure I do it somewhere that it isn't going to impact other people. Wouldn't it be nice if smokers took the same approach?