england ban on smoking

[Terrywoodenpic]

I think businesses should have the right to choose what happens in their establishments, just as people have a right to work or not work somewhere. The government has no right to dictate to private companies who they can have in their place or business, nor should they dictate what can be done there if it isn't an illegal activity.

If the government wishes to ban smoking, ban it in government buildings. Ban it in public places paid for by tax dollars with designated smoking areas. Like the "Mormon Zoo" as we call it. (No offense my LDS friends) The Salt Lake City Airport has glassed off rooms where people can smoke and not have it bug the other people who don't like it. You can sit there and watch them through the glass.... thus, the Mormon Zoo. (no offense, I find it great and funny in my own twisted way)

Private businesses should be able to choose if they allow smoking, a smoking and non-smoking area, or all non-smoking. The government has no right to dictate such a thing. Places used to have smoking and non-smoking. Hotels/Motels and airlines with long flights still offer such a choice. What gives the government the right to just ban a legal activity?

If it is a smoking establishment and you don't like smoke, DON'T GO THERE! As for public places, they are just that: PUBLIC- FOR ALL! Put up areas for no smoking and areas for smoking to make it fair to all. A ban is ridiculous! That is like telling the owner of an All-Atheist shop they must sell Bibles, the owner of a hiking boot store they must put in wheel-chair access ramps, the owner of a pornography store that they must have an area for children!!!!!!!!!!! Absolutely absurd! Some people have no business being or doing what they do in certain places, but the government has no right to dictate such a thing to private businesses!

Ex-smoker of 7 years

The government in the UK is the Government of the people... it is not separate from the people. It acts for us in all our interests and with the power we give them.
BY us I mean every one, including Private businesses. we are all in this, and every decision that results in a law, together.
The Government, and that means all of us, have every right to decide the laws and regulations that govern our lives.
Property rights are not absolute, they are subject to law.

 

[Moey]

I am not even going to get into this! I can not believe you have just said smoking doesnt kill!!!!! I am completely shocked!!! I have never said people shouldnt smoke its upto them. All my friends smoke, but at least they are not under the impression it doesnt kill!!! IT DOES!!! SMOKING CAUSES CANCER!! AMONG OTHER THINGS!!!!! it contains a carcinogenic!!!!!!!!!!

Smoking may cause cancer and that is what kills you. It's kind of like the gun doesn't kill, people do.

 

[Mathematician]

If it's a public health hazard, the government absolutely has the right to intervene.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If your saying that no matter what it will kill you than why doesn't the government tell the tobacco companies to make them healthier?

Smoking doesn't kill, Cancer does.

Simple. The government is greedy, and makes a ton of money from cigarettes.
Smoking contains a ton of carcinogenic agents, which can cause cancer in many systems.

I don't see a problem with it. I would be against it if the government tried to ban smoking completly, but they aren't.
When I smoked, I didn't have a problem respecting the fact that some people do not wish to be around smoke.

 

[morning-star]

I agree 100% with tha ban! If they want to kill themselves then it’s up to them but I’m not happy about someone taking me down with them with second hand smoke! I also do not appreciate breathing in their smoke when I am trying to eat in a restaurant, it’s quite frankly discussing when you are eating, and people I know with asthma can suffer badly because of it. I’m not saying ban it completely I’m just saying it’s good to ban it in public places.

 

[Ðanisty]

I agree 100% with tha ban! If they want to kill themselves then it’s up to them but I’m not happy about someone taking me down with them with second hand smoke! I also do not appreciate breathing in their smoke when I am trying to eat in a restaurant, it’s quite frankly discussing when you are eating, and people I know with asthma can suffer badly because of it. I’m not saying ban it completely I’m just saying it’s good to ban it in public places.

Why not give public places the option of choosing? If an establishment wants to allow smoking, non-smokers don't have to go there. If an establishment wants to ban smoking, smokers don't have to go there. A business should be allowed to choose which clientèle they cater to.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Why not give public places the option of choosing? If an establishment wants to allow smoking, non-smokers don't have to go there. If an establishment wants to ban smoking, smokers don't have to go there. A business should be allowed to choose which clientèle they cater to.

That is not the way it works in the UK.
The country has decided on a ban...
That way Businesses are not permitted to make decisions contrary to their staffs wishes.

 

[Ðanisty]

That is not the way it works in the UK.
The country has decided on a ban...
That way Businesses are not permitted to make decisions contrary to their staffs wishes.

I understand what England has decided to do. I'm saying it doesn't make sense. What I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be all or nothing. I don't get your comment on the staff. What do they have to do with this?

 

[Comet]

The problem with your argument is, is allowing smokers to smoke in public places is taking away the rights of non-smokers! Most public places are filled with smoke. I love going for a pub lunch - are you telling me I shouldnt be the one to go? That is taking away my right to chose where I want to eat. The ban doesnt take away the right for smokers to smoke, just a lmitation thats all!!!

You must never have been to England then!!!!! Smoking areas and Non smoking areas arent excactly protecting the non smokers from smoke! Its one room, one end smokers, one end non smokers! And smoke travels!!!!

Why should we die just because they want to kill themselves! Its pure selfishness!!!! And your examples of bibles in stores etc, that doesnt effect anyone else, that is a shop purely for atheists - so people who believe in God may chose not to go there. A restaurant is for ALL to eat in!!! EVERY restaurant at the moment is full of smoke unless it has a no-smoking policy!!! Smoking effects EVERYONE, not just those that smoke!!!

How is letting a PRIVATE business choose what to do taking away your rights??????? You are taking away their rights by a flat out ban! Just as a religious person DOESN'T have to go to an Atheist store, they are still welcome to. It is a choice. Placing a ban on ALL is not giving anybody a choice. A pub should have the right to choose what they offer and you still have a choice to not eat there if you don't wish to. Some would be smoking, some non-smoking, some would offer both. How is this taking away rights? A ban takes away rights.

If you read my post, I did say that in PUBLIC places there should be designated smoking areas to protect the PUBLIC. Therefore ALL can enjoy the PUBLIC lands, parks, etc.... and people won't have to be subjected to second hand smoke. A PRIVATELY owned establishment should have its RIGHTS as well as the public. There is a big difference between the two. Priva businesses that want the non-smoker business will go non-smoking, those that want the smokers business will be smoking.... some will offer both, and maybe some will do as the SLC Airport has done (Vegas as well) and put in a system to offer smoking and a healthy smoke-free environment for the non-smokers.

Again, it is an argument of PRIVATE vs PUBLIC. I do agree with you in a PUBLIC setting such as parks, the zoo, etc.... What gives you the RIGHT to dictate how a PRIVATE business is run???????? If you want clean air, then lets ban cars and power companies as well..... they polute my PUBLIC air as well..... cars are on PUBLIC property..... do I have the right to take away your right to drive on PUBLIC streets?

 

[Comet]

The government in the UK is the Government of the people... it is not separate from the people. It acts for us in all our interests and with the power we give them.
BY us I mean every one, including Private businesses. we are all in this, and every decision that results in a law, together.
The Government, and that means all of us, have every right to decide the laws and regulations that govern our lives.
Property rights are not absolute, they are subject to law.

So the government is for not letting privately owned businesses choose how to run their companies, it is for a "we got elected" so WE decide what to make you do attitude, it is for taking away the rights of some but not all. Sounds like the USA to me!

I understand your view point, I really do. Yet, you speak of laws. People are subject to laws, not RIGHTS! If you feel so strongly on a smoking ban, then WHY IS IT NOT ILLEGAL????????????? You have the right to smoke, but you can't do it in public or on your PRIVATE property either..... as that is subject to law? If you want to ban smoking, make it illegal. You can't do heroin in pubs or on the street, it is illegal. Smoking is legal and those that do smoke HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SO. Non-smokers have the right to not be subjected to that smoke. Businesses have the right to choose what LEGAL activities happen in their establishments or on their property.

Smoking is not illegal, thus the smokers are not doing anything wrong. The government is in the wrong to flat out BAN a legal activity. I think the government should quit wasting money to get a ban going and spend it on upgrading PUBLIC places to offer a greater good to ALL! Designated smoking areas in public places with fines for those who smoke outside of them and the RIGHT of a business/private property owner to choose what happens on their property!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I understand what England has decided to do. I'm saying it doesn't make sense. What I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be all or nothing. I don't get your comment on the staff. What do they have to do with this?

Every thing... they are citizens too They do not want to be forced to suffer second hand smoke.
And the companies do not want to face law suits from them, for damaging their health.
It has already been successfully done.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

How is letting a PRIVATE business choose what to do taking away your rights??????? You are taking away their rights by a flat out ban! Just as a religious person DOESN'T have to go to an Atheist store, they are still welcome to. It is a choice. Placing a ban on ALL is not giving anybody a choice. A pub should have the right to choose what they offer and you still have a choice to not eat there if you don't wish to. Some would be smoking, some non-smoking, some would offer both. How is this taking away rights? A ban takes away rights.

If you read my post, I did say that in PUBLIC places there should be designated smoking areas to protect the PUBLIC. Therefore ALL can enjoy the PUBLIC lands, parks, etc.... and people won't have to be subjected to second hand smoke. A PRIVATELY owned establishment should have its RIGHTS as well as the public. There is a big difference between the two. Priva businesses that want the non-smoker business will go non-smoking, those that want the smokers business will be smoking.... some will offer both, and maybe some will do as the SLC Airport has done (Vegas as well) and put in a system to offer smoking and a healthy smoke-free environment for the non-smokers.

Again, it is an argument of PRIVATE vs PUBLIC. I do agree with you in a PUBLIC setting such as parks, the zoo, etc.... What gives you the RIGHT to dictate how a PRIVATE business is run???????? If you want clean air, then lets ban cars and power companies as well..... they polute my PUBLIC air as well..... cars are on PUBLIC property..... do I have the right to take away your right to drive on PUBLIC streets?

I think your not understanding public places! unless i ma wrong, as far as I am aware, you can still smoke outdoors, zoos, parks etc. Just not in an enclosed space! It is taking away my rights! For instance. Places have the choice at the moment to allow amoking or not. Most do! There are few places I can go in as I dont like the smoke! I do see your point, but it doesn work like that! In might in America, but this isnt America, its England! The government can chose when we have sex, smoke, drink (yours is the strictest!) so why cant they chose where people smoke! when it will benefit everyones health, passive smoking is worse than actual smoking!

 

[Truth_Faith13]

So the government is for not letting privately owned businesses choose how to run their companies, it is for a "we got elected" so WE decide what to make you do attitude, it is for taking away the rights of some but not all. Sounds like the USA to me!

I understand your view point, I really do. Yet, you speak of laws. People are subject to laws, not RIGHTS! If you feel so strongly on a smoking ban, then WHY IS IT NOT ILLEGAL?????????????

Thats a whole different topic! Personally I have always asked the same question and think it should be made illegal. But that is the government for you! I didnt say I agree with the government I said I agree with this decision! Ask the government that question!

I could complain the same about coming to America when I was 20 and not being allowed to drink! When in my own country, I have been drinking for two years as an ADULT! But again thats the government, we dont agree with all of them and we dont agree with everything they do!!!

But personally I agree with the limitation of smoking as it affects everyone not just the smoker unlike drinking which only effects the drinker!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

So the government is for not letting privately owned businesses choose how to run their companies, it is for a "we got elected" so WE decide what to make you do attitude, it is for taking away the rights of some but not all. Sounds like the USA to me!

I understand your view point, I really do. Yet, you speak of laws. People are subject to laws, not RIGHTS! If you feel so strongly on a smoking ban, then WHY IS IT NOT ILLEGAL????????????? You have the right to smoke, but you can't do it in public or on your PRIVATE property either..... as that is subject to law? If you want to ban smoking, make it illegal. You can't do heroin in pubs or on the street, it is illegal. Smoking is legal and those that do smoke HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SO. Non-smokers have the right to not be subjected to that smoke. Businesses have the right to choose what LEGAL activities happen in their establishments or on their property.

Smoking is not illegal, thus the smokers are not doing anything wrong. The government is in the wrong to flat out BAN a legal activity. I think the government should quit wasting money to get a ban going and spend it on upgrading PUBLIC places to offer a greater good to ALL! Designated smoking areas in public places with fines for those who smoke outside of them and the RIGHT of a business/private property owner to choose what happens on their property!

What you suggest is not the case in British law.
The law says what, why, when, who and where .... about smoking.
It makes no distinction about work places, public, Private or what ever. You can smoke in your own home ore in the open air... but not in enclosed property.
Some privately owned businesses and hospitals have banned smoking from their entire property already... both inside and out. this is their choice.

The Government has responded to pressure from people and health experts to introduce this ban... it has popular support.
They have not gone so far as to make smoking illegal... just where you can not do it.

It will eventually reduce the numbers of smokers, as people will find they do not care to prolong their suffering from withdrawal, for instance at work.

The government have not been able to find a legal way to ban the manufacture or use of tobacco. Though the EEC may find a way in the future.

The tax we will lose will in any even be countered by savings in the Health service.

The same would not apply in the USA as your health professionals make money from illness, and would lose out with a smoking ban.

 

[Quagmire]

But personally I agree with the limitation of smoking as it affects everyone not just the smoker unlike drinking which only effects the drinker!

You're kidding right? I don't know what it's like in the UK but here in the US alcohol is reponsible for almost as many deaths each year as tabacco. And the percentage of casulities among innocent bystanders is much, much higher.

That's to say nothing of the victims of alcohol related violent crimes.

Granted there are laws regulating alcohol use but in IMO, they're much too lax; you can get away with driving drunk 3 times here before your liscence is in jeapordy of being taken away. To me that's like being allowed to fire a gun in a crowd 3 times before they'll take your gun away.

I know alot more people who've been effected by someone else's drinking than those who've sufferred health consequences due to other people's smoking.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Here a drunk driver can be banned...fined...and even imprisoned First time round.
Even have his car taken away from him.
People still drink and drive.
Not a lot more we can do on that front.

 

[Panda]

I don't think drink driving is much of a problem anymore, it just doesn't really happen. You are very likely to get caught, imprissoned and your lience and even car taken off of you. Most people will pay the £15-£20 for the taxi or crash at a friends.

In Scotland smokeing has been banned for over a year now in public places and well im glad for it. I mean i can now sit in a pub/restaraunt and not have to put up with that awful smell.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't think drink driving is much of a problem anymore, it just doesn't really happen.

I wish that were so across the ocean.

 

[morning-star]

Why not give public places the option of choosing? If an establishment wants to allow smoking, non-smokers don't have to go there. If an establishment wants to ban smoking, smokers don't have to go there. A business should be allowed to choose which clientèle they cater to.

because it then becomes less public, and picking who they serve in caffs etc. will make profit down, and divide people etc.

public = suitable for everyone.

that in PUBLIC places there should be designated smoking areas to protect the PUBLIC. Therefore ALL can enjoy the PUBLIC lands, parks, etc.... and people won't have to be subjected to second hand smoke.

 

[James the Persian]

You're kidding right? I don't know what it's like in the UK but here in the US alcohol is reponsible for almost as many deaths each year as tabacco. And the percentage of casulities among innocent bystanders is much, much higher.

That's to say nothing of the victims of alcohol related violent crimes.

Granted there are laws regulating alcohol use but in IMO, they're much too lax; you can get away with driving drunk 3 times here before your liscence is in jeapordy of being taken away. To me that's like being allowed to fire a gun in a crowd 3 times before they'll take your gun away.

I know alot more people who've been effected by someone else's drinking than those who've sufferred health consequences due to other people's smoking.

That's really not the same thing, is it? Saying that drunk people might harm others around them is not the same at all as saying that smoking harms others around you. Unless, of course, you believe that by breathing in evaporating beer from the drinker across the bar from you is damaging your health? I've certainly never heard of 'passive drinking', have you?

James