England about to become 'Smoke Free'

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
I'd quite like as a non driver not to be subjected to car fumes, so what rights do I have now not to breathe in other peoples car fumes.

I know but it's hardly a reasonable parallel. There are comparatively few cars in offices, bars and restaurants, and like cigarettes drivers are taxed to the hilt. Also car exhausts are cleaner today than ever.

Unlike cigarettes however, cars (and buses etc) do serve a useful purpose and few, probably including yourself even as non driver have not enjoyed their benefits.

I don't love garlic but I hate garlic breath, I like music but hate blaring personal stereos on the tube etc, life is full of injustices. Smoking is simply an easy one to address.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Too much salt ruins the dish.

The solution to inside smoking can be simple.

1. Ban smoiking in all public buildings except in areas where ventilation can be controlled and certain rooms can allow smoking.

2. Provide outside smoking areas on public property that has enough open space to accomdate it.

3. All places that serve any food or drink have to register their staus and recongizable symobls be on the front of the door.

Status One: Smoke Free

Status Two; Smoking areas and non smoking areas using same vintilatoin systems

Status Three: Smoking areas and non smoking areas have separate ventilation systems and non smokers don't have to enter the smoking areas for access to their area or restrooms etc.

Status Four: Smoking allowed. I would suggest a no children under a certain age. This would primarily be for taverns, pubs etc.

If very recognizable logos are used, then this should work.

We have to remember that some people are so allergic to cig. smoke that it coulud be fatal if they inhale tobacco smoke.

Most, if not all of the above have been tried Freddie and overall more don't work than do. The measures you suggest just maintain the status quo.

The workplace situation is a little easier to manage. Social enviroments far less so. Smokers would need to abstain or step out to smoke occasionally. That sounds easy in theory but in practice, it's not always. So, smoking intermissions in movies (or smoking and non smoking cinemas), smoking between courses (or smoking and non smoking environments) and so on. It's just not practical.

Never mind the cost of mainting such facilities to businesses the social aspects come into play, if I want to go out with friends who smoke and are unwilling not to I can't unless I want to risk my health etc by going into a smoking area. If it's unfair to restrict smokers rights isn't it even more unfair for smokers to enforce their health risk habit on others? It's not quite equal unfairness in that regard.

The entrenchment of divisions causes resentment, as does a smoking ban but I would contend that, overall, a ban, if it improves the health of non smokers in many environments, or encourages some smokers to quit is probably a better thing than deepening such artificial divisions.
 

D_Humper E Bogart

Experimental Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Posts
2,172
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
258
Y'know, if cigs actually smelt nice, rather than smelling worse than most chemical plants, than then this wouldn't have been so much an issue.

Seriously, it's probably the only addicitive drug in the world that is addicitive "just because", it doesn't smell nice, taste nice or even improve thought or physical processes (for good or worse) beyond their default degree.

As a non smoker, take my word that my own burning flesh smells nicer. (I hate chemistry classes!)
 

DaveyR

Retired Moderator
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Posts
5,422
Media
0
Likes
30
Points
258
Location
Northumberland
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
As has been previously said it's another example of the Nanny state that GB has become.

Here in the Canaries we are part of Spain but mostly autonomous. The Ban was introduced in January last year in all bars and restaurants. 6 days later the law was changed. Bars under a certain size decide whether they want smoking or not and must display a sign accordingly. Bars over a certain size have to provide separate smoking and non smoking areas.

We spend most of our lives outside here throughout the year so it's no big deal anyway.
 

Belly_Dancer

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Posts
837
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
163
Age
52
Location
Canada
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Female
Dong20, I'm not going to quote your entire post, but I'll just say it's about the most intelligent and well-thought out discourse I've read on the subject so far, and expresses my feelings exactly.

I am an ex-smoker, and when I smoked, I used to feel the way some of the smokers here do. But having been a non-smoker for over 11 years now, my feelings and opinions have changed drastically.
 

B_ScaredLittleBoy

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Posts
3,235
Media
0
Likes
19
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
My 'local' has a non smoking room and a smoking room. I can't wait for the ban though. Darts and pool are in the smoking bit and I hate breathing that shit in and then it sticking to my clothes.

Is it mainly nervous/not confident people who smoke? I just wonder why anyone would do it. Can't wait for the ban! What I mean is, do people smoke just to be relaxed? There are much more healthy ways to do that. And better things to put in your mouth! :p

What I also think is ridiculous is bringing children into pubs, especially in the heavily smoke filled rooms...
 

B_HappyHammer1977

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Posts
785
Media
0
Likes
8
Points
163
Location
Kent, UK
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Two words - Roy Castle. (If yo don't know him Americans, Google it)

Non-smoker all his life, played in clubs and bars for most of his working life and died of lung cancer. Who said passive smoking was bollocks?
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Dong20, I'm not going to quote your entire post, but I'll just say it's about the most intelligent and well-thought out discourse I've read on the subject so far, and expresses my feelings exactly.

I am an ex-smoker, and when I smoked, I used to feel the way some of the smokers here do. But having been a non-smoker for over 11 years now, my feelings and opinions have changed drastically.

Thanks Holly. :biggrin1:

As a rule I oppose any and all Government interference in individual's behaviour but this is a rare exception simply because it's one that it's almost impossible to avoid the effects of without compromising too much - it's not just a behaviour partaken of in private where it affects no-one.

In espousing that view I concede selfishness but I see it as no more than the selfishness of (some) smokers who are willing to impose their habit on me, my family and my friends in the name of protecting their rights as smokers. No one here has expressed such views but plenty IRL do so.

They have a point of course and cite a variety of parallel arguments to back up their argument. Many of these are weak but the non-driver/traffic pollution argument (cited by SP) is more credible than most it's so only in a limited way for reasons outlined already. Walkman overflow and garlic breath (cited my me) may irriate but I doubt they're potentially fatal so most just grin and bear it.

In the end it comes down to consideration and to a degree, personal responsibilty; is a requirement to have some consideration for the health and wellbeing of those you're interacting with (when it's within one's ability to do so) reasonable? I think it is and while enforcing personal responsibility and consideration by means of legislation should not be necessary it seems, sadly, it is.
 

DaveyR

Retired Moderator
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Posts
5,422
Media
0
Likes
30
Points
258
Location
Northumberland
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Although I too am a smoker I wholeheartedly agree with Kotch. There would be fewer problems if smokers were more considerate. I don't even smoke in my own house. I go out on the terrace.
 

B_HappyHammer1977

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Posts
785
Media
0
Likes
8
Points
163
Location
Kent, UK
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Employers are planning to use the July 1 smoking ban to crack down on workers taking cigarette breaks, it has been revealed.
The move could spark workplace disputes or tempt workers to smoke in secret on company premises, it was warned.
A survey of over 250 firms by employment law advisors Consult GEE revealed that more than a third planned to axe smoking breaks when the ban becomes law in England next month.
The report said there was little workers could do to stop breaks being outlawed, but the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) said the move could be "excessive".
Stuart Chamberlain of Consult GEE said: "Although there has never been a contractual right to smoke at work, companies seem keen to eradicate smoking among staff, and the ban is giving them the impetus to do just that.
"Employees will struggle to fight any bans on their smoking breaks because they are not entitled to them. It could be that they try to claim a breach of the Working Time Regulations, which grants staff working for a minimum of six hours a day 20 minutes break.
"However, it will prove difficult for an employee to succeed in the employment tribunal with such a claim."
Most of those surveyed said they will not give staff paid time off to help them give up smoking.
TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: "Lots of smokers see the ban as an opportunity to quit or cut down, but hardened nicotine addicts might not find giving up so easy. If employers decide to crack down on fag breaks, the danger is that some hardened smokers may try to find ways of flouting the ban.
"If going outside to smoke isn't an option, they may be tempted to smoke in secret on company premises."
 

Shelby

Experimental Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
2,129
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Location
in the internet
31 posts and no one even mentions that just maybe the owner of the business should have the right to decide which (perfectly legal) activities are allowed and which are not.

This from the same group that screams bloody murder about the patriot act.

Hello.
 

B_HappyHammer1977

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Posts
785
Media
0
Likes
8
Points
163
Location
Kent, UK
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
31 posts and no one even mentions that just maybe the owner of the business should have the right to decide which (perfectly legal) activities are allowed and which are not.

This from the same group that screams bloody murder about the patriot act.

Hello.

You appear to have completely mised the premise of the ban - It's Health and Safety Law to protect workers from harmful fumes.

If a factory worker was exposed to harmful fumes from chemicals, for example, they would either get shut down (depending on the severity) or the workers would be provided with safety protection. Hmm...can't quite see Doris the barmaid wearing a gas-mask behind the bar!!
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
<...>
I despise tobacco smoke, its stink and its carcinogens and I don't have much sympathy for smokers per se. Despite that, I have mixed feelings about smoking bans in private restaurants and taverns on principle. I continue to believe businesses should be allowed to cater to paying customers who may choose an unhealthy, but still legal, pastime such as smoking. Those consumers and workers who don't like cigarette smoke have always been free to vote with their feet and go elsewhere, as I do.
Much the same as I avoid establishments which feature ear-splitting music. Loud music may not cause cancer, but it does irreversible damage to the hearing. Do you think the nanny state will ever tell music venues (including dance bars) to keep it under a specified decibel level?
I fear that such bans may someday extend to those who wish to consume alcohol, red meat, sugar, greasy chinese food, etc or other arguably unhealthy foodstuffs. All of these can have direct or indirect adverse effects on other consumers although not quite as dramatic as second hand smoke.
They've been working on it, as I'm sure you know. New York has prohibited businesses from selling food containing transfats (unless I dreamed that...) and several lawsuits have been filed against fast food joints for "selling food that made me fat."

I do agree with a ban on smoking in restaurants, but I don't agree with a ban on bars/nightclubs/pubs/taverns. Leave it up to the proprietor. His business decisions will no doubt be guided by supply and demand.
 

SpoiledPrincess

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Posts
7,868
Media
0
Likes
119
Points
193
Location
england
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
There are many things that impinge on our health and financial status but when those are attacked (for instance car fumes, noise pollution) everyone will wholeheartedly defend those and claim it's their god given right. Roughly a quarter of adults in the UK smoke and we have the same rights to smoke as anyone does to drive their car, or eat until they develop diabetes and heart problems and are a financial drain on resources which I with everyone else subsidise. I don't want to inflict my smoke on non smokers, but why do they think they have a right to deny us separate smoking sections when we go out to relax.
 

B_HappyHammer1977

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Posts
785
Media
0
Likes
8
Points
163
Location
Kent, UK
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
"Much the same as I avoid establishments which feature ear-splitting music. Loud music may not cause cancer, but it does irreversible damage to the hearing. Do you think the nanny state will ever tell music venues (including dance bars) to keep it under a specified decibel level?"

Yes, the law, here, states that music cannot go above 100dbs (I think,free to be corrected on that though)..However no club I've ever been to has been below that volume!!
 

B_HappyHammer1977

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Posts
785
Media
0
Likes
8
Points
163
Location
Kent, UK
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
There are many things that impinge on our health and financial status but when those are attacked (for instance car fumes, noise pollution) everyone will wholeheartedly defend those and claim it's their god given right. Roughly a quarter of adults in the UK smoke and we have the same rights to smoke as anyone does to drive their car, or eat until they develop diabetes and heart problems and are a financial drain on resources which I with everyone else subsidise. I don't want to inflict my smoke on non smokers, but why do they think they have a right to deny us separate smoking sections when we go out to relax.

No one's denying you a smoking area...it's outside in the cold!
 

Shelby

Experimental Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
2,129
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Location
in the internet
You appear to have completely mised the premise of the ban - It's Health and Safety Law to protect workers from harmful fumes.

If a factory worker was exposed to harmful fumes from chemicals, for example, they would either get shut down (depending on the severity) or the workers would be provided with safety protection. Hmm...can't quite see Doris the barmaid wearing a gas-mask behind the bar!!

Who forced Doris to work there?
 

SpoiledPrincess

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Posts
7,868
Media
0
Likes
119
Points
193
Location
england
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Bugger off HH you know I'd die in the cold being the delicate hot house flower I am :) I want a smoking area with red velvet chaise's, sumptuous draperies of purple and blues, and a cute little man slave to hold my ashtray.
 

SteveHd

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Posts
3,678
Media
0
Likes
79
Points
183
Location
Daytona
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
There are many things that impinge on our health and financial status but when those are attacked (for instance car fumes, noise pollution) everyone will wholeheartedly defend those and claim it's their god given right. Roughly a quarter of adults in the UK smoke and we have the same rights to smoke as anyone does to drive their car, or eat until they develop diabetes and heart problems and are a financial drain on resources which I with everyone else subsidise. I don't want to inflict my smoke on non smokers, but why do they think they have a right to deny us separate smoking sections when we go out to relax.
Overeating only affects one's own health. Secondhand smoke affects many others and that appears to be what the law is addressing.