The health nazi's are on the march. In my own home town, the idiots have banned smoking in all places open to the public. Including bars! Don't they realize that smoking and drinking go together like PB and J? California has gone so far as to ban smoking in apartments. In your own apartment! Some towns have banned smoking in your own car if there's a child in it. During alcohol prohibition, it was illegal to make or sell alcohol. But not to drink it. Ironically we are now approaching the opposite situation with tobacco. It's perfectly legal to sell or make, but illegal to smoke it!
I think you should be able to smoke in your own home, but I'm glad smoking in pubs/bars is banned in the UK.
If it were politicians who were passing these measures, then you could decry it as political encroachment on your life. But the vast majority of these measures are voted on by open ballots. If you don't like them, then I would campaign against them. I hate tobacco. It's fumes are toxic and if the citizens of a place decide that it should not be allowed in certain places, then I'm all for it. In Ohio (where I live), the citizens OVERWHELMINGLY passed a state constitutional amendment banning smoking in all commercial establishments except for private "members only" smoking establishments... no exceptions. This isn't brazen and power hungry politicians taking away your rights, this was the overwhelming voice of the citizens of the state of Ohio removing the "right" of smokers to spew their toxic gasses into the air where other, non smokers, may be forced to breath it. One can argue that "Well, don't go into the bar and you won't have to deal with it." But since second hand smoke has been proven dangerous, that argument doesn't hold water. It's not possible to be a passive smoker and not cause harm to non smokers. Now, as for the rules against smoking in front of kids: I'm all for it. It's a toxic poison-- just because THIS form of poison is somewhat socially acceptable to some, doesn't negate its toxicity. As for banning smoking in apartments, well, that seems a bit rough (however, I see no issue with landlords not wanting to rent their property to smokers). ~String
I love the UK ban on smoking in enclosed public places. I can go for a drink with my friends, and not come home reeking of somebody elses smoke. Smokers rant on about freedom to smoke, but their rights end where non-smokers noses begin. We have the right to NOT smoke now, and it was a long time coming. In ten years, people will think it was a stupid idea to allow in the first place, like smoking on aeroplanes. I like that law about not smoking in a car if there is a child in it. That should be extended to the home too. My parents smoked, and while I liked them as people, I despised their habit. I do however think the UK ban should be relaxed a little, to allow for shisha bars etc, as long as staff are not expected to service rooms where smoking is allowed.
Many fires are caused by smokers that leave a lit cigarette somewhere and it falls onto the floor or other places where it catches their room on fire. If you live in an apartment with 100's of people, it would only take one person to start a fire due to carelessness with their smokes. So while everyone can still smoke outside anywhere I'd think that it would be prudent to try and prevent fires from happening in large apartment complexes or high rises.
I have made many posts here about my dislike of smokers. I think banning smoking in bars is really crazy though. Where are all those "cool" people from high school, going to hang out and pass around STDs now?
Have we all forgotten about the "considerate smoker?" You know, the one who puts out when asked by another because they have allergies or have other personal issues with tobacco? Most smokers will do this as a courtesy to their fellow man/woman/patriot. By the way, and just for further comment, I read a scientific study about four years ago that indicated that a nonsmoker exposed to second hand smoke is as likely to develop lung cancer as someone who drinks chlorinated tap water. Personally, I think the "White Lies" campaign in the US, and others like it, are living up to their name. In businesses where kids are the main patrons, I'd say sure, ban smoking indoors entirely. But bars and pubs? More harm is done to society from alcohol than smoking (combining health risks, injuries on the roadways, and domestic violence matters). But no one will touch alcohol again after what happened during prohibition. Instead of billboards of pretty ladies & their Virgina Slims, we now have beer and hard liquor billboards spread over the highways. Once taxes increase on tobacco products to the point where a blackmarket becomes feasible, some of the restrictions may start to balance out. If a business itself wants to ban smoking, as in a non-smoking bar, that's fine by me. But to disenfranchise a business as to whom they wish to tailor their patrons goes beyond reasonable commercial control. Certainly not in open air stadiums at a football or baseball game.
Do any of you think that anti-smoking campaign will backfire and paradoxically encourage the younger generation to view smoking as a means towards rebellion in their teenage years?
absolutely Learned Hand, it's been happening for generations. Problem being, once you start, you can't just stop.
So all of those smokers who've quit smoking altogether, and haven't smoked for years, ....can't stop??? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
String, there is no evidence that sitting near someone in a bar smoking causes any health problems whatsoever. Living with a smoker your entire life slightly increases you risk of certain health problems, but casual contact in a public setting with reasonable ventilation is not a health risk at all. Telling business owners they can't allow smoking if they want to is a serious encroachment on property rights. If the public is really so concerned about smoking in bars, let them vote with their pocketbooks and not go to bars. Furthermore, why have several bars gone out of business since they banned smoking in bars in my home town?j Please that's way overblown. You just open a window. Again, it's a property rights issue. Do you really want the government using "the children" to dictate exactly what you can do on your own property? Here I agree. I have great respect for property rights. If a landlord wants to ban smoking, fine. Or if a company wants to ban it on its property, fine. But the government shouldn't be dictating what you can do on your own property. At least not when there's essentially no risk. If they can ban smoking with the flimsy evidence they have to show it's a risk to anyone's health when exposed only in casual public situations, they can and will ban anything. PS I don't even smoke. Except an occasional (like a few a year) cigar.
The Dangers of Secondhand Smoke Secondhand smoke is a toxic by-product of smoking tobacco which affects anyone who is exposed to it. Otherwise known as environmental tobacco smoke(ETS), find out why it is harmful, who is most at risk from exposure, and what you can do to protect yourself and loved ones from it. Secondhand smoke is a toxic cocktail consisting of poisons and carcinogens. There are over 4000 chemical compounds in secondhand smoke; 200 of which are known to be poisonous, and upwards of 60 have been identified as carcinogens. When a cigarette is smoked, about half of the smoke is inhaled / exhaled (mainstream smoke) by the smoker and the other half floats around in the air (sidestream smoke). Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) plays a part in more health problems than you might realize. The following facts point out why it is so important to have smoking bans in place. No one should be forced to breathe in air tainted with cigarette smoke. http://www.dogpile.com/clickserver/...pKrA+5cXWw=&23=0&40=Eu9Ws7urBMs=&_IceUrl=true
You make a bunch of statements, yet offer no proof. I checked your link, same thing. I did come across a reference to one study saying those exposed to second hand smoke had an increased risk of coronary disease. It didn't define the exposure. But I'll bet it didn't define someone exposed only in public situtations as a 'second hand smoker'.
I'm with you, man. It's a matter of personal liberty. People that walk around in the streets filled with car exhaust and then complain about tobacco lack a fundamental sense of perspective. You aren't going to live forever, so shut up.
I love going into a pub or bar dressed and cologned up smelling good, then coming out smelling like a cigarette butt. I love riding in a car with a smoker and getting out smelling like a cigarette butt.
The link has many other links within it. If you go through them they have further details as to finding your answers.
That's not the point. It's about MY CHOICE NOT TO IMBIBE YOUR DRUGS. I am not a smoker, so why the fuck should I have to breathe in cigaraette smoke? Because you want to be free to smoke? Well hell, does that mean I get to make you drink what I drink, or smell of what I choose to drink? DOES IT? DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT NOW? FUCK.
Those of us that are not smokers prefer not to smell like an ashtray. It's not all about health, some of it is about not smelling like you.
Then stay away from where people are smoking. I prefer not to inhale exhaust, but that doesn't mean I can make everyone stop driving on my street. I prefer not to look at ugly people, but I can't make them clear out the K-Mart when I want to go shopping.
