Cabinet agrees England smoke ban

Johnny1 said:
You don't pee in the corner in a restaurant, do you? You don't grab the breasts of every goodlooking girl who walks by, right?
Click to expand...

^^Not while I'm smoking ... no!

Being a smoker I'm more than happy to see it banned.

tambourine-man said:
But is it so great if non-smokers have to subsidise someone else's lung cancer treatment? Where is their choice in taxation?
Click to expand...

Smokers provide a huge tax benefit to the country and many die younger thus reducing the strain on pensions etc but of course health care costs must be higher for smokers.
I wonder if there are any studies which compare the cost/benefit relationship between smokers and non smokers.
 
Last edited:
CreativeRandom said:
This theory idea is stupid. If it works in theory, it will work in practice. If it does not work in theory, it will not work in practice.
Click to expand...

Maybe you don't like my wording - it's just a figure of speech really. (I suppose what I really meant was "there's another aspect to this you may not have considered...") But if you're saying everything always turns out as people predict, you're very wrong.

CreativeRandom said:
Are these "great many people" people who frequent bars, or just people who do what most people do on an average working day? Bars, alcohol, and cigarettes go together. People at bars don't care about cigarettes, only control freaks care about cigarettes at bars.
Click to expand...

Yes, plenty of people who do frequent bars would like to see smoking banned. As others have already pointed out in this thread, having smokers around you is very unpleasant for a non-smoker. Just because you're in a bar doesn't make it any more excusable, despite what a lot of people seem to think.

Ataxia said:
Non-smokers are forced to compromise
Click to expand...

Very succinctly put. Despite what everyone is saying about being free to go to a non-smoking area etc, the fact is that the drinking/nightclub industry is very heavily biased in favour of smokers at the moment. That doesn't seem right, given that they are the minority.
 
snowshovel said:
^It's not a "nanny law" the way I see it - that would mean they were trying to prevent people doing themselves harm. Banning tobacco altogether, for example, would be a nanny law. The idea behind a smoking ban in indoor public places is to prevent people from causing harm and discomfort to others.
Click to expand...
it is definitely a nanny law. you choose to be admidst the smoke by choosing to buy that business's goods. the government law is not necesarily against the smokers causing you harm, it could also be seen as being against you allowing yourself to be harmed.

Ultimately I'm saying that it's all well and good for someone to choose to allow smoking in their establishment, and it's great that someone can choose to go in that establishment and choose to smoke. But is it so great if non-smokers have to subsidise someone else's lung cancer treatment? Where is their choice in taxation?
Click to expand...
so applying that logic to other scenarios, anything that could be unhealthy to anyone should be illegal! the argument has been about harm to people. if you leave that argument behind and say it's about citizens paying more taxes for health services, you should then start banning numerous other unhealthy things, and really regulating some fast food services
 
Johnny1 said:
You're not allowed to own a bar or restaurant where you serve people poisoned food and drink. So why should you be allowed to own a bar that has poisoned air?
.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Bar's make their livlihood selling a poison known as "alcohol." Cities are full of dangerous, carcingenic second-hand smoke from these products known as "automobiles". A coroner once told me that whenever he looks at someone's lungs, it's easy to tell if A) They smoked, or B) If they lived in a city, because both stain your lungs significantly (albiet a smoker's lung more so). You live in L.A., right? Friend, whenever you breathe, you have a lot more to worry about than second-hand cigarette smoke (Not that I have anything against Los Angeles).


Johnny1 said:
We went smoke-free in bars in Los Angeles several years ago and it's sooo much nicer to go out at night. The smokers can still smoke, just outside, and we don't come home to bury our faces in our beautiful women's (or men's) necks only to smell a hair full of stink anymore. The bars still make plenty of money, and I haven't heard someone complain about this law here in years.
Click to expand...


Ok, so you don't like cigarette smoke. But that's your personal preference. There are those who enjoy it. Why should you be able to go into a bar and demand that your personal preference be enforced by law? Just take your business (and money) elsewhere.


tambourine-man said:
But is it so great if non-smokers have to subsidise someone else's lung cancer treatment? Where is their choice in taxation?
Click to expand...

There's a major flaw in that argument. Let's say a smoker dies at the age of 50 from lung cancer. They get sick, they spend a year or so undergoing treatment, then they die. Now let's say they didn't smoke, and they lived to be 85. At age 65, they get diabetes. Taxpayers pay for their insulin. At age 75, they take prescription drugs for a heart condition at the taxpayer's expense. At age 80, they have a pacemaker put in. Finally, they die at age 85.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that eventually, everyone who doesn't die young ends up running up a health care bill. Smoking just speeds it up.
 
Last edited:
You know what you smokers are right. We should have a seperate room just for you. Just make it much smaller and more condensed, and you'll know how us non-smokers feel. They just banned smoking in my state in public places and I love not going home smelling like cigs even know I don't smoke. And I'm not even talking about all the long term damage that secondary smoke is doing to me.8)
 
"There's a major flaw in that argument. Let's say a smoker dies at the age of 50 from lung cancer. They get sick, they spend a year or so undergoing treatment, then they die. Now let's say they didn't smoke, and they lived to be 85. At age 65, they get diabetes. Taxpayers pay for their insulin. At age 75, they take prescription drugs for a heart condition at the taxpayer's expense. At age 80, they have a pacemaker put in. Finally, they die at age 85."
Click to expand...

The major point you are making is "Now let's say they didn't smoke, and they lived to be 85. At age 65, they get diabetes. Taxpayers pay for their insulin. At age 75, they take prescription drugs for a heart condition at the taxpayer's expense. At age 80, they have a pacemaker put in. Finally, they die at age 85."

What if they didn't smoke; well they are and they thats the point. And you are polluting the minimal air us non-smokers are getting in these bars, clubs, etc.......
 
I wonder if that includes bars/pubs serving just crisps + peanuts.

In any case what it takes for decent air is quality ventilation. I think if a pub can show evidence of a powerful efficient ventilation system, then smoking should be ok. Where I live, places generally don't have that, and the non-smoking rule is going to be applied to restaurants as of next month. but drinking dens so far have no restrictions. Personally I end up smoking too whenever I'm out . .. but if it was banned, hey, I'd actually appreciate it! :) I really do think smokers kinda like their pleasure too much to even admit that it harms and just bl**dy irritates the hell out of others who'd rather not smoke. I went thru a totalyl smoke-free period in my life and no smell was more sickening than tobacco smoke.
 
Ximot said:
Personally I end up smoking too whenever I'm out . .. but if it was banned, hey, I'd actually appreciate it! :)
Click to expand...

Same here.

This summer, the law in Sweden that forbids smoking in clubs, pubs and restaurants was put into place. I didn't really mind it- I mean, it is a bit more boring going out when you don't have cigarettes to keep you occupied, but putting my personal pleasure aside, I think it's for the best. Most places just put tables and chairs outside where most of the smokers were happy to sit. I don't know how they'll manage in winter though.

The one big problem that people have complained about though... is that when in crowded clubs, cigarette smoke tends to cloud other, more unpleasant smells (body odour and farts, for example), but now that you can't smoke anymore, the owners have to think of other solutions, like install more fans, or giant pine tree air fresheners or whatever it is they do.
 
Ok, so you don't like cigarette smoke. But that's your personal preference. There are those who enjoy it. Why should you be able to go into a bar and demand that your personal preference be enforced by law? Just take your business (and money) elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Right. This is a matter of freedom versus preference. We live in a free country, and freedom is not always great. It has a load of baggage with it. Some people tout freedom so often then forget the negatives that come with it. Unless a state or a community as a whole puts this issue to a vote, then it should not be a matter of whether smoking should be banned or not.

What we have here is more of an oligarchal political process, where some government officials decide on the issue.

And another thing. This whole "Taxpayer Issue". The government is not here to decide on issues simply because of the costs or convenience. It has been brought up a few times here, and I don't give a damn if your using it in support of banning smoking or not. It is stupid. Should we get rid of the police because they cost taxpayer money? Should we use substandard breathalyzers simply because of the costs, even if real conclusive breathalyzation means having a van with the adequate equipment?

But regardless, smoking should be considered when taken into government provided medical aid. Private companies already do this. Just another reason why the government can't do shit right that private businesses can.
 
CreativeRandom said:
And another thing. This whole "Taxpayer Issue". The government is not here to decide on issues simply because of the costs or convenience. It has been brought up a few times here, and I don't give a damn if your using it in support of banning smoking or not. It is stupid. Should we get rid of the police because they cost taxpayer money? Should we use substandard breathalyzers simply because of the costs, even if real conclusive breathalyzation means having a van with the adequate equipment?
Click to expand...

The difference is, the police are providing a service for the whole community, which is why the whole community pays equally. Yet smokers pay the same as non-smokers for state-provided healthcare, but are more likely to need treatment (as reflected by their higher premiums from private insurers). It's not about the costs but about how fairly they are spread.

The government isn't trying to make this an issue of convenience, but one of public health. The only cause the smokers are fighting for, however, is the convenience to be able to smoke at will.
 
Stick someone with your needle in a public place and you'll get a punch in the face. Then you'll probably complain about how it was your right! (while rubbing your nose)
 
When you use a needle, those around you don't have to. When you smoke a cig, everyone around you smokes and stinks with you. My comment was intended to demonstrate how CreativeRandom's analogy to needles was ridiculous. 8(
 
what about an addition to the law - better ventilation/air con?
or does that just add to noise levels (air con)
 
One thing that is being overlooked here, the health of EMPLOYEES. What if the only job you can get to support your family is at a smoke-filled resturant or bar, and you have asthma?
 
IAmJacksUserName said:
There's a major flaw in that argument. Let's say a smoker dies at the age of 50 from lung cancer. They get sick, they spend a year or so undergoing treatment, then they die. Now let's say they didn't smoke, and they lived to be 85. At age 65, they get diabetes. Taxpayers pay for their insulin. At age 75, they take prescription drugs for a heart condition at the taxpayer's expense. At age 80, they have a pacemaker put in. Finally, they die at age 85.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that eventually, everyone who doesn't die young ends up running up a health care bill. Smoking just speeds it up.
Click to expand...

No, you're taking a rather cock-eyed view of the situation. Looking at the bigger picture, it's clear that at any given moment a smoker is more likely than an equivalent non-smoker to need treatment. (Equivalent meaning we assume they are exactly the same in all respects other than smoking). So over a given period of time, a disproportionate amount of smokers will need treatment compared to non-smokers. Therefore they end up costing the healthcare service more.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top