Should Smoking in Public Be Banned?

[Lightworker]

Rubixcyoob - its weird that you say we should just "man up" so if someone got cancer as a result of 2nd hand smoke they should think "oh thats my fault I got cancer, because I didn't man up". Does that make sense? Do you think a non smoker will deliberately walk into a crowd of smokers? I am speaking of people who smoke near you and blow in your face eg if you are walking in town.

 

[Lightworker]

Tatties mom - you mentioned drink driving but drink driving is already illegal

 

[Lightworker]

Oh someone mentioned a penicillin allergy but the two are not comperable because nobody is attacking you with penicillin filled syringes and you have the right to decline it if offered as treatment, whereas we have no choice when smoke is blown in our faces.

 

[rubixcyoob.]

The rights embodied in the Human Rights Act are not absolute and can be clawed back in the interest of national health and TBH I cannot imagine how Article 8, which protects the right to family life and privacy can be construed to encompass smoking in public. Really I cannot imagine how, although Id be happy tto stand corrected.

Actually, unless you want to go to the European Court of Human Rights no government can legally go back on the ECHR without having a consensus passed through the Houses of Parliament, then onto the House of Lords, finally signed by the Queen as an Act of Parliament.

Currently, in Scotland at least, the rights protected by the ECHR are enforced through the Scotland Act 1998. In the UK the rights are protected by the Human Rights Act 1998. These acts would need to be changed completely for them to be scrapped.

Article 8 of the ECHR:
1.Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2.There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Private life can be argued to encompass smoking. Smoking is a personal choice and no one has been made to declare that they smoke to another, unless a medial exam or otherwise asked to help them. Smoking is a private issue and not the interest of the public, no one has the right to know if another smokes of not.
Private and family life does not mean within the home, it means anything private to the individual them-self.

And following the second part of the Article a smoking ban could not be enforced because a national ban on public smoking is not an interest of national security, is not for public safety, will not prevent crime or disorder, won't damage the morals of others nor will it harm the freedom of others.

Yes it could be argued that a ban on smoking would protect the health of others, but this weighed against the rest of the act is not enough for a judge to pass it as a law. Especially in respect of the economy. No judge in their right mind would ban something that has done, and will continue to, have a huge influx of money through tax and sales into our economy, especially at a time like this.

Also, smokers could argue that people have a choice not to be around smoking at all. They could argue that instead of non-smokers be allowed to ban smoking, smoking should be allowed anywhere and those who disagree can just stay in their homes - like banning smoking in public reversed.

 

[rubixcyoob.]

Rubixcyoob - its weird that you say we should just "man up" so if someone got cancer as a result of 2nd hand smoke they should think "oh thats my fault I got cancer, because I didn't man up". Does that make sense? Do you think a non smoker will deliberately walk into a crowd of smokers? I am speaking of people who smoke near you and blow in your face eg if you are walking in town.

Please, refrain from putting words in my mouth or twisting what I said. I think it was perfectly clear that I did not say what you are insinuating.

I said man up in the respect of complaining about smoking and going over the top with the issue.

If you are walking in town and see someone smoking, walk around them. If they are in front of you fall a few steps behind or overtake. There are always ways of avoiding it or minimising the exposure.

 

[Linzi]

Im an ex smoker & voted no.

Its a bit OTT. Maybe we should just enforce politeness on people. Common sense. I never soked in doorways, around babies or pregnant people. It was mostly either round the back of work or in a beer garden. Never at bus stops etc.

Its just rudeness and I don't see why everyone should be punished for the fact that a few people don't have brains.
xx

 

[rubixcyoob.]

Oh someone mentioned a penicillin allergy but the two are not comperable because nobody is attacking you with penicillin filled syringes and you have the right to decline it if offered as treatment, whereas we have no choice when smoke is blown in our faces.

I did.
No one is 'attacking' anyone with smoke either, that is absurd.
And as for smoke you can avoid it or reduce exposure if you cannot avoid it.

Also, I sometimes have to refuse treatment because there is nothing I can do. Should I insist that every medication is free from penicillin so I can take it?
When I get throat infections I can only sit and wait because there is no alternative without medication.

People can choose to avoid or reduce smoke exposure, whereas others have no choice but to be exposed to stuff dangerous to them and no one complains - that was my point.

 

[Lightworker]

Ruby I was not attempting to put words in your mouth when you post here and don't fully explain yourself it follows that your post is open to various interpretations (or misinterpretations) as the case may be. If i took your post out of context it was an error, not a deliberate attempt to make you come accross as saying something you hadn't.

 

[LoraLoo]

I'd love to see it Banned I don't smoke, nor do I want so, so dont appreciate having to breathe it in (and my children, second hand when I go out)

I hate the fact that when I pick my kids up from school, theres always a group of mums smoking outside, despite the head sending numerous letters asking them to refrain from it, as the children were commenting that they didnt like walking through it. I mean, what sort of example is it setting?

Plus, you only have to look at the pavements to see the 'littering' caused by it

 

[Lightworker]

Ruby yep I am familiar with obligations under ECHR and the principles of justiciability and proportionality. However I don't get how you can class smoking as being a "private" issue when there is significant scientific evidence indicating the dangers of 2nd hand smoke to general public and surely this must have weighed heavily on the govts decision to ban smoking in public buildings. This clearly indicates their acknowledgment of its danger to others.

 

[Lightworker]

Even if we put the legalities to one side and took an ethical look at it, I think it would be ludicrous to tell people that if they don't want to inhale smoke they should stay at home. Using Tattiesmoms example it would be like saying, "if you dont want to get run over by a drunk driver, stay home". I mean aren't we MORALLY obligated to minimize harm to others? Is someones "right" to smoke greater than anothers right to life? Really?

 

[rubixcyoob.]

Ruby yep I am familiar with obligations under ECHR and the principles of justiciability and proportionality. However I don't get how you can class smoking as being a "private" issue when there is significant scientific evidence indicating the dangers of 2nd hand smoke to general public and surely this must have weighed heavily on the govts decision to ban smoking in public buildings. This clearly indicates their acknowledgment of its danger to others.

Smoking and choosing to smoke is a private issue. No one is under any obligation what so ever to declare to another whether they smoke or not and their reasons for doing so.
That is a private issue.

The effects of smoking are not a private issue however, because they do impact society.

But while smoking and the choice to smoke remains a private issue and decision then it cannot be removed from others under this act.

Your arguement saying 'because of the effects ... ' it is not a private issue could be applied to anything. Drinking alcohol should not be a private issue then becaue it can impact negatively on other through violence and through the NHS through treating alcohol induced casualtie.
However, no one would ever say that someone could only drink in their own home, even though the public is just as much at danger from second hand smoke to being part of an alcohol related incident.

ETA: yes, smoking has been banned in public places, but because health risks are always increased indoors when fumes are concerned. It was banned due to little fresh air circulation meaning the smog was still lingering in the air with no place to go, thus making it more dangerous due to its continous presence. However, outdoors there is a constant supply of fresh air to take away the smoke and leave it clean for the public - well as fresh and clean as it can be with fumes, pollution etc. I find it weird how you believe people being banned from smoking in public entirely will do our nations health well when there will still be pollution and car fumes etc.
I.e - if you were in a pub before the smoking ban, no matter where you went in the pub, the smoke is always there. If you are outside, you only smell and are subjected to smoke when a smoker is near, it is not constant.

 

[rubixcyoob.]

Even if we put the legalities to one side and took an ethical look at it, I think it would be ludicrous to tell people that if they don't want to inhale smoke they should stay at home. Using Tattiesmoms example it would be like saying, "if you dont want to get run over by a drunk driver, stay home". I mean aren't we MORALLY obligated to minimize harm to others? Is someones "right" to smoke greater than anothers right to life? Really?

That arguement is fairly moot also.
I did say in my first post smokers should be more courteous to others and not have their smoke affecting anyone else.
However, my point was also this "why should smokers only be allowed to smoke in their own homes because some people don't want to be around it, why can't the people with the problem stay away from those who smoke?"

I mean, you are saying because you do a certain thing, while you do said act you should be ecluded from society. It can work the other way - don't like it, don't go near it. You cannot ay one thing without their being the exact same arguement on the other side.
Also, by making smokers keep indoors to face their addiction it is segregation through and through.

This arguement could also be applied to anything. I don't like inhaling car fumes - no one should use their cars because it has a negative impact on my health. Whereas car users could say to me - you don't like inhaling the fumes, don't go out then, why should we stop doing something for you because I wouldn't stop putting myself out and in the health harms way.

You cannot segregate a group of people, it is wrong.

General courtesy I am all for, segregation I am not.

 

[Midnight_Fairy]

I honestly dont know what I feel. I dont smoke, I hate people smoking right in my face and fag buts everywhere are gross BUT how would they enforce this?

 

[Laura2919]

I am an ex smoker and I voted no.

I think that the smoking ban as it is now is fine. The government lost tons of money in tax after enforcing this ban, anything more and we would be paying back a lot more than we already do.

 

[PeanutBean]

Well I selected yes but it's quite a theoretical yes. I don't smoke, have never smoked, and consider it one of the most vile, antisocial things I am subjected to on a daily basis. I would like not to be subjected to it anywhere, anytime. I hate the tab ends that are left lying around [for decades]. Where I walk the dog in the woods the smokers at the local factory congregate and I generally have to walk through clouds of smoke that fills the pathway. Even if they're not there when I pass it still stinks and the woodland floor is covered in ends. When I walk to the train station I have a similar problem as I pass the skanky pool hall. The only alternative route would add another 10 minutes to my walk so I would resent that. I hate sitting in traffic jams as the driver in front is invariably puffing of a tab and it fills my car. Even in my home I've had to close my windows because of blokes hanging around outside my house smoking away. What about my rights to some fresher air and cleaner streets?

That said I do have reservations. I don't think it's been said yet but one of the problems of de-socialising smoking is that many (most?) smokers will do it all in their own home which puts their children at more risk. It would be a shame if this was to be the only option.

I don't know what a happy compromise would look like. Maybe there isn't one. I'd really like to see a ban from smoking in cars. I can't see how using a mobile is any more dangerous than lighting up a cigarette. It's also a big contributory factor to respiratory conditions from passive smoking by passengers too.

 

[SKATERBUN]

I was in Portsmouth town centre yesterday and couldn't even walk from one end of the pedestrianised precinct to the other without being engulfed by a cloud of hideous smoke. I cannot believe how many people still inflict their lungs with this poison. I had to keep putting a blanket over LO's pushchair hood and it was stiffling esp when we got bottlenecked in crowds. What with the rancid smell of KFC chicken frying I was barfing by the end of that shopping trip I really dont think there are many public areas where you can go without being passively inhaling it, perhaps a park or when someones in their own car/house

 

[PeanutBean]

I particularly hate the smokers who hold their tab a thigh height ie. in my son's face as we pass.

 

[rubixcyoob.]

I do smoke on occassion, but when I do I go out the way of everyone else and it someone, regardless of age etc. walks by me I do turn around, hold the cigarette out of the wind and away from them so that I can limit the amount of smoke the breathe in.

But if someone walks by me when smoking, after I have gone out my way to make sure they don't have to then hell mend them. I make the effort to move.

 

[PeanutBean]

Rubix you must be a rare good 'un. I'm pretty confident that the last time a smoker held their tab away from me was in a busy nightclub so you can tell how long ago that was!