Should Smoking in Public Be Banned?

[PeanutBean]

I find it an interesting turn in the conversation to compare separating smokers to separating races. IMO it's completely different. You're not born a smoker, you choose to be. We all judge people's decisions in every aspect of life. The fundamental difference of discrimination is in judging people who simply are what they are be it black, gay, female, old, disabled, mentally ill, whatever. One could argue it's more comparable go a dress code in a bar, you chose go wear trainers...

Genuine smoking areas would be ok but they were never really separate before the ban. You'd need a big expensive air filtration system really for it to be any good and no-one's going to pay for that.

On the drinking thing, I think it's a discussion for a different thread, but I would like to see a ban on drinking in open public places. In Manchester we have quite a few no-alcohol zones and it seems to make a big difference to behaviour on the streets.

Sadly it's impossible to enforce good manners, I suppose that would fix a lot of ills. I don't care if people want to risk killing themselves by smoking or any other means provided it doesn't affect me and my air space.

 

[smokey]

I find it an interesting turn in the conversation to compare separating smokers to separating races. IMO it's completely different. You're not born a smoker, you choose to be. We all judge people's decisions in every aspect of life. The fundamental difference of discrimination is in judging people who simply are what they are be it black, gay, female, old, disabled, mentally ill, whatever. One could argue it's more comparable go a dress code in a bar, you chose go wear trainers...

Genuine smoking areas would be ok but they were never really separate before the ban. You'd need a big expensive air filtration system really for it to be any good and no-one's going to pay for that.On the drinking thing, I think it's a discussion for a different thread, but I would like to see a ban on drinking in open public places. In Manchester we have quite a few no-alcohol zones and it seems to make a big difference to behaviour on the streets.Sadly it's impossible to enforce good manners, I suppose that would fix a lot of ills. I don't care if people want to risk killing themselves by smoking or any other means provided it doesn't affect me and my air space.

I was thinking more along the lines of a rusty old bus shelter the other side of a carpark

I thought it was banned already.
In our town public drinking is banned, the closest you can get to it is a beer garden or tables out the front of wine bars but even they have to be kept a certain distance from the bulding.
Anyone caught drinking in the parks, gardens, down by the river, walking down the street gets it taken off them (repeat offenders may get more punishment im not sure)
Its also illegal on all public transport in our area, I just assumed that was the case everywhere

 

[PeanutBean]

No it varies by council smokey.

When I was talking about filtration systems I meant an area indoors which others seemed to have referred to in reference to the existing ban.

 

[Lightworker]

Yeah the talk of "segregation" baffles me as it makes it sounds like society is excluding smokers on the basis of who they are as opposed to the hazards inflicted on the general public. I hate the use of that word in this context.

 

[Lightworker]

I also cannot understand why a total smoking ban would be akin to living under a dictatorship. Smoking is a lifestyle choice as is cocaine use, yet cocaine is illegal. Would it be sensible to say that because a government criminalizes the use of cocaine, that government is a dictatorship? I think alot of words being used are completely inappropriate.

 

[redpoppy]

I just googled and found this www.slate.com/id/2228681/ where they discuss outdoor smoking ban studies and the differences in the levels of second hand smoke. I like the way at the end the guy says (in support of a ban) "...the Government are obligated to act to protect the susceptible from the stupid"

Thanks for the link. But in the proper end of that article and the article itself the main jist is that yes if you are CLOSE proximity to smokers in the street then it's as dangerous as second hand smoke indoors but if you go even a short distance out of the way it's greatly reduced. Which is what I would imagine it would be. I don't know if you gave me the wrong link? As for protecting the susceptible from the stupid, I think it's not helpful at all and just aiming for some superiority points.

I think the segregation argument is ridiculous but there is a part of me that thinks the hysteria in the general populace about most things is bordering on insanity and it's probably down to information overload. People need to seriously relax and have a bit more of the live and let live ethos in their lives. I hate smoke but I like the fact that if my fellow man chooses to smoke then he can do so in open air areas where confined space is not an issue. And unless there is a reliable scientific study which clearly identifies that occasional exposure to second hand smoke is going to directly and seriously damage my child or children in general then I will not support such an excessive ban. Plus I would be very sceptical of any studies claiming that it was super dangerous and would be interested to know how many people would be lining up to ban cars or the manufacturing of plastic food containers or a whole host of other things?

It just reminds me of that Simpsons character who always screams "think about the CHILDREN!!!!" when anything is ever whipped up into any sort of public frenzy. The children will be alright. And as I suggested before, stress and anxiety over these issues is in my opinion far more likely to cause illness than a bit of very occasional outdoor secondhand smoke which MOST of the time people find they can move around or go stand a distance away from.

I would however be VERY much in favour of an effective and productive campaign to stop kids choosing to smoke. It doesn't matter if you raise the age unless you raise it to maybe around 21 with photo ID (even then fake IDs would mean younger kids would get access but it would be much reduced) as there are always older kids willing to give younger kids those things of younger kids sneaking off and stealing them etc.

My OH got asked about 10 years ago by some young teenagers to buy them some fags and he told them he would as he always did as he started smoking that young but that since he got throat cancer he's decided not to do it any more. Do I need to mention he was BSing.

As I've said before: I'm and AVID fan of the current smoking ban and am so chuffed about it but I just simply would feel like we're heading for even more of a nanny state by trying to make sure that we never see a cigarette in the streets.

Also, I've had two people tell me (and I think tattiesmum perhaps just said here too) that they can smell smoke IN THEIR HOUSES as it seeps through the walls from their neighbours. So smokers wouldn't be allowed to smoke at home either? So what next? Shall we lock all smokers in an airtight container and send it off to sea?

We should all be allowed to live as freely as possible with as little harm as possible and I just am not convinced that smoking in open air causes significant enough harm to come down in such a fascist manner.

 

[PeanutBean]

I'm sure if my neighbour were a smoker I would smell it and I'm glad I'm not the only one subjected to neighbourly smells!! We smell her vile dinner smells often and just the general gross odour of her house. It comes through the bathroom and no amount of expanding foam or anything else seems to stop it. It was my no.1 nemesis for my sickness last pregnancy. Weirdly reassuring to know others houses are penetrable in the same way!

I think teenage smoking has really gone up in recent years. Maybe it's my perception but I hardly ever see a teen NOT smoking. (Of course I also live in a pretty deprived area...) I too would like to see better measures to prevent uptake of smoking in the first place.

I think what we would like things to be like is never going to happen for any issue, we all have to compromise in order to live together (which is why I'd like to be hermit! ). Slightly OT but I remember seeing a Yes Minister some months ago from the '80s in which there was a sneaky political manoeuvre to get some bill in as a concession against a ban in smoking in public places because that was so ludicrous and would never happen. I was well impressed to see that. It just shows how over time societal culture and desire changes. Maybe one day no-one will smoke and there will be a ban, or even not need to be one, but there'll be something else we want to change. There always is isn't there?

 

[Lightworker]

Ha I was thinking exactly the same thing that maybe few years from now a ban will become a reality and I will come back to BnB and dig up this thread (yep sad, I know), but some things are only a matter of time. I bet there was a time when people thought an indoor smoking ban would be unthinkable, but lo and behold, we have one. Going abit OT but in line of "live and let live" principle, those that object to an outright smoke ban, would you support the legalization of cocaine and other class As?

 

[PeanutBean]

You might not want to bring that up, a few of us contributing to this thread went round every possible angle of that debate some time ago, dig it out if you fancy a VERY long read!

 

[rubixcyoob.]

Actually I only used the words segreation because of this definition "•segregated - separated or isolated from others or a main group" and if we make it so smokers can only smoke in their own homes that falls under this. They are excluded from the rest of society because they have an addiction and need to feed it. I never said once it was because of who they are, but the fact they need to smoke.
I'm sorry if you don't like my wording, but the meaning for segregation has been around before the Apartheid and the freedom movements in the US.

As for using dictatorship I did also say that it would be a dictatorship if only a minority (which I took from this thread because only a mniority agree to an outright smoking ban) wanted an outright smoking ban and it was enforced it would be.

Please refer back to my post and wording before you mention things about it out of context

And as for your question about legalisation of drugs, yes. I do feel they should be legalised. Just because they are legal it doesn't mean that everyone will jump on board. It would just reduce the amount of petty criminals in our jails because they are caught with some form of drug. Honestly, I don't give a shit if someone is walking around with 3ounces of cocaine, it doesn't affect me. The fact we jail these people and fill up our cells is absurd. There are far greater and more deserving criminals of those spaces, but I digress.
That is another arguement for another time.

 

[Lightworker]

You might not want to bring that up, a few of us contributing to this thread went round every possible angle of that debate some time ago, dig it out if you fancy a VERY long read!

Lol didn't know that debate had already been had

 

[TattiesMum]

Ha I was thinking exactly the same thing that maybe few years from now a ban will become a reality and I will come back to BnB and dig up this thread (yep sad, I know), but some things are only a matter of time. I bet there was a time when people thought an indoor smoking ban would be unthinkable, but lo and behold, we have one. Going abit OT but in line of "live and let live" principle, those that object to an outright smoke ban, would you support the legalization of cocaine and other class As?

LOL .... as Peanut Bean says we did that one to death a while ago Oddly enough the easy availability of alcohol came up a lot in that debate as well

 

[Nibblenic]

I think the 'live and let live' ideal can only apply to people who arent harming themselves or others.

 

[redpoppy]

I think the 'live and let live' ideal can only apply to people who arent harming themselves or others.

This is obviously within reason. Otherwise driving cars, crossing roads, drinking alcohol, plastic surgery (these are just of the top of my head) amongst I'm sure MANY many other things would all apply.

We have to be reasonable about what constitutes a viable threat no?

 

[redpoppy]

Ha I was thinking exactly the same thing that maybe few years from now a ban will become a reality and I will come back to BnB and dig up this thread (yep sad, I know), but some things are only a matter of time. I bet there was a time when people thought an indoor smoking ban would be unthinkable, but lo and behold, we have one. Going abit OT but in line of "live and let live" principle, those that object to an outright smoke ban, would you support the legalization of cocaine and other class As?

The debate isn't about whether or not it will be made illegal it's about whether we think it's the right thing to do. Society can legalise or make illegal all sorts of things but it does not always change what an individual's ethics or morals are on the subject.

And yes the drugs debate is linked and has been debated to death. Cocaine isn't the best example though as the consequences are not far reaching. Cocaine is hardly if ever consumed in public places and the addicts tend not to be a menace to society or turn to crimes to feed their habit. Crack or heroine would be more socially destructive both in terms of addiction and the social impact but as is clear this is another debate which has a while ago been debated in great detail. Although I think the main focus was on Cannabis.

 

[Lightworker]

I think the 'live and let live' ideal can only apply to people who arent harming themselves or others.

Yes I am inclined towards that sort of thinking. Someone once said the right to be yourself must be exercised only in so far as it does not hinder another from being themselves.

 

[Lightworker]

Redpoppy yes I know the debate isnt about whether or not it will be criminalized, I was merely stating, as an aside, that while the issue of it being banned may seem abit extreme now, as time goes by and with perhaps emerging scientific evidence and changing attitudes, there may come a time when it may not seem so ludicrous or "dictatorshipy".

 

[pupsicle]

I think banning it would reduce the amount of people smoking. But then again, it wouldn't be too bad if there were designated smoking areas, I really hate people smoking outside shop doors, thanks that's just what I want to smell of.

 

[rubixcyoob.]

Making cigarettes illegal would change nothing. People who want them will get them. Its the same with everything.

 

[rubixcyoob.]

Making cigarettes illegal would change nothing. People who want them will get them. Its the same with everything.