Ban on smoking--too right!

[KateBush]

I am SO glad that most sinners agree with my own way of thinking. I'm assuming from the order of the voting options, Mr stan-drews agrees with my own views--that smoking ought to be banned. (If not, sorry for jumping to conclusions)

I mean, what's worse for a non smoker than coming out of the pub stinking of smoke? Why should I have my clothes soiled by smokers and accept it? If someone spilled a drink on my clothes, they'd say sorry, but by making them stink of smoke, it's as if that's okay?

Absolutely absurd. BAN the smokers NOW! If it was just their own health they were affecting, then that would be one thing, but why should they get away with affecting other peoples'? Why should an asthmatic be unable to go for a pint because of other peoples' selfishness?

Meh. Sod smokers. Let them smoke at home and make their houses stink, instead of other people!

[John Stewart]

Smoking in public places is both a social nuisance (i.e. the discomfort of non-smokers) and a health issue (i.e. passive smoking).

There is no prospect for change unless led by legislative action - a ban must be called for, and it is to the Scottish Executive's credit that they're not trying their usual "consult and duck" tactic, but may actually lead a hard line on this issue. About time for the yellow-bellied Labour coalition in Holyrood.

As I once heard it put in a Mace debate in Aberdeen:

"Having a non-smoking corner in a smoking bar is like having a pissing corner in a swimming pool".

Change the societal default. Let non-smokers have the right to enjoy a night out too. And if it means a few smokers drink or smoke less, all the better.

[KateBush]

absolutely brilliant...and so true, john. you took te words right out of my mouth.

[Wong]

While I agree with all the above points, there are still a few who have voted for either of the pro-smoking options. I know that "freedom of choice" would include the choice to smoke, but isn't it encroaching (thank you, Dictionary) on our freedom of choice not to smell of it?

[hr]No tree has branches so foolish as to fight among themselves

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Giving people the freedom of choice assumes they are responsible enough to make the correct decisions. Obviously a flawed assumption.

Just get smokers in air-tight rooms like in 2000AD so they can accelerate their own goal of getting lung cancer.

[Haunted]

If they ban humans from smoking do you they might ever ban machines from smoking as well?

[Al]

Unfortunately there are a number of problems with the approach and stance adopted by the Scottish Executive. They seem to be unaware of the difference between a public place and a place to which the public have access. They launch a "consultation" when they are only interested in opinions that coincide with their own (a similar attitude is seen when they invite experts to committees at Holyrood and then shout them down if they have the temerity to raise a differing opinion). They laud the results of the Irish ban when it is far too early to tell whether it has been a success or failure. But perhaps the most important barrier to their plans is the fact that the Scottish Executive simply does not have the legal authority to ban smoking in "public places". The only way they could do it is through Health And Safety legislation and that is reserved to Westminster.

[hr]Life is too important to be taken seriously.

[mottthehoople]

The mere fact that the government allows the sale of fags contradicts the smoking ban. They are making far too much tax of horrible smokers to introduce such an extreme policy. Instead they are telling us what we can and cant do, as usual.

[md25]

I used to smoke but after my dad developed a non-smoking-related carcinoma I was scared into giving up - now I smell nicer, I'm fitter and I can get more pissed with my money. Giving up smoking's the best thing I've ever done.

I'm all for a smoking ban in licenced premeses - it takes just one smoker to fill a bar with smoke and it's not fair to those who want a smoke-free atmosphere.

[Al]

Who ever said life was fair? If you don't like breathing others' smoke then stay away from places where you may have to do just that. If there is such a demand for smoke-free pubs I am sure someone will provide for you. The proposed ban has nothing to do with health. It is a cynical attempt by the Scottish Executive to appear relevant. There was an article in The Scotsman a while back in which it was revealed that there is so much pollution in Glasgow that anyone who spends a day there has breathed in poison the equivalent of smoking forty cigarettes. And yet I don't see the Scottish Executive rushing to deal with that "health issue". And why? Because smokers are an easy target and governments think they can attack them with impunity.

[hr]Life is too important to be taken seriously.

[Pandyboy]

I must say - and I know am a smoker - but I read a rather interesting article that stated that of about 120 independant tests carried out on the effects of passive smoking, less than 15 showed any link at all between passive smoking and lung cancer.

While this cannot be ignored, I think the passive smoking issue has been vastly blown out of proportion by the anti-smoking lobby, in order to make their goal more attainable by getting the public worried over it.

Considering how smokers generate £9 billion revenue for the government (and cost the NHS £1.5 billion) what would the government do if everyone actually did quit?

Also, don't be surprised if similar campaigns start up about drinking, it is happening slowly, especially with the binge drink culture of our society.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Yes but really, the anti-smoking lobby has been growing for a long time and not to mention that while tobacco has only be in our society for a few hundred years, alcohol has been around since the very dawn of civilisation.

Which is more damaging? Who knows? Only £1.5 billion in the NHS? I'm not sure I believe that but there you go.

[StrangeQuark]

I voted the pro-choice option despite being a life-long non-smoker. I really enjoy a smoke-free atmosphere but I'm cautious about removing other people’s freedoms unnecessarily. Fair enough having a ban on smoking on public transport (which I'm forced to use from time to time) but no one is forcing me to go to the pub. A landlord is perfectly entitled to ban smoking in his own premises if there is a good market for smoke free pubs. I agree that in small pubs like the Cellar, a no smoking area would be pointless but not in a large, well ventilated place like the Union. I can't smell any smoke at the pool tables when the nearest smokers are in the circular seating area.

Edited for spelling.

[James]

Two points.

- Even if passive smoking kills fewer people than might be suggested by the coverage, it still kills.

- Smokers' rights ... Marcus Brigstock pointed out that smokers don't have rights, they have an addiction. Harsh? What about others who have antisocial habbits that they can't help?

I'm not sure what the solution might be. As a non-smoker, I don't mind if it is totally banned, but I'd be up for considering other options too.

[Haunted]

Maybe they should force smokers to take nicotine intravenously. That way they still get their fix but without the smoke

[Morf]

One point - if smoking was banned in pubs - the smell that is left is of very smelly people sweating alcohol - it isn't that nice at all.

I do believe that smoking should be banned in restaurants right away.

I think it should be up to the pub to decide if it should be banned. We should not impose this on anyone.

Then let us see which pubs would survive.

I feel those which allowed smoking would succeed. Therefore, why ban it if you are going against market forces - which is far different from public opinion.

[Tyler Fincher]

I have always felt pubs would be the very last place that you would ban smoking. Of course you shouldn't be allowed to smoke in any other public place, but I've always seen pubs as legal drughouses that have booze and fags.

When I was a child I thought it would be a good idea to just raise the age limit on smoking a year every year, and over time, there'll be no smokers left.

[hr]IMAGE:www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~adgc/avatar.JPG

[Pandyboy]

I also think it's a bit odd that although passive smoking may cause deaths, think of all the deaths caused by alcohol fuelled violence and crime?

Prophet Tenebrae: the £1.5 billion figure was quoted to me by a lecturer in the medical school.

[Arashi]

Now see, I'm from Boston, USA, where a smoking ban has been in effect for over a year. All public buildings are absolutely smoking-free, forcing the smokers outside, which they complain about constantly, but do nonetheless.

It's the only thing I really miss about the States, tbh.

[hmm]

How many people in Britain smoke compared to those who do not? It is quite a small amount that smoke is it not?

Considering it is possibly detrimental to others health as well as being very uncomfortable for many who do not smoke surely the majority vote should lie with those who should be able to go where they please and have fresh air to breathe?

If those who smoke are so concerned then they can go elsewhere to do so. That is more "fair" than telling those who do not smoke to avoid places where there are smokers.

It is surely no coincidence that the vast majority of those who do not want a ban are smokers? However they are the minority which in this case is not unfair:

Having to breathe in smokey air COULD be detrimental to people's health. It IS uncomfortable and can spoil people's time.

Having to not smoke in public places will NOT effect people's health. And if not smoking makes you uncomfortable or spoils your time then it says an awful lot about your habit.

I have stayed in places that had no alcohol license for example. I had a great time. Not drinking or smoking for any length of time is not that hard surely.


And for those who say that passive smoking does not harm people, what about asthmatics? The way that's going there are probably more asthmatics in the UK than there are smokers.

I am not asthmatic but I support a ban as cigarette smoke makes me wheeze as if I was asthmatic. It also hurts my eyes to such a degree that I cannot stay in a smoky atmosphere for any length of time if there is not good air ventilation. I also dislike smelling of smoke. It's not nice and it isn't my fault so why should I have to put up with smelling like an ashtray and feeling ill just to go out in St Andrews? The only places to go out to meet people are pubs here :/

But all this is daft anyway, it's fairly obvious, even to smokers who won't admit it no doubt, that a ban is certain eventually. Apart from anything else, the declining number of smokers alone would see to that. And as for the smokers polite enough to smoke outside away from other people - it won't affect you anyway Only those that appear too lazy or too adicted to move away or wait til later.