Smoking ban in public places

Post Reply New Topic

well banning them in all outside public places would be taking it to far.

A little rebelling in the face of unconstitutionality and evasions and corruptions to fundamental freedoms is in the eyes of socialists so very threatening that when no harm actually is done is a great offence to them.

Funny thing is, if the sort of control mechanisms and propaganda that are used against smokers were put out against autistics...

Nicotine is a highly addictive substance. As a general rule we outlaw highly addictive substances because the segment of the population that is suceptable to addiction have, and do regularly kill themselves with their addiction because they are mentally incapable of stopping - it is a mental illness. It doesn't matter of they know the risks and can reason and rationalize - the addiction nearly always wins many times just from a single exposure. It needs treatment and stepdown programs akin to methadone for heroin addicts in order to get most people to successfully quit for good.

I do not see why nicotine gets a special pass when much less virulent and NONaddicting drugs like marijuana are scheduled as Class A narcotics along side heroin.

Replace cigarettes with pot and I'd be much happier. At least THAT would make sense. I don't think there is a a pot smoker anywhere who would complain about smoking only at home, in his car or in designated outdoor areas.



I do - THAT was totally uncalled for and reprehensible. Anti-semitism is NOT the majority in most countries - those fighting directly with Israel excluded.



Nicotine is an active drug compound. It alters brain chemistry. It raises blood pressure. It affects blood sugar. It affects adrenaline and causes changes in respitory and circulatory systems. It is probably in an ill, elderly patients best interest to NOT indulge this addiction, especially when hospitalized. How do you monitor and control a patients breathing when they are potentially compromising that ability daily? It's like being hospitalized for diabetes and drinking soda everyday. The hospital staff is dedicated to 'first- do no harm'. How can they, in good conscious, let an ill patient smoke, no matter the illness?

Depending on your local ordinances...

For me, that sign is a sign that the owner doesn't want my business... and that is his right. Bars in our area do that very thing despite the law. Most don't even bother to install the filtration they need to make it a pleaseant experience. Even the smokers complain about the heavy blue cloud that fills these places. Because that is where all the smokers congregate.

I knew a few bartenders in a few of these clubs. Two were dx'd with lung cancer after 10 years working in those conditions. Both were non smokers themselves. They knew the dangers but couldn't say no to the good tips. I hope it was worth it.

Air filtration ought to be a moral thought of any patron that smokes in such settings. However albeit reckless a fundamental freedom is a fundamental freedom. People are adults and adults make choices. A mommy and daddy complex while thoughtful we still must respect the rights of adults.

It is if you let it take over your life, yes. I like a drink but it doesn't take over mine. Anything can be addictive really. I like a whisky every now and then - I don't hit the bottle every day.

So we're back to the argument of authoritarianism - protecting people "for their own good".



A lot of people would disagree with you about marijuana being non-addictive. Those same people would ban both.



No, you're deliberately ignoring the early years of the Nazi regime and the catastrophe that led them into power. It wasn't about the Jews - they were just an easy target. Human nature needs a group to feel superior to. The problem is balancing that with protecting those minorities - by, for example, letting them have their places to congregate. Go into a British pub now and they're frequently empty, lifeless places of despair rather than the busy, joyful places they used to be. Thousands of pubs have closed - at the fastest rate in British history - and a lot of that is to do with the smoking ban, I believe. There are other reasons, too, but a lot of it is to do with taxation and lifestyle bullying, as well as the stranglehold that the pub companies have on these pubs.



Doesn't take much to bring that bigotry out though, does it? Recently I can think of a Scottish council banning all books by Israeli authors from its libraries.



Lots of things are drug compound. Are we going to ban them all now?

And as for nicotine, I take it you never take travel sickness pills?



It reassures them; it gives them a sense of dignity. It's what they've done all their lives. A bit of comfort in a strange place always helps recovery. You need to stop thinking only about the health benefits and think about the benefits to the mind.

It's illegal in Britain. Against the wishes of the electorate, who were never asked. We don't have that 'democracy' thing that you have in the US - in Britain it's an elective dictatorship. The number of goons with blue or red or yellow rosettes might change but nothing else does.

I'm still waiting for my referendum on the European Union - poll after poll shows that the majority of the UK public would like a referendum on the EU. Our politicians flatly refuse to grant us one.



Do you drink regularly in bars? I'm sure bars won't mind offending people who wouldn't visit their premises anyway if it meant they trade from people who weren't so touchy. Would a pub rather have the custom of the old couple who come in and buy two halves of lager a year or the nightly custom of a guy who comes in, drinks all night and maybe has a meal there too occasionally?



No pub would ever get away with doing that in the UK. It would be considered only slightly-less serious than mass murder. It's not like most of mainland Europe where these bans are ignored when it's convenient - they're rigorously enforced, even if there's no good reason to enforce them.



Is this the Roy Castle canard? The reasons for their lung cancer could be all sorts of things, though I take your point that if he was a smoker (on the side) it might be lung cancer. It could also be all kinds of other things.

Last edited by Tequila on 01 Jun 2011, 1:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mr. UK Man I am kind of thinking the conversation can go between two polar opposites. That of vigilantism and that of pleasurable deny-ability.

Even when I was a smoker one of my biggest pet-peeve's was people smoking in restaurants...disgusting.
I had no problem with bans in shopping malls, and even in clubs...although it meant I had to endure the odour of dirty goths in rock clubs, it was still better than constantly inhaling smoke, floors covered in butts/ash, also going outside for a smoke allows must more opportunity to chat to others - it's just the having to stand out in snow, rain, wind, ice, etc. that's a problem as it's cold and puts health at further risk, there was no reason for there not to be shelters for smokers.

Another part of the problem is that smoking shelters have to be illegal for them to be of any real use as a shelter - by this, I mean that the shelters within the law look pathetic and can't defend against the elements.

If? If someone is predisposed to addiction - there is no choice involved. That's like saying a bipolar chooses to be angry. Addiction is a mental illness like any other with mitigating physical symptoms. You are either prone to it or you're not. I drank like a fish when younger - and when it lost it's appeal, I put it down and walked away. A drinking friend though couldn't - he ended up with cirrohsis so bad they had to remove a chunk of his dying liver by age 27. He has an addiction problem I do not. His drinking affects him and him alone, as long as he doesn't get into a car and drive. (which he did - 3 DUI's and permanent lose of his license. Thankfully he didn't kill anyone)



People can develop a mental addiction to pot just like anything else people turn to as a coping mechanism. Pot does not act on the brain or the physiology the way addicting substances do. Pot does not affect dopamine receptors like cocaine, heroin or nictoine do. Any pot 'addiction' is purely psychological.



How does EVERY thread end up back at Hitler? I was agreeing with you that attitude was uncalled for as was the subject.

If people in England can only enjoy one anothers company WHEN SMOKING then I'd say that is a whole different problem right there. As I recall, the history of the English pub began over spirits - not tobacco - which wasn't even readily available until the last 100 years or so. The English pub is a centuries old tradition and it is ending over... an addiction? There MUST be more going on there...



Bigots just talk real loud. People need to learn to stop listening. It's how we deal with the KKK. People don't even turn up to protest their few tiny rallies anymore. And guess what - the rallies have almost totally gone away.



Nictotine is a drug compound with with documented toxic effects. Those compounds that are toxic - well, yes, I do think we should prevent people from ingesting them. Like lead paint - and babies - that was a good call.

I don't know what they put in your travel sickness pills but our do not have nicotine in them. O_O



I have a ton of compassion - and, in a death bed situation, I may agree with you. But I do not feel the hospital setting is appropriate for this particular 'comfort'. You do not know how many patients may have chemical sensitivies - cigarette smoke clings to clothes, hair, surfaces. I do not see the benefit if wheeling a critically ill patient to a smoking room for 'comfort' as a good thing. There are many MANY other methods to comfort a patient that doesn't put him and others at risk. I'm afraid I cannot see eye to eye with you on this one. Not even close.

The debate isn't even. You have the enormously powerful pharmaceutical elites, the anti-smoking groups, most of the mass-media, radio, TV and the government on one side.

You have the (utterly neutered) tobacco firms that aren't allowed to promote their wares in any fashion whatsoever.

You have a small number of pro-smoker lobby groups which are utterly discredited in the eyes of the public, even many smokers.

And then you have a network of libertarian pro-choice sites in the blogosphere.

Not really an even match, is it?

What always resides in the middle is within democracies that ingrained idea of freedom. However with smoking your never going to get the respect that you are doing something healthy. A perception of this nature would be utterly foul to common sense and very unwise. In idea the way to win is to expect the enjoyment of the freedom of choice.

Yes, I agree.

I wouldn't want to tell people in a master/slave relationship what to do. It's up to them. Life is what we make it and generally "well-meaning" people that interfere just make things worse for us.

Instead of going toe-to-toe, point by point, tell me what you think of this.

Phillip Morris Buys Rights...

I would have no problem whatsoever if 'smokers' got their fix this way. I'll bet they could even dose themselves indoors at the pub this way.

I suppose it doesn't matter that I'm internally twisted over the language used here. A tobacco company - the one responsible for the anti-smoking movement no less - is still looking for ways to deliver its product to its addicted customer base.

"...the satisfaction they crave..." That just gave me chills of Orwellian proportions...