Smoking ban in public places

Post Reply New Topic

I disagree - I would argue that they do not want to quit because they are addicts.

What rewards do you feel come from smoking?

it is an addiction, as i said there, the addiction simply varies in strength,
for some it will keep them prisoners, a state where the very act itself disgusts them but they cannot stop.
for others it will be a craving for a couple of days after stopping and the rest is the brain, if you feel you dont want it then long term quitting isnt a problem.

what rewards?
i find nicotine pleasant, it gives an artificial relaxation in situations where it would be hard to obtain otherwise.
when i smoke at home i usually only smoke after dinner and just before going to bed.
cigarettes dont really taste that great so when i smoke at home i usually enjoy smokng my pibe, there the taste is the major factor.
i enjoy playing with the smoke as its almost magical in quality, a windy day will ruin that but then it brings out the dynamics of the air surrounding you.

If a substance gives a high or pleasant feeling there is usually a price to pay such as a hangover after drinking to much alcohol. Most people and politicians agree with a smoking ban and most people find it discusting but put up with smokers nearby. One day it will be banned completely by gradual phasing out. Smoking is not a hobby but a habit which is an addition like a drug addict. People who do smoke need to be more considerate and keep out of the way of non smokers like in town centres or outside office buildings. It is very offensive if you are standing in a queue and some unconsiderate person lights up. You end up smelling like an ash tray.This sort of behaviour must be made illegal.

Last edited by robin45 on 29 May 2011, 11:32 am, edited 2 times in total.

Oregon has passed a law about smoking. You are not allowed to smoke ten feet near a building or even inside. Places had to get rid of their smoking areas and my old work got rid of their smoking room and made it all one room. Now bars don't have smoking either. But the Portland airport has a smoking area but it's one small area and it's outside. I don't mind smoking areas because then everyone is happy. None smokers and smokers. None smokers can just stay away from the smoking area if they can't stand the smell. That's what I do.

I really care less when people smoke but they better not do it in my face or around my kid or I will snap at them.

If I see someone smoking, I don't go near them. Luckily lot of them are considerate enough to not smoke when they have to be near people such as at a bus stop. You sure can't avoid standing near them when waiting for a bus. But some smokers are just rude like that one guy at a bus stop when I was eight or nine months pregnant. I didn't say anything because I was afraid of causing conflicts so I was hoping he be considerate by letting me have the shelter while he stands out in the rain but no he let me stand out in the rain while he stayed undercover. My legs were sore from being on them too much and I needed a rest but couldn't sit down. I hate rude smokers. Since I was a kid, I have thought people should not smoke around other people. Luckily lot of them don't so they will go to an area where there is no people and do it. I just think it be rude to sit down on a park bench where someone else is sitting and whip out a cigarette and start smoking. But if no one was there and they sit down and do it and then someone came, they aren't entitled to stop because they were there first but bus stops are different. There was no other bus stops for me to go to and it was raining out and I was pregnant so that was rude of him. I also think throwing your cigarettes on the ground is bad. No wonder they want to ban smoking in public places. I also think it's for health reasons too like they don't want none smokers to breath it in so they want to keep smoking away from buildings.

And smokers aren't being discriminated. They are just not allowed to smoke in public places, period. If you smoke at home, you aren't going to be not welcome at places just because you smoke. You're just not allowed to smoke there. There is a difference between smoking and smokers. They say no smoking, not smokers. I'd be appalled if I saw a sign saying no smokers because I would wonder why is that such a problem for them to be there if they won't smoke there. My brother in law smokes but he does it outside when he visits so he is still welcome here. My landlord doesn't allow smoking in the apartment but she doesn't not allow smokers to rent, they just have to do it outside when they wish to smoke.

We have places in the USA that help people quit smoking so things must be different in the UK. I have seen numbers written down for women who are pregnant for if they need help to quit smoking.

Okay what if I were to go a restaurant and the sign said No electronics, would I feel discriminated? Of course not. I would know I am still welcome there but I am not allowed to use my Nintendo DS there or my ebook. It's the same with smoking. They don't allow smoking, not smokers. Smokers are welcome but they are just not allowed to smoke there. Big difference.

Do airlines discriminate smokers just because they don't allow smoking? Of course not. They are welcome to fly but they are just not allowed to smoke on them. I think smokers just choose to be discriminated.

It is my belief that fundamental liberties must be held intact so as long as an individual does not cause physical harm to another individual. In context to this conversation liberties become complicated especially comparatively. However in general premise it is my belief that an individual has the freedom to also perceive harm such as emotionally or socially whereas the point of projected harm such as slander should still retain rights fundamentally and without burden to said rights. Meaning I do not believe in slander laws and individuals being dynamic are free to cause harm by perpetuating slander which is of fundamental freedoms in premise and the manifested harm is chosen to be perceived as so which differs from a knife wound for instance.

Smoking.

1. It is not the freedom to smoke in a closed environment with non-smokers or individuals under the age of eighteen whom are smokers.

2. It should be the freedom of smokers to have established dwellings rendering services and facilities designated for their intended use so as long as other options are available to non-smokers. The exception would be grocery stores but more so along the lines of bars and social recreational environments like clubs.

3. In public so as long as a smoker is of a reasonable distance and outside on public or private property as compared to the pollutions cars exhausted leaving choice for non-smokers to choose distances. Comparatively otherwise all pollution resulting methods of transportation, fragrances even and should we become even more mellow dramatic offensive flatulent producing biological bodies should be banned from one another. Albeit differing in types of pollution individuated choices and their effects are exhibiting similar pollution and sensitivity risks within a spectrum of consideration.

Okay, you kind of got me there by not quite falling into the trap.
What I mean is your use of 'artificial' - where as most smokers, I'm sure you understand given your response, believe it is the cigarette that causes relaxation. Then there is the counter-argument; nicotine withdrawal causes stress and anxiety, you're stressed to begin with and are relaxed by a cigarette because of addiction...if you weren't addicted, it'd not be as relaxing. There are then also far better ways to relax than to take a stimulant. In other words smoking is not a real benefit in this case...unless of course we count smoking pot in this argument, then you'd win

Nicotine is a poison you've forced/trained your body to tolerate to a certain degree, nothing pleasant about it. Taste...fair enough, I'll give you that because a pipe is a very unique and pleasant smell/taste to some - certainly smoking menthol cigarettes or rolling your own is less pleasant in taste to your normal brand or pipes or cigars if that's what you prefer. Blowing smoke...you could get that from herbal cigarettes (although granted they smell horrid) or e-cigarettes, or do could enjoy blowing bubbles!

Not sure those few benefits outweigh cost, environmental harm, social stigma, poor health, supporting unethical companies and governments unethical treatment of smokers - I respect your right to choose to smoke, but I still respectfully disagree with what you view as being benefits and believe you're choice to smoke is still based on addiction.

i think we are pretty much on the same page.
yes i am addicted, just as i am to my morning coffee or pain medication when my right arm decides to be a nuisance,
i am not addicted like i was when i was drinking every day, now that was purely destructive and brought absolutely no good with it, it consumed my mind and will to live, to me that is an addiction.
i think to me the fundamental issue here is the mentality these laws induce in the general populace,
as stated before i personally have nothing against not smoking where there is a real concern, indoors, in confined spaces outside (bus stops were a very good example of that)
and the like, unfortunately mentalities like these tend to escalate with time.
it happrns concerning drugs, immigrants, students, politics, the enviroment and countless others.

Smokers and smoke - they're not interchangeable, but you can't have one without the other.

It's not just the issue of banning that is being raised as an example of smokers being discriminated against - although do bear in mind that smokers need to smoke, if they're not allowed to smoke in certain places this means they may not be able to go to certain places. If you're a smoker this also prevents you from working for certain employers, either they won't hire you if you're a smoker or you couldn't work there because smoking isn't allowed in that area. Smokers are also being forced into smoking in areas without shelter or where they may be at risk. Smokers are being pressured into quitting whether they want to or not, they no longer have the right to smoke if they want, they are also facing more and more abuse from non-smokers and anti-smokers...which is prejudice.



We have places in the UK that help people quit - we call it the NHS, and it's part of the problem.
Most methods here rely on willpower - nicotine replacement, general willpower methods, and drugs like Zyban - all are available for free on the NHS, but these methods are proven not only to be unsuccessful but to potentially increase smoking. There are plenty of methods available to help people quit, but the motives for such methods are questionable. We have Easyway clinics here too, which is one of the most effective methods of smoking cessation - only the NHS refuses to acknowledge them, despite being more successful and cheaper they will not even recommend this method to patients, let alone use this method within the NHS. Easyway aren't even allowed to advertise on TV because any method that advertises on TV has to put a disclaimer that they require willpower.

For all that smoking costs the NHS in care for long-term health problems smokers suffer from, smoking equally gives back twice as much in taxes on cigarettes and on short life expectancy saving NHS money in long-term treatment of the elderly and the government in benefits (smoking is very much a working-class issue). Government have to be seen to be helping smokers in providing smoking cessation on the NHS, however these methods don't work and increase pressure on smokers...which only makes them smoke more - NHS/government uses the same sort of advertising and techniques as those cigarette manufacturers have been using for years.

Last edited by Bloodheart on 29 May 2011, 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Do you know how stressful being arrested for something so minor would be for someone with aspergers? just messing, but seriously I think that is a little harsh how about a fine? if they really wanna ban smoking in public in which case they should have smoking areas where people can go to smoke. Also not every smoker ends up with a fatal disease, it is a risk....just like how you risk getting in a car accident every time you drive. Though I still do not think a full smoking ban in public will take place any time soon in Denver, Colorado......where I go to college, I mean more then half of the people there smoke ciggerettes like at least 80% of people especially on campus. So such a ban would probably not pass as people would vote it down.

Hear my real issue with the ban in all public places in NY take a average park.
I would walk some distance from other people, play grounds and such. Still in a public place but not offending others. I've been places wear there are distances from doors bus stops ect required by local ordnance and it seemed to work out well. How many kid wont be taken to the pubic park by a smoking parent"s" because of the ban? No mater how good the intentions are there are always side effects.

Bans like this become more and more extreme over time. Watch.

Most of the population are against smoking and if there was a vote on it to be banned then it would probably get through like the fox hunting ban. My grandfather died at the age of 61yrs old through smoking. Having to smoke in order to fit in is pretty poor. I turned it down when offered when I was 16yrs old although it did'nt bother me so much then. Theres nothing worse that going to a restaurant and a window is open and smoke comes in. It ruins the dining experience but some smokers lose some of the taste and don't care. Smokers say they choice to smoke and its up to them as long as they keep well away from non smokers who can't stand the awful stink it produces. The nicotine in tobacco plants is a powerful neurotoxon to insects. The nicotine in cigarettes has slowly increased over the years so making them more additive.

My grandma has been smoking for most of her life and still does.....she around 65, maybe older. I do not smoke to fit in, anymore then I dress to fit in, because I don't care about fitting in.

Good that you say you don't care about fitting in although its nice to fit in sometimes. There are some good clips on y-tube. Theres one called "smokers lungs" a stark demonstration on the effects of smoking and another one called "for smokers" a smoker calf his lungs out of his body which I think was once a tv advert from years ago which is funny but makes a serious point.

and as with all scare campaigns they forget the most important part, most of the people that smoke already knows this stuff, it is simply of little consequence.
accurate representation is also important, trying to demonize a subject will only result in the complete loss of faith when they discover that some claims have been exxagerated.
smoking is not neccesarily a death sentence, it is unhealthy, no question about that at all, but trying to make it a death sentence in the eyes of the world will only end up doing more dammage.

there is no justification in any way for legislating against personal choice in this manner, the atmosphere is a pretty public resource and there is plenty of room for smokers and non smokers alike.
if it truly is the health risks you should look at the link i found for you, the death toll from air pollution is much worse than ciggerates, by the percentile.
so there are plenty of better ways at making everyone live longer than to harass people for their own personal choice.

I'd say to forget it, robin45 doesn't seem to be paying any attention to what anyone else is saying let alone responding, and is determined everyone but him is totally and utterly ignorant to the health risks of smoking...despite the fact the information is rammed down our throats on a daily basis, and those of us who smoke or did smoke know FAR more than he ever will about the health effects of smoking.