Smoking ban in public places

Post Reply New Topic

Excuse me? We are having a discussion - you are not participating in the discussion.

As well as attacking the smokers here you insult members by referring to us as being 'ignorant' - why, because we either want to protect people's rights or we want to help smokers quit? I've asked you to clarify this a couple of times now but still no backing-up this claim, so far your only response to me has been to claim I have personal issues...for participating in a discussion.

You're ignoring the issues people have raised with your replies and you're not answering questions posed to you. Instead you're just posting information on health risks - this is inane - there's no reason to post this over and over when it contributes nothing to the discussion.

Last edited by Bloodheart on 31 May 2011, 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If they did that they could end the national debt in record time...

Oh - and we forgot the 'smoke break' at work. People who smoke get smoke breaks. Just '15 minutes here or there' to feed their habit. In one job, the smokers got 4 of these little breaks every damn day. An extra HOUR break - paid - because they have an addiction. Yet, when I asked for just half that time I was flatly refused. I kid you not - HR told me if I wanted smoke breaks I needed to start smoking... O_o

So, what was this about discrimination?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duwS2sIG9lE&feature=related[/youtube]

Some people make lots of money, some make a little, some cannot work and there liberties removed simply because they cannot work and some are homeless and lost. A business makes decisions on how to function. Retaining employees and allowing certain bonused privileges for those they wish to retain and paying different actual hourly wages to different people.

Smokers do need the breaks - without a cigarette a smoker is useless to an employer and to the economy, and thus also why so many companies these days either won't hire smokers or will get corporate programs to help smokers quit - BUT non-smokers should get an equal number of breaks too.

Most places I've worked don't do this, smokers and non-smokers get the same breaks - I think it is in part because smokers need breaks, so they keep it fair giving breaks to all - however then these breaks are also to be used for getting drinks, snacks, meals, toilet breaks, HR-stuff, etc. along with a cigarette if you're a smoker, so higher risk of smokers coming back late so risking disciplinary.

Don't get me wrong, I'd be more than a little ticked-off if I worked in a place where smokers were getting more breaks than me!

Also, some companies give money to employees to quit - you could argue this is unfair, but then I'd sure as hell take never having a life-threatening and expensive addiction over a few hundred £'s/$'s...equally I'd happily take my health over an extra hour break time.

It still is the smokers choice to smoke and experience no smoking sensation if that is what is available in employment. Being a little more then ticked off is to me is a bit unreasonable. I could say I could try to function in your job if you would quit should it work out but because you are not substantially disabled which was not my choice nor your choice my rights to save, own a home with a white picket fence and have vacations is not only not a job perk but there is no option of raise. I see people complaining and getting so upset over little things but folks like me got to keep quite otherwise we may be called lazy and guilted about how much you work and myself and others don't.

For me smokers having a break is up to the management and if you worked for me I'd say do the job or someone like Nathan (me) will be placed to try and do it for you .

Silly little unfair things and they being such great injustices to others but I got to keep my mouth zipped or it may be a free for all bully session.

Did you know that smoking in NHS car parks is banned? Even if you're hundreds of meters away from other people? Even if there's no-one possibly in sight, it's still banned. They have pathetic-looking shelters. Scared, distressed elderly people in hospital are not allowed to smoke inside in warm, ventilated smoking rooms - they are pushed out onto the street in freezing conditions. Whenever I visit the local hospital it sickens me to see people treated that way for a preference. Basically, the NHS is so obsessively against smoking that it will mistreat vulnerable people because of its own hatred.

I know an elderly smoker and she would verbally let anyone have a but kicking if you tried to tell her not to smoke in otherwise respectable distances. Respect your elders!

well some of these posts about violent smokers piss me off.....because people who smoke don't like being harrased for smoking, so we should not harras people who don't smoke. I mean I am fine with the bans in public buildings and a certain distance around them. For outside public places I would be fine having specific smoking areas out of the way, if it has to come to that. And even as someone who smokes I do not like the site of ciggerette butts covering the ground so I would not be opposed to a fine for that.....I used to be guilty of that but not anymore. And finally I really think the best thing would be if smokers and non smokers can find some common ground and agree on limits to decrease the risk of second hand smoke affecting non-smokers.

Can't be done due to the obsessive bigotry of state-funded anti-smoking organisations who basically write the law and the World Health Organisation.

yeah I know, I just know that would be the best solution not saying people are actually going to do it. sometimes I wish I was more emotional so I could be more one sided it would be easier if I did not always try and look at both sides. But I do and so I get to think of things like that which will never happen.

I think smokers are perceived as akin to big bad tobacco that killed people they know when applicable. The hate seems to have transfered. But the fundamental liberties thing I learned since young is important. The idea of I may not like what you say or what you do but I respect your right and will defend your rights. Growing up in a military family and obsessed with the idea of freedom when young has me respectful of the spirit of freedoms.

Funny thing is, a lot of smokers themselves wouldn't mind restrictions in some areas. No-one, even the libertarians I read, really wants to go back to the old days of thick clouds of smoke hanging over you in a restaurant (although I'd let them have the choice, even in the old days people never really liked having their meal spoiled by the person next to you blowing their smoke at you). They don't want to have smoking in hospitals (except for designated, warm areas for patients) or in playgroup. I wouldn't want to go back to a society where not smoking is treated in the same fashion as smoking is now. I do want a saner attitude towards lifestyle choices - and a saner attitude is respecting the right of free choice and of free assembly. Which means giving pubs a choice (as well as scrapping most of the pointless other bans, like hospital car parks and outdoor train platforms) as well as abolishing the fake charities and bringing about a parliament that legislates for its people, not corporate/healthist interests.

Just wait until she ends up in adult diapers with a wheelchair and an oxygen tank, peeing on the couch like one of my relatives did. No, smokers don't necessarily die early. If prior experience is any indication, you might expect that your grandmother will linger in a similar condition for more than a decade before dying somewhere around 90. The removal of quality of life is still tragic even if the length is not necessarily shortened.

OK so you're not ignorant. I'll accept that every smoker has had the opportunity to do thorough research on all of the pros and cons, and to look at all the pictures and articles and videos before saying "Oh, yeah! This is what I want. Gimme my first pack!". But remember that a knowledgeable person is no better or worse off than an ignorant person who does exactly the same thing.

With freedom comes a responsibility to respect the rights of others. A basic premise of freedom is that, you should be free to do anything you wish as long as you don't interfere with someone else's rights. Insofar as the smoking doesn't directly affect me, I'm all in favor of granting open ended license for smokers to smoke all they can afford. But other people's smoking has directly affected me, either because I didn't have the means to get away from the smoke, such as when I lived with smokers as a child, or because, as an adult, at times I would have to choose between suffering in the smoke or restricting where I go to avoid it, such as avoiding bowling alleys and some restaurants altogether.

My quality of life improved recently when smoking was banned in restaurants and other places in Michigan. Now I can go out and eat a meal without my eyes and throat burning and without having to get rid of the smoke smell on my body afterward. What about the rights of nonsmokers who live in the same household as smokers? Adults can move out, and couples can make arrangements, but children are stuck where they are. Is it possible to protect the rights of children who live with smokers? Outdoor bans are unreasonable and thus infringe on freedom if nonsmokers can easily get away, but what happens in crowded cities where sidewalks may have adjacent pedestrians within 5 feet of each other during high-traffic times?

Even in a free society there is a place for smoking bans; it's just a question of place and degree. A successful argument for the validity of a smoking ban in a given space must show that the nonsmokers can't avoid the smoke easily or without significantly restricting their movements or activities in the space in question.

Last edited by sgrannel on 01 Jun 2011, 6:12 am, edited 11 times in total.

Smoking can result in terrible death! Smoking around children and in grocery stores and places to eat is just wrong. It's beyond that of just moral persuasion but simply unethical. However in dwellings where only other adults reside and if the smoker is the owner he or she sets the rules otherwise others can move out. If apartment complexes want to be non-smoking they should declare it upon moving in as for many years people have smoked indoors. Otherwise declare to neighbors and all that reside they are moving into a non-smoking premises.