MSE Poll: Is it time to extend the smoking ban?
Comments
-
I suppose it was inevitable that once smokers had been forced outside that would be only the start !!! Not content with this the zealots are now attempting to ban it outside as well. :mad:
People congregating at entrances to Buildings and Transport Hubs smoking are an inevitable consequence of not providing areas within where smoking is permissible. Provision of a dedicated room or allowing smoking on open platforms would solve this at a stroke.
Inconsistency is another problem quite a few middle ranking UK Airports have smoking facilities Airside but most of the major ones don't -why ?
I think part of the problem is that although smoking rates are still relatively high at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum the upper reaches (who make the decisions and are articulate) have almost extinguished
the habit. This means policy is dictated by those who are able and willing to demonise those still liking a puff. Imagine their reaction if wine was subjected to similar restrictions.
The current legislation seems to be reducing the rates of smoking so why not allow those still enjoying a burn to die out naturally or unaturally if they are one of the 50% that succumb to a smoking related illness.
The revenue question must be addressed as even allowing for the cost to the NHS the Treasury is still quids in (to the tune of £Billions) with the duty, vat and money saved on pensions and benefits by those who croak it 0 -
RebeccaCompton16 wrote: »I am a student (postgrad though) and dislike the drinking culture, but I think your point doesn't make complete sense. Drinking is an entirely self inflicted habit, it only harms the person who does it or anyone who might try to pick a fight with a drunk.
You don't really believe that do you?- Drink driving
- Alcohol fuelled violence & antisocial behaviour (and no, not picking a fight with a drunk does not guarantee you won't be a victim)
- Alcoholism and the effect on families & loved ones
Yes I know none of these happen with majority of drinkers (of which I am one) but to suggest drinking only harms the drinker is ludicrous.0 -
RebeccaCompton16 wrote: »It is selfish to smoke in public though! Second hand smoke is a real issue and the cases are rising in the uk.
I personally think that the band should be extended, to all public spaces. If anyone ever dared to smoke near my child I would let my feelings known.
I am a student (postgrad though) and dislike the drinking culture, but I think your point doesn't make complete sense. Drinking is an entirely self inflicted habit, it only harms the person who does it or anyone who might try to pick a fight with a drunk. Whilst I don't advocate the level of drinking students do, I think it makes sense to see smoking as a more selfish habit.
E-cigarettes are less of an issue, but even so where is the extensive testing on these products to ensure they are safe? Who knows what chemicals people could be vaping near the public.
I personally don't get what is wrong with a ban in public, smoke in your own house by all means but if you can't go in a public space without craving a cigarette then, be honest with yourself,p and admit you have a problem that is self inflicted and NOT a problem that should be inflicted on the responsible people who don't smoke.
Oh the "self inflicted" argument, well when I have talked about junkies and alcoholics in past people tell me its mental health related, so where are those people now?
Ban e cigs because you can't tell the long term effects? Well the general public knows little about pretty much any side effects from anything, why not ban vehicles from the road because of their emissions?
Im sure its the smokers that only do the harm when I live near alcohol abusers who smash up doors, or shout abuse at people on street, or pickpocket.
Its the people that drink that empty their flatmates cupboards, or put on the oven and forget and cause fires, or have their friends round and leave the property in a disgusting state and bring back strangers from the pub who steal.
Or the people taking their legal highs and trashing their properties.
So why is that person smoking in their bedroom keeping themselves to themselves a worse person?
To bring your child into it shows bias, intentional or not.
Point is theres so much danger in the world, so why focus on one and ignore the other? Unless someone is smoking in my face in a cramped room I don't see too much of a problem.
Smoking rooms were shamed as non smokers claimed they were discriminated again by being forced to be around smoke, when it should be seen more as the smokers are isolated into one small area rather than spread out.0 -
I have asthma, that is triggered by cigarette smoke. I can't go anywhere without breathing in other people's cigarette smoke – no matter what signs and announcements there are, people light up on train platforms, bus stations, etc. - so I'd support designated smoking areas wholeheartedly, if only because the current rules are so poorly enforced that having something stricter might help people like me stand a chance of going somewhere without breathing this stuff in.
(Recently I even to ask a paramedic to move people on who were literally smoking *in the doorway* to the local hospital - I'd come out from the respiratory ward where I had to stay following a big asthma attack, for a breath of fresh air - and then couldn't get back into the building for the people crowding around the doorway with cigs!)0 -
I have asthma, that is triggered by cigarette smoke. I can't go anywhere without breathing in other people's cigarette smoke – no matter what signs and announcements there are, people light up on train platforms, bus stations, etc. - so I'd support designated smoking areas wholeheartedly, if only because the current rules are so poorly enforced that having something stricter might help people like me stand a chance of going somewhere without breathing this stuff in.
(Recently I even to ask a paramedic to move people on who were literally smoking *in the doorway* to the local hospital - I'd come out from the respiratory ward where I had to stay following a big asthma attack, for a breath of fresh air - and then couldn't get back into the building for the people crowding around the doorway with cigs!)
Perhaps if it wasn't the strictness but rather the common sense, smokers went from private smoking rooms, to outside doors such as you say so it would seem common sense to have designated areas for people to smoke, that doesn't mean ban it everywhere but have smoking rooms//areas.
But even then common sense should be applied, if someone was walking home in middle of the night and stopped for a cig and the streets were dead and there was a ban on smoking in public then that person shouldn't be fined.0 -
There is no point making anything illegal until we have an enforcement agency with sufficient staff to enforce it.., we could call them "The Police."
In fact, why do we have M.P.s when the laws they pass are unenforceable?0 -
People congregating at entrances to Buildings and Transport Hubs smoking are an inevitable consequence of not providing areas within where smoking is permissible. Provision of a dedicated room or allowing smoking on open platforms would solve this at a stroke.
Inconsistency is another problem quite a few middle ranking UK Airports have smoking facilities Airside but most of the major ones don't -why ?
But why should there have to be facilities provided to people just because they have so little self control that they can't go without getting their fix until they are in a suitable location.
Smoking serves no purpose whatsoever apart from giving the user pleasure, so why should they have to provide facilities for a pleasurable activity.
Lots of people also enjoy playing darts. Imagine if suddenly there was a big problem with people playing darts on train station platforms and in airports and occasionally other people were getting injured. Would you say the solution was to build a darts area at every transport hub so they have somewhere to play?. Or would the solution be to tell them they can't play darts and must wait until they are somewhere suitable?.The last figure I can remember is this - 75% of the price of a packet of cigarettes or pouch of tobacco goes to the Treasury. It's tax!
Where do people think this money is going to come from if the population all quit smoking? Something/someone has to plug the financial gap.
So what?, health is more important than money and revenue from tax. In my opinion millions of people giving up smoking and living healthier lives free from the constraints of addition is worth loosing billions in tax revenue.Yes, it smells, it pollutes and it makes people ill. So do cars, busses, etc and you don't see people screaming to ban those in public places due to the pollution they cause.
Cars and Buses serve a practical purpose of transporting people around the country to where they need to go. People don't congregate in their cars outside doorways with the exhausts at the perfect level to blow right in your face. There are currently no viable alternatives to diesel/petrol cars until the technology improves. An idling car has less dangerous emissions than one single cigarette.
Now lets compare that to smoking which serves no practical purpose and is purely for the pleasure of the user. Plus E-Cigarettes are a very viable alternative for people who want to give up smoking.0 -
But why should there have to be facilities provided to people just because they have so little self control that they can't go without getting their fix until they are in a suitable location.
Smoking serves no purpose whatsoever apart from giving the user pleasure, so why should they have to provide facilities for a pleasurable activity.
Plus E-Cigarettes are a very viable alternative for people who want to give up smoking.
For one people want to ban e cigs too, but it seems you don't understand addiction and peer pressure, why do you think people gain weight when stopping smoking or more often fail and go back?
Theres physical and psycological addictions, by going cold turkey peoples bodies aren't getting that fix, by turning to food they are getting a different kind of fix so replacing one addiction for another.
Cutting down slowly means people succeed more but also need a good support group
People often start smoking due to peer pressure or stress, or years ago to be part of the crowd, so to not understand its not self inflicted (but it can be) just means you are looking at it just on paper.
My mum stopped smoking 23 years ago after a chest infection and never went back, even then it was like 10 a week before this.0 -
But why should there have to be facilities provided to people just because they have so little self control that they can't go without getting their fix until they are in a suitable location.
Smoking serves no purpose whatsoever apart from giving the user pleasure, so why should they have to provide facilities for a pleasurable activity.
Lots of people also enjoy playing darts. Imagine if suddenly there was a big problem with people playing darts on train station platforms and in airports and occasionally other people were getting injured. Would you say the solution was to build a darts area at every transport hub so they have somewhere to play?. Or would the solution be to tell them they can't play darts and must wait until they are somewhere suitable?.
So what?, health is more important than money and revenue from tax. In my opinion millions of people giving up smoking and living healthier lives free from the constraints of addition is worth loosing billions in tax revenue.
Cars and Buses serve a practical purpose of transporting people around the country to where they need to go. People don't congregate in their cars outside doorways with the exhausts at the perfect level to blow right in your face. There are currently no viable alternatives to diesel/petrol cars until the technology improves. An idling car has less dangerous emissions than one single cigarette.
Now let's compare that to smoking which serves no practical purpose and is purely for the pleasure of the user. Plus E-Cigarettes are a very viable alternative for people who want to give up smoking.
I understand your viewpoint, but I haft to disagree with you. To start, this poll is a complete waste of time. You couldn't ever ban smoking outright, in public places like a footpath. That would make it a dictatorship.
It is a proven fact that more people die or have physical problems from the emissions of vehicles, and fossil fuels which are pumped into the air. Compared to that of smoking.
If we go with your premises of dictatorship, then we must ban all vehicles. Now I know you might say it is coming (electrical), I think 2020. But we all know that they won't meet this target, and there will be some loophole that people can escape from it. But knowing what we are like, there will be some fossil fuel involved.
So to make one rule for one, and one for another is just dammed right ridiculous, and could never stand up.
We could argue other things. Like, be admitted to radiation we didn't ask to be subjected to. Do you think they will ban wifi, mobile phones etc? I think you need to think again.0 -
What the majority may vote for, may not be either possible or practical to implement. However, designated outdoor smoking areas seem to be a good compromise for those who just cannot switch to vaping or quit.
Our local hospital even bans smoking anywhere on the grounds, so have solved the problem of people dragging their oxygen tanks along whilst they clutter up doorways to have a smoke.Truth always poses doubts & questions. Only lies are 100% believable, because they don't need to justify reality. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon, The Labyrinth of the Spirits0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards