Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • MSE Karl
    • By MSE Karl 3rd Oct 17, 11:18 AM
    • 35Posts
    • 9Thanks
    MSE Karl
    MSE Poll: Is it time to extend the smoking ban?
    • #1
    • 3rd Oct 17, 11:18 AM
    MSE Poll: Is it time to extend the smoking ban? 3rd Oct 17 at 11:18 AM
    Poll started 3 October 2017

    Is it time to extend the smoking ban?

    There are 1.9m fewer British smokers since the ban was introduced in England a decade ago (11yrs ago in Scotland). The ban makes it illegal to smoke in an enclosed public place and within the workplace, though it doesn't apply to e-cigarettes.

    Is the ban right and should it be extended more?


    Please vote for ONE option under the category that applies to you.


    Did you vote? Are you surprised at the results so far? Have your say below. To see the results from last time, click here.

    If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply.

    Thanks!


    This Forum tip was included in MoneySavingExpert.com's weekly email!
Page 1
    • The Mighty Gusset
    • By The Mighty Gusset 3rd Oct 17, 9:34 PM
    • 143 Posts
    • 202 Thanks
    The Mighty Gusset
    • #2
    • 3rd Oct 17, 9:34 PM
    Introduce a total smoking ban subject to age
    • #2
    • 3rd Oct 17, 9:34 PM
    The way I see it, the best way forward would be to prevent people who have never smoked from taking up the habit.
    To that end I'd ban smoking for anyone born after 2005
    Gus.
    • dekaspace
    • By dekaspace 4th Oct 17, 2:39 AM
    • 3,690 Posts
    • 3,027 Thanks
    dekaspace
    • #3
    • 4th Oct 17, 2:39 AM
    • #3
    • 4th Oct 17, 2:39 AM
    It was done so badly, and ended up more of a way to look down on smokers, ex smokers and people who wanted to seem wholesome.


    I have never smoked (did attempt to a few times over the years to see what the fuss was about and couldn't even inhale a single breath and it tasted and felt awful) but thought the way it occured was stupid, getting rid of smoking rooms in workplaces meant people instead congregated at doors, and in itself the space required to smoke from a building was stupid,



    I realise theres arguments many ways but the most vicious people I met were non/ex smokers who went on rants about people not caring about others


    My friend was using his e cig a few months ago sitting in corner somewhere where e cigs are allowed and this woman started saying loudly and looking at friend about how disgusting he was, and "people like him" and how he was affecting others with his ignorance and how she shouldn't have to be near him and how he should be banned from the premises.


    Students I see disliking smoking as its in to do so, they have no problems vaping, or getting drunk but somehow smoking is what the scum of the earth does who has no care for the enviroment or others.


    Sorry if strange response, but will say to end it the lower smoking figures are due to vaping becoming more trendy, not the same thing as kids deciding to vape as its trendy.


    I don't think it should be extended at all, that will just be stupid but it should be reworked into something that is good for everyone.


    Heres something to consider, was private smoking rooms a worse idea than being forced to be outside around smokers as they are in beer garden instead?
    • Amandanos
    • By Amandanos 4th Oct 17, 6:50 AM
    • 4 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Amandanos
    • #4
    • 4th Oct 17, 6:50 AM
    • #4
    • 4th Oct 17, 6:50 AM
    I unfortunately have asthma and was so happy when the smoking ban came into effect as it meant I could go into a pub or restaurant without getting severe hay fever like symptoms. However, whilst inside is fine, the outside still has people walking along the road or standing outside places and I have to put my hand in front of my mouth and nose and hold my breath in order to avoid the smoke.
    I have also been burnt by someone who passed me and was being a little neglectful as to where the way they held their cigarette.
    I don’t smoke. I understand the addiction. I don’t understand how people actually like to smoke but I most definitely don’t understand why people feel they have the right to subject others to their smoke.
    • RebeccaCompton16
    • By RebeccaCompton16 4th Oct 17, 8:12 AM
    • 1 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    RebeccaCompton16
    • #5
    • 4th Oct 17, 8:12 AM
    • #5
    • 4th Oct 17, 8:12 AM
    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.
    • suchard007
    • By suchard007 4th Oct 17, 10:25 AM
    • 34 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    suchard007
    • #6
    • 4th Oct 17, 10:25 AM
    Extend ban to e-cigarettes / vaping
    • #6
    • 4th Oct 17, 10:25 AM
    I think this should be extended to e-cigarettes / vaping too.
    There's not enough information available about what harm this may do (if any) in the long term. I feel all the colourful vaping accessories you can buy is an attraction for people to start vaping in the first place. It's almost being seen as a 'cool' thing to do... a bit like smoking cigarettes was all those years ago! Ban it in all open places (except designated smoking areas).... even if it is menthol/herbal, why do others want to inhale/smell it !!!
    • worried jim
    • By worried jim 4th Oct 17, 10:29 AM
    • 8,767 Posts
    • 13,379 Thanks
    worried jim
    • #7
    • 4th Oct 17, 10:29 AM
    • #7
    • 4th Oct 17, 10:29 AM
    Our cancer veranda is packed out at work every lunchtime still.
    "Only two things are infinite-the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the universe"
    Albert Einstein
    • One-Eye
    • By One-Eye 4th Oct 17, 10:56 AM
    • 39,590 Posts
    • 6,232,547 Thanks
    One-Eye
    • #8
    • 4th Oct 17, 10:56 AM
    • #8
    • 4th Oct 17, 10:56 AM
    Those who complain that you can't walk along the street without being exposed to inconsiderate people's noxious gases, particulates and carcinogens, and feel so aggrieved that they must confront the perpetrators - Do you enjoy chasing cars?
    • rmg1
    • By rmg1 4th Oct 17, 11:28 AM
    • 2,889 Posts
    • 737 Thanks
    rmg1
    • #9
    • 4th Oct 17, 11:28 AM
    • #9
    • 4th Oct 17, 11:28 AM
    So people now want to extend the ban to all public places. Does that include normal streets?
    I'm trying to quit so I can see both sides of the argument.

    Yes, it's a self-inflicted bad habit that harms me and others close enough to get the second hand smoke. However, the Treasury gets a bucket-load of cash from smokers through tax (and I'm including tax on imports and the tobacco/cigarette producing companies in this as well as the normal VAT, etc. on cigarettes/tobacco products). 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.

    And before people say it would save money for the NHS, look at it like this.
    A few years ago (can't remember the exact year), smokers put into the Treasury around £7billion. Cost to the NHS (for smoking related illnesses) ..... £1billion. I'd say that was a net gain for the NHS/Treasury.

    OK, so now we ban smoking/vaping in all public places.
    That means I can't smoke as I walk down the street (where traffic pollution is far worse than second-hand smoke.
    I'm already banned from smoking/vaping in pubs, restaurants, cinemas, etc.
    Am I now to be treated like a leper because of a bad habit?
    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.

    And on a small aside, if I was on heroin and wanted to quit, I'd be given the help free-of-charge.
    I want to quit smoking, and if I want the patches, etc. that's going to cost me.
    I know which one would do me most harm....
    Flagellation, necrophilia and bestiality - Am I flogging a dead horse?

    Any posts are my opinion and only that. Please read at your own risk.
    • worried jim
    • By worried jim 4th Oct 17, 11:51 AM
    • 8,767 Posts
    • 13,379 Thanks
    worried jim
    And on a small aside, if I was on heroin and wanted to quit, I'd be given the help free-of-charge.
    I want to quit smoking, and if I want the patches, etc. that's going to cost me.
    I know which one would do me most harm....
    Originally posted by rmg1
    Good point, however no one has ever burgled someone's house to buy a pouch of golden Virginia. I hope.......
    Last edited by worried jim; 04-10-2017 at 11:53 AM.
    "Only two things are infinite-the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the universe"
    Albert Einstein
    • Focusford1
    • By Focusford1 4th Oct 17, 11:54 AM
    • 1 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Focusford1
    A recent survey in Scotland has found out that there is no reduction in smokers at all. All it would seem to have achieved is to close a large amount of pubs and clubs. So it would seem spending further money on something that is showing few results would be a waste of money.

    If we want to make a better society then we should turn our efforts to alcohol. I have never seen two people fighting over a cigarette. I have never seen hospitals looks like battlefields because of cigarettes. You can buy your alcohol with you morning paper. The increase in liver failure in the young is through the roof. Quite a few of us will outlive our children. So if you want something that will give us a better society Alcohol is it. Spend money where it will make a difference.
    • Butts
    • By Butts 4th Oct 17, 11:58 AM
    • 163 Posts
    • 52 Thanks
    Butts
    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.

    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
    Last edited by Butts; 04-10-2017 at 11:59 AM. Reason: spe
    • NaughtiusMaximus
    • By NaughtiusMaximus 4th Oct 17, 11:59 AM
    • 530 Posts
    • 1,284 Thanks
    NaughtiusMaximus
    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.
    Originally posted by RebeccaCompton16
    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.
    • dekaspace
    • By dekaspace 4th Oct 17, 2:51 PM
    • 3,690 Posts
    • 3,027 Thanks
    dekaspace
    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.
    Originally posted by RebeccaCompton16

    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.
    • tajasel
    • By tajasel 4th Oct 17, 3:58 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    tajasel
    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!)
    • dekaspace
    • By dekaspace 4th Oct 17, 4:35 PM
    • 3,690 Posts
    • 3,027 Thanks
    dekaspace
    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!)
    Originally posted by tajasel

    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.
    • XRAT
    • By XRAT 4th Oct 17, 6:28 PM
    • 186 Posts
    • 162 Thanks
    XRAT
    Who's going to enforce a ban?
    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?
    • takman
    • By takman 4th Oct 17, 8:26 PM
    • 2,893 Posts
    • 2,406 Thanks
    takman
    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 ?
    Originally posted by Butts
    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.
    Originally posted by rmg1
    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.
    Originally posted by rmg1
    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.
    • dekaspace
    • By dekaspace 4th Oct 17, 11:57 PM
    • 3,690 Posts
    • 3,027 Thanks
    dekaspace
    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.
    Originally posted by takman
    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.
    • leeparsons
    • By leeparsons 5th Oct 17, 1:11 AM
    • 40 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    leeparsons
    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.
    Originally posted by takman
    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.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,283Posts Today

7,125Users online

Martin's Twitter