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 2
    • Mrs Arcanum
    • By Mrs Arcanum 5th Oct 17, 7:37 AM
    • 15,844 Posts
    • 32,110 Thanks
    Mrs Arcanum
    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.
    “We put all our politicians in prison as soon as they’re elected. Don’t you?” “Why?” “It saves time.” ― Terry Pratchett, The Last Continent.
    • takman
    • By takman 5th Oct 17, 10:29 AM
    • 2,898 Posts
    • 2,411 Thanks
    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.
    Originally posted by leeparsons
    Do you have any sources or statistics for that?

    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.
    Originally posted by leeparsons
    The main point of my post that you completely missed is that you cannot compare smoking fairly to things like cars and wifi as smoking serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Why should any allowances be made for smokers when it is purely a recreational activity that can harm other people and has no useful purpose.

    I actually never said smoking should be banned in all public spaces but people who smoke need to be more considerate of other people and not stand in doorways or do it around children. When they brought out laws which banned smoking around children in cars my first thought was we shouldn't need such a law; are people who smoke really that selfish that there needs to be a law to stop them smoking in confined spaces where children are present?.

    The current measures in place seem to have been effective in significantly reducing the exposure to second hand smoke in public buildings and reducing the appeal of smoking. Anyone taking it up who hasn't smoked before would have to be pretty stupid to start now with all the information available.

    I think the most reasonable comparison is to having sex. Most people have a natural desire to have sex and mainly do it for pleasure. But you don't see rooms to allow people to have sex at transport hubs. Do you also think we are dictatorship because sex is not allowed in public places?. The large majority of people are able to wait until they are in a suitable place to have sex. It's very rare that it's done in public and it's socially unacceptable. Smoking should be treated socially in a similar way .
    • Gavin83
    • By Gavin83 5th Oct 17, 11:06 AM
    • 4,731 Posts
    • 7,516 Thanks
    Gavin83
    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.
    Originally posted by leeparsons
    While I don't support extending the smoking ban this statement is a little ridiculous and not even close to being a dictatorship. You can't walk around in public smoking cannabis, does that make us a dictatorship?
    • rmg1
    • By rmg1 5th Oct 17, 11:11 AM
    • 2,889 Posts
    • 737 Thanks
    rmg1
    I actually never said smoking should be banned in all public spaces but people who smoke need to be more considerate of other people and not stand in doorways or do it around children. When they brought out laws which banned smoking around children in cars my first thought was we shouldn't need such a law; are people who smoke really that selfish that there needs to be a law to stop them smoking in confined spaces where children are present?
    The current legislation bans smoking within 4 meters (I believe) of doorways and windows for public buildings.

    Smoking is an addiction and should be treated as such.At the moment, however, smokers are seen as lepers but given less help than drug/alcohol addicts to get over that addiction.

    As for smoking in cars, I haven't smoked in the car since my daughter was born. On top of that, I always stand outside at home to have a smoke (I know, I'm one of the few).

    My main concern is, if we ban smoking in public, this country will either rapidly turn into a dictatorship (as noted by others) or smokers will go "underground" (remember prohibition in the USA?) and then organised crime will take over.
    Flagellation, necrophilia and bestiality - Am I flogging a dead horse?

    Any posts are my opinion and only that. Please read at your own risk.
    • rmg1
    • By rmg1 5th Oct 17, 11:12 AM
    • 2,889 Posts
    • 737 Thanks
    rmg1
    While I don't support extending the smoking ban this statement is a little ridiculous and not even close to being a dictatorship. You can't walk around in public smoking cannabis, does that make us a dictatorship?
    Originally posted by Gavin83
    No, because cannabis is an illegal substance (Class B from memory).
    Tobacco isn't illegal (yet) so the comparison isn't fair.
    Flagellation, necrophilia and bestiality - Am I flogging a dead horse?

    Any posts are my opinion and only that. Please read at your own risk.
    • leeparsons
    • By leeparsons 6th Oct 17, 2:41 AM
    • 40 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    leeparsons
    Do you have any sources or statistics for that?
    .
    Originally posted by takman
    I knew i was right. WHO say so
    https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/who-downplays-danger-of-secondhand-smoke/
    • dekaspace
    • By dekaspace 6th Oct 17, 11:56 PM
    • 3,691 Posts
    • 3,035 Thanks
    dekaspace
    Do you have any sources or statistics for that?

    The main point of my post that you completely missed is that you cannot compare smoking fairly to things like cars and wifi as smoking serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Why should any allowances be made for smokers when it is purely a recreational activity that can harm other people and has no useful purpose.

    I actually never said smoking should be banned in all public spaces but people who smoke need to be more considerate of other people and not stand in doorways or do it around children. When they brought out laws which banned smoking around children in cars my first thought was we shouldn't need such a law; are people who smoke really that selfish that there needs to be a law to stop them smoking in confined spaces where children are present?.

    The current measures in place seem to have been effective in significantly reducing the exposure to second hand smoke in public buildings and reducing the appeal of smoking. Anyone taking it up who hasn't smoked before would have to be pretty stupid to start now with all the information available.

    I think the most reasonable comparison is to having sex. Most people have a natural desire to have sex and mainly do it for pleasure. But you don't see rooms to allow people to have sex at transport hubs. Do you also think we are dictatorship because sex is not allowed in public places?. The large majority of people are able to wait until they are in a suitable place to have sex. It's very rare that it's done in public and it's socially unacceptable. Smoking should be treated socially in a similar way .
    Originally posted by takman

    You driving a car serves no benefit for me, and why don't you car pool or get public transport? So yeah your argument isn't as perfect as you think it is.


    By the way drinking is banned in public and how many people still do it?


    And yeah im sure people smoking in the privacy of a smoking room really is worse for my health than people smoking outside, the same outside you think it should be banned.


    And then what about a situation like where one person smokes and their partner doesn't, they can't smoke in public anymore and they have to smoke around their parter if they do it indoors, and what if they have kids so normally smoke outside to not affect them?


    What happens if its the middle of the night and no ones about? Who will it bother?


    Oh and wifi is a luxury not a necessity, if you needed internet for business purposes then you can have it wired in.



    So absurd to say its like sex in public.


    Wheres the people who pressure you or think you are not cool or strange for not having sex in front of them?


    Wheres the adverts over the last 50 years telling you how great smoking is or the pop culture and celebrities influencing people in the same way as sex which is treated more as dirty, or indirectly used? Attraction is seen more as important?


    Ever heard of the adverts with doctors from the 60s saying "smoking is good for you"
    • tberry6686
    • By tberry6686 7th Oct 17, 12:23 PM
    • 974 Posts
    • 933 Thanks
    tberry6686
    The main point of my post that you completely missed is that you cannot compare smoking fairly to things like cars and wifi as smoking serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Why should any allowances be made for smokers when it is purely a recreational activity that can harm other people and has no useful purpose.
    Originally posted by takman
    Wrong. It raises a lot of tax for the government to spend. Is than not a useful purpose ?

    If not then get rid of all taxes as they serve no useful purpose.
    • takman
    • By takman 7th Oct 17, 7:11 PM
    • 2,898 Posts
    • 2,411 Thanks
    takman
    Wrong. It raises a lot of tax for the government to spend. Is than not a useful purpose ?

    If not then get rid of all taxes as they serve no useful purpose.
    Originally posted by tberry6686
    But people don't buy tobacco products with the purpose of generating tax for the government, they buy it simply for pleasure and to meet their addiction. .

    Somethings Purpose is defined as:

    the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.
    • takman
    • By takman 7th Oct 17, 7:33 PM
    • 2,898 Posts
    • 2,411 Thanks
    takman
    You driving a car serves no benefit for me, and why don't you car pool or get public transport? So yeah your argument isn't as perfect as you think it is.
    Originally posted by dekaspace
    I used the example of cars and buses (which are used for public transport) in general and not just my car; which it would be difficult to argue arn't useful.

    But as a side note if car pooling and public transport makes my argument perfect then how great is my argument considering I ride a bicycle to work everyday!.

    By the way drinking is banned in public and how many people still do it?


    And yeah im sure people smoking in the privacy of a smoking room really is worse for my health than people smoking outside, the same outside you think it should be banned.


    And then what about a situation like where one person smokes and their partner doesn't, they can't smoke in public anymore and they have to smoke around their parter if they do it indoors, and what if they have kids so normally smoke outside to not affect them?


    What happens if its the middle of the night and no ones about? Who will it bother?
    Originally posted by dekaspace
    Well you havnt bothered to read my post at all even though you quoted it!. I actually said I didn't think it should be banned in public and some people just need to be far more aware of the fact they can harm other people by doing this when choosing where to smoke.

    Oh and wifi is a luxury not a necessity, if you needed internet for business purposes then you can have it wired in.

    So absurd to say its like sex in public.
    Originally posted by dekaspace
    I never said wifi was a nessitity I said wifi served a useful purpose and smoking does not. Again you really need to read what people have posted before replying.

    Also I think it's valid to compare it to sex in the context I used of people feeling it is something they need to do. Read my previous posts if you want to see it in context.

    Wheres the people who pressure you or think you are not cool or strange for not having sex in front of them?

    Wheres the adverts over the last 50 years telling you how great smoking is or the pop culture and celebrities influencing people in the same way as sex which is treated more as dirty, or indirectly used? Attraction is seen more as important?

    Ever heard of the adverts with doctors from the 60s saying "smoking is good for you"
    Originally posted by dekaspace
    This is a pretty weak argument so just because people pressure you to do it then it makes it ok?

    What about people who are pressured into taking cocaine, should we make cocaine legal just because some people are pressured into it?
    • dekaspace
    • By dekaspace 10th Oct 17, 2:40 AM
    • 3,691 Posts
    • 3,035 Thanks
    dekaspace
    I used the example of cars and buses (which are used for public transport) in general and not just my car; which it would be difficult to argue arn't useful.

    But as a side note if car pooling and public transport makes my argument perfect then how great is my argument considering I ride a bicycle to work everyday!.

    Well you havnt bothered to read my post at all even though you quoted it!. I actually said I didn't think it should be banned in public and some people just need to be far more aware of the fact they can harm other people by doing this when choosing where to smoke.

    I never said wifi was a nessitity I said wifi served a useful purpose and smoking does not. Again you really need to read what people have posted before replying.

    Also I think it's valid to compare it to sex in the context I used of people feeling it is something they need to do. Read my previous posts if you want to see it in context.
    This is a pretty weak argument so just because people pressure you to do it then it makes it ok?

    What about people who are pressured into taking cocaine, should we make cocaine legal just because some people are pressured into it?
    Originally posted by takman

    Weak argument? You mean like yours and your OPINION.


    You can say anything and justify it whatever way you want, doesn't make it the truth, the same thing you are acting like I should believe


    And utterly stupid argument to jump to cocaine, sounds more like you have a bias.


    I can overeat on food, does that mean I will turn to cocaine?


    Just like tobacco, food is legal, cocaine isn't but doesn't mean either is a gateway.



    Maybe use common sense which you lack and



    Just because you live in a bubble doesn't mean yours is the correct way.


    Common sense again about the wifi, you should do some research into things like stress and peer pressure, then you would understand people find something to turn to, for some its drink, for some its drugs, for some its food, and for some its cigarettes.


    Someone doing a violent assault can't really be justified in their actions, someone who smokes though you don't like it can have UNDERSTANDABLE reasons even if you don't agree with their right to smoke.


    Smoking holds a purpose to those people just as wifi does to others, just because you find wifi useful and smoking not doesn't mean it can;t be.


    I use wired whenever I can due to wifi being pathetic many times, and for faster connections needed expensive hardware (unless you have thin walls and close to router)


    Think you are clever by mentioning you cycle to work? Well I walk long distances and I don't smoke either! And you talked about cars being useful over smoking, well the fumes are still bad for your health so the point was you were picking and choosing what to be offended about.


    Oh and you complained that why should they have facilities provided and no allowances should be made but then contradict that by claiming you don't think it should be banned in public.


    So if you don't believe it should be banned in public why do you disregard a lot of things you don't agree with that are about compromising smoking away from home?
    • takman
    • By takman 10th Oct 17, 11:02 AM
    • 2,898 Posts
    • 2,411 Thanks
    takman
    Weak argument? You mean like yours and your OPINION.

    You can say anything and justify it whatever way you want, doesn't make it the truth, the same thing you are acting like I should believe

    And utterly stupid argument to jump to cocaine, sounds more like you have a bias.

    I can overeat on food, does that mean I will turn to cocaine?

    Just like tobacco, food is legal, cocaine isn't but doesn't mean either is a gateway.

    Maybe use common sense which you lack and

    Just because you live in a bubble doesn't mean yours is the correct way.

    Common sense again about the wifi, you should do some research into things like stress and peer pressure, then you would understand people find something to turn to, for some its drink, for some its drugs, for some its food, and for some its cigarettes.

    Someone doing a violent assault can't really be justified in their actions, someone who smokes though you don't like it can have UNDERSTANDABLE reasons even if you don't agree with their right to smoke.
    Originally posted by dekaspace
    Yes there are many reasons why people smoke and yes people are pressurised into it.

    But that will never mean it is a good thing!.

    You also misunderstand my comparison to cocaine, i never said people who smoke will start taking cocaine. What i said was there are also many reasons why people turn to cocaine but that doesn't make it right.

    There are many people who are under alot more stress and under alot more peer pressure to start smoking who have never smoked in their life.

    Smoking holds a purpose to those people just as wifi does to others, just because you find wifi useful and smoking not doesn't mean it can;t be.

    I use wired whenever I can due to wifi being pathetic many times, and for faster connections needed expensive hardware (unless you have thin walls and close to router)
    Originally posted by dekaspace
    Smoking serves no useful purpose and if it did you would have been able to explain what that was. Someone being addicted to it and feeling they need it several times a day is in no way useful.

    I can think of many useful purposes of wifi that a wired connection would not be possible for, you need to think outside of your own personal use, here are just a few:
    -In restaurants taking orders on tablets instead of wasting paper/trees
    -Most devices/sensors connected to the IOT (Internet of Things) utilise wireless networks.
    -Tablets would be very inconvenient if they didn't use wifi.
    -Mobile phones would be non-existent if we didn't use mobile networks (which are radio waves just like wifi)

    Think you are clever by mentioning you cycle to work? Well I walk long distances and I don't smoke either! And you talked about cars being useful over smoking, well the fumes are still bad for your health so the point was you were picking and choosing what to be offended about.
    Originally posted by dekaspace
    Yes the fumes are bad but like i said in previous posts cars aren't left running outside of doorways and nobody wants to run a car inside their house. Smoking is carried out in the most confined places and is a much higher risk to me than an car emissions.

    Also cars and buses serve a useful purpose of transportation and are essential to the running of the country.
    Smoking serves no useful purpose and simply harms the user and those around them. The only reason it is still around is because people are addicted to it and if it wasn't as additive then it would have been left in the past like many other hazardous products.

    Oh and you complained that why should they have facilities provided and no allowances should be made but then contradict that by claiming you don't think it should be banned in public.

    So if you don't believe it should be banned in public why do you disregard a lot of things you don't agree with that are about compromising smoking away from home?
    Originally posted by dekaspace
    I don't believe there should be any compromise and people should have to wait until an appropriate time. Why should facilities be provided to people who smoke when facilities aren't (and shouldn't) be provided for other recreational activities.
    • leeparsons
    • By leeparsons 12th Oct 17, 11:41 AM
    • 40 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    leeparsons
    Well if that is the case. Then we better ban mobile phones and any other devices which admit a small amount of radiation then. As this is also a public health concern, which can have a greater effect than smoking. That's personal to me. But I still have one.
    As for confined spaces, I frequently haft to put up with idiots on the bus shouting down their mobile phones. Where I hear a word for word conversation. A number of people who are subjecting me to there radiation have to be greater than that to one smoker.

    Come to think of it. If we ban people from going outside, then a number of cases of skin cancer, would drop off to near enough nothing.

    Anyone with any sense would know that if you going to smoke you shouldn't do it around people. But I know there is a lot of people who don't have common sense.

    As for vehicles they serve no use to me. But only destroy the air quality and cause damage to the ocean layer. Should we ban all vehicles I ask you?

    Whatever we do, we will annoy someone else. More consideration is what people need.
    Last edited by leeparsons; 12-10-2017 at 11:57 AM. Reason: extra
    • rmg1
    • By rmg1 12th Oct 17, 12:41 PM
    • 2,889 Posts
    • 737 Thanks
    rmg1
    I think we can all agree that this is a very emotive subject and that some people will be offended regardless of the outcome of any debate.
    Comparing smoking to drug use/sex/vehicles is, at best, pointless and, in my opinion, will only cloud the issue further than it already is.

    I've already stated my 2p-worth and I stand by it. I will also state that this is only my opinion and, while trying to be fair to all concerned, I have a vested interest in keeping the smoking ban as it is.

    Due to the subject matter, I think it will be all too easy for things to get heated far beyond the realms of rational discussion (as I have already seen in this thread) but it would be nice to think that, as adult human beings, we could take other people's thoughts/feelings into consideration. I suppose only time will tell......
    Flagellation, necrophilia and bestiality - Am I flogging a dead horse?

    Any posts are my opinion and only that. Please read at your own risk.
    • ScarletMarble
    • By ScarletMarble 16th Oct 17, 7:18 AM
    • 7,414 Posts
    • 13,615 Thanks
    ScarletMarble
    ;I would like to see the ban to include not smoking within 3 metres of an entrance to a building as with the combination of the wind and the vents above doors (esp automatic opening ones) smoke cam waft through into the building. Some employers already do their own thing by painting areas outside for their employees not to smoke in these areas.

    Plus when its rains, all the smokers congregate by the door to prevent themselves getting wet.
    • rmg1
    • By rmg1 16th Oct 17, 8:42 AM
    • 2,889 Posts
    • 737 Thanks
    rmg1
    As far as I am aware, the ban already includes that restriction and, I believe, it's 4 metres not 3.
    Flagellation, necrophilia and bestiality - Am I flogging a dead horse?

    Any posts are my opinion and only that. Please read at your own risk.
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

3,186Posts Today

5,574Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @bearface83: @MartinSLewis check out the @Missguided new 60% off offer. Upping the cost of items almost double to make us think it?s a?

  • RT @efitzpat: Thank you SO SO much @MartinSLewis for your Student Loans refund advice! I just got a grand refunded right before Xmas! Whoop?

  • Have a lovely weekend folks. Don't do anything (fiscally) that I wouldn't do!

  • Follow Martin