MSE Poll: Is it time to extend the smoking ban?

takman

leeparsons wrote: »

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.

Do you have any sources or statistics for that?

leeparsons wrote: »

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.

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

leeparsons wrote: »

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.

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

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.

rmg1

Gavin83 wrote: »

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?

No, because cannabis is an illegal substance (Class B from memory).
Tobacco isn't illegal (yet) so the comparison isn't fair.

leeparsons

takman wrote: »

Do you have any sources or statistics for that?
.

I knew i was right. WHO say so
https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/who-downplays-danger-of-secondhand-smoke/

dekaspace

takman wrote: »

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 .

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

takman wrote: »

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.

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

tberry6686 wrote: »

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.

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

dekaspace wrote: »

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.

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!.

dekaspace wrote: »

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?

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.

dekaspace wrote: »

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.

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.

dekaspace wrote: »

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"

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

takman wrote: »

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?

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?