Viewing Thread:
"Smoking Ban"

It looks like Scotland is heading for this soon.

I'm a non-smoker myself but for some reason I can't help but feel sorry for smokers. It's an addiction/pleasure of life?, yet they are shunned like a modern day leper.

Shoved into smoking rooms, thrown outside and now can't go to the pub to have a pint and a fag.

Personally, when I go out smoke can annoy me slighter. Espeically when I smell like an ashtray the next morning. However, it's in the culture now... I don;t even know if I'll enjoy going out and just smelling beer and urine. I might miss the waft of stale smoke.

My verdict is that it's correct to ban it in transport/restaurants/work but I can see their argument for social occasions.

Or something.

As a occasional social smoker. I totally agree with banning smoking in retaurants. Who on earth wants to eat when theres loads of smoke.

However i do object to them trying to ban smoking in pubs and clubs. Its just wrong, but then again if they do atleast you will come home not smelling of stale cigarette smoke. Plus then all of us social smokers will become non smokers. Which is of corse a great thing!

I'm all for the government acting like communists when it's something i agree with but i can understand them being annoyed.

eye'Aoe wrote:
> Fozz wrote:
> In other words, its
> assault. By smoking that person is damaging my health and I run a
> risk of getting cancer, or heart disease or one/some of the other
> delightful diseases that can be a result or smoking.
>
> You do realise these diseases are possible to obtain without ever
> being subjected to first or second hand smoke? It just heightens the
> risk of the disease...

but it significately increases the risk of these diseases. I'm for the total ban although i do feel a little bit sorry for smokers.

Fozz wrote:
> In other words, its
> assault. By smoking that person is damaging my health and I run a
> risk of getting cancer, or heart disease or one/some of the other
> delightful diseases that can be a result or smoking.

You do realise these diseases are possible to obtain without ever being subjected to first or second hand smoke? It just heightens the risk of the disease...

Well its not so much that people dont actually like it, I think its more a case that its damaging for your health. When Im sitting next to someone whos smoking its just as damaging (or so Ive heard) for me as it is for him, and I dont light up every day. In other words, its assault. By smoking that person is damaging my health and I run a risk of getting cancer, or heart disease or one/some of the other delightful diseases that can be a result or smoking. Both my grandparents (on my mothers side) died from cancer before I was born from smoking, and I also think its a disgusting habbit. I do however think that banning smoking could be seen as a breach of civil liberties, but also smoking could also be seen as self harm. Young kids and teenagers are educated about smoking and still a huge amount of underage children are smoking so I dont know how they can be stopped. I blame the tabacco companies (wow..this is like that whole mcdonalds thing..YOU MADE ME FAT). I dont think nicotine is a necessary part of the cigarette and should be completely removed. We need countries to just say NO..thats IT NO MORE. Take out the noctine and THEN you can export/produce this crap. Of course that would be suicide for the companies, and people would soon stop smoking and go cold turkey. heh. Maybe a gradual reduction of nicotine is in order.

Blank wrote:
> Although having said that, what with the problem
> of OAPs making up a larger and larger percentage of the population,
> you'd think the government wouldn't be too bothered about making the
> nation healthier...

I agree, we need to cull old people.

All I can say on the matter is "why the hell didn't they act on this sooner?"
The Faggots

SHEEPY wrote:
> My verdict is that it's correct to ban it in
> transport/restaurants/work but I can see their argument for social
> occasions.

But pubs and clubs are a place of work.

And to gamesfreak - The rule means that you can't smoke within a certain radius of the place, not only within it's doors, so I don't think you'd be getting a wall of smoke that you had to penetrate.

I saw something about this on TV a while back, interviewing people in pubs in Ireland where the ban has already taken place. The staff said that when the ban was announced, a lot of regulars said they wouldn't come back if they couldn't smoke, but when it was actually introduced, pretty much all of them did anyway. I don't think it'll make much difference to bar popularity, and it'll hopefully make for a healthier nation. Although having said that, what with the problem of OAPs making up a larger and larger percentage of the population, you'd think the government wouldn't be too bothered about making the nation healthier...

My shirt stinks from last night, and I've got to wear it again now as I'm off for a match and we've got to go in shirt and tie!

It's a rubbish idea to stop smoking in public places.

It'd mean the smokers to stand in the doorway of the pub/club/venue/shopping mall to have a ciggarette. This then creates a thick film of smoke to penetrate through as you stroll in.

Do they not think of the children?