Smoking in public to be banned!

"I thought it was illegal in France but largely ignored. My guess is the waiter was being deliberately offensive"

Smoking is in public places is legal,(well, it was when I was there last week), though some restaurants do have non smoking tables which are generally in poor positions at the back(where all the smoke collects).

I go there on busines quite a bit and most offices do seem to have smoking rooms.

Ironically, the French have one of the best records in Europe for treating smoking related cancers: compare that with the U.K where one mention of it at the doctor's and one might as well go home to die. This annoys me as the NHS is not exclusive to certain groups and I've paid in my whack over the years.

Anyway, I think in France, it may be true to say that a smoking ban will be as much understood as vegetarianism.

I am of course stereotyping....

I think the smoking ban is great news. I went to Dublin this summer and the difference in the pubs, clubs and restaurants was incredible - eating was a pleasure and the next day I could wear the same clothes again!

The reality is that the cigarette companies make so much money that an outright ban would take years - hence this gradual way of doing it - regardless of how many people the bastards kill! The ban in Dublin is in all "enclosed work areas" - a clever wording which fits the bill perfectly.

Roll on the same ban in England.

Rich

quote:

---

Employers have an obligation to provide a safe working environment for their staff. Having to stand in a smoke-filled room for hours at a time is certainly not safe for anyone. Or do you refute the passive smoking link?

---

Nobody has to work in a smoke filled room. It's still a free world. If you apply for a job in a bar that allows smoking and expect a smoke free environment you are clearly too stupid to be allowed near money.

FWIW the 'passive smoking link' has proven very difficult to actually find.

quote:

---

And stating that the 70% of us who don't smoke should have to avoid public places so that the 30% who smoke can indulge their manky habit is frankly preposterous.

---

Saying that I cannot choose to run a place open to the public which allows smoking is frankly even more preposterous.

No one forces you to go to smokey pubs. Many pubs nowadays have non-smoking zones or policies and are pleasanter places for it. Give them your business, make the market do the work.

Paul

Re France and

quote:

---

but is largely ignored

---

as is all laws and regulations be it from the EU or the state if it does not suit them. Unless the transgressor is a non resident alien then allsorts of arcane legislation will be discovered to persue the non resident alien.

Derek

<< >>

If you are a non-smoker, is it OK to stand outside the office and read the paper instead for 10 minutes?

Speaking as a 30-to-40-a-day man who struggles to give up (I haven't had a fag since 11.50pm on Saturday), I would welcome any move that would help me to stay on the wagon. And to be quite honest, public transport and the workplace are both better for not allowing smoking.

However, I agree that blanket banning a legal activity is intellectually inconsistent and, quite frankly, preposterous. Smoking is bad for those who smoke, that's true. And if it's as bad for other people as some people say it is, then perhaps it's time to make it completely illegal. A ban would then at least have the value of consistency. This will not happen as the government would not wish to worsen its record as a "nanny administration".

Also, it's a well-known fact that passive smoking does more damage in the home (ie to children, non-smoking partners, etc) than anywhere else. What's the point in driving smoking into the home an inflicting more harm? What's next - patrols going around making sure nobody's smoking at home? Surely not even the most rabid anti-smoker wants that?

I agree with those posters wwho've said that the market should decide. It's up to individual landlords to impose bans if they want; I suspect that some would profit from having a smoke-free pub, and this would encourage others to follow their example.

I agree with Matthew R - (Western) society is moving away from smoking in any case, as it becomes less and less acceptable. The last places to go will be old-fashioned pubs, and the last of these will be pubs near football grounds.

Kevin (bootleg of Beatles White Album tracks as done in Esher)

Er, being a recent non-smoker I welcome a ban in public places, Americans pioneered this end it was a good idea. But ...

quote:

---

Employers have a responsibility to protect their staff - and to protect themselves from potential litigation in the future.

---

... in the name of all gods, please let's not copy their legal system

Cheese

Chaps

I took Mrs Mick out for dinner on Sunday night to a fairly busy restaurant.

There was one couple smoking all night even though there were children in the same room.

These people are chavs and social scum.

They can bleat and wail all they want, England will soon follow Scotland and I shall enjoy reading an article in the paper, when some selfish sod is fined £4000.00 (the proposed max fine) for lighting up indoors.

Smoking is a filthy revolting habit period.

This is good news indeed and if smokers dont like it, .......then tough.

They can either accept it or emigrate, the message is clear....they are not wanted and will no longer be tolerated in civilised society.

Regards

Mick

Mick,

Broadly I find myself in agreement with you for a change, but proclaiming the need for a civilised society then calling people 'scum' because they do something you don't happen to agree with seems a little odd to me.

JR

Again this is the government’s failure to take responsibility for public health and ban smoking, then maybe drinking, and then who knows, “then they came for me”.

Stuart

Yes I agree the word scum is strong but please find another word that sums up people who smoke in the same room as children.

Regards

Mick

quote:

---

Nobody has to work in a smoke filled room. It's still a free world. If you apply for a job in a bar that allows smoking and expect a smoke free environment you are clearly too stupid to be allowed near money.

---

Or perhaps you desperately needed the job?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Yes I agree the word scum is strong but please find another word that sums up people who smoke in the same room as children.

---

Errmmm...

Selfish; or

Ignorant; or

Revolting?

How'm I doing?

JR

I was also in Ireland shortly after the smoking in public ban was implemented. Having experienced the commendably flexible attitude to licensing hours I was stunned to find practicably 100% compliance. The first high profile offenders were an Irish Dail minister and well known light entertainer, Bono Vox.

Although a non-smoker, I was relatively ambivalent about the ban, tending to come down in favour of freedom to smoke, but as Rasher said, after experiencing a smoke free environment for the first time, I have to say I preferred it, if only from a selfish point of view.

If you want to have a fag, then you still have the option of nipping outside for five minutes. Keeps everyone happy.

Brian OReilly

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Yes I agree the word scum is strong but please find another word that sums up people who smoke in the same room as children.

Regards

Mick

---

Irresponsible would be my word of choice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:

quote:

---

Employers have an obligation to provide a safe working environment for their staff. Having to stand in a smoke-filled room for hours at a time is certainly not safe for anyone. Or do you refute the passive smoking link?

---

Nobody has to work in a smoke filled room. It's still a free world. If you apply for a job in a bar that allows smoking and expect a smoke free environment you are clearly too stupid to be allowed near money.

FWIW the 'passive smoking link' has proven very difficult to actually find.

quote:

---

And stating that the 70% of us who don't smoke should have to avoid public places so that the 30% who smoke can indulge their manky habit is frankly preposterous.

---

Saying that I cannot choose to run a place open to the public which allows smoking is frankly even more preposterous.

No one forces you to go to smokey pubs. Many pubs nowadays have non-smoking zones or policies and are pleasanter places for it. Give them your business, make the market do the work.

Paul

---

So now, not only have the majority of us to restrict where we go socially, but we've also to restrict where we can work so a small minority can indulge in their poisonous habit? You couldn't make this up!

What is your moral case for preventing me opening a smoking place for myself and like minded people?

If you don't like smoke then don't go to smokey places, and pretty soon they will become smoke free. You'll be wanting the government to make horse-brasses and prawn cocktail starters mandatory next. You do all realise alcohol is a very dangerous drug? A pub or restaurant is a business not a public service. It is the right of the proprietor to prevent you entering his premises.

And what are children doing in a restaurant in the evening? Reckless parenting if you ask me. There should be a law against it. Why should I be exposed to irritants in restaurants?

Paul

Another superbly reasoned and fashioned response from MP.
Just as well the middle and upper classes don't smoke. Huge cigars and pipes don't count I guess.
Still think the smoking in offices is controlled by the majority, ie they declare the building non-smoking, the bosses can then provude a smoking area suitably set up to contain isolate the smoke.
Although a recent non-smoker I always agreed with smoke bans in Cinemas/theatre and on public transport, logic says it will be extended.

Howard

Mad as this seems, we have a cleaner that comes to do the house once a week. I can tell when she has been because the place smells like an ashtray, which seems to me to be slightly ironic. She smokes outside the back door and then puts her fag ends in the bin in the kitchen, which stinks. We probably notice it more because this is the only time that the house sees a smoker - not because we object to people smoking, but all but one friend either never smoked or has given it up. I had 18 friends here a couple of weeks ago, and only one person smoked.
I liken smoking in a non-smoking household as equivalent to going to a smokers house, and leaving a particularly nasty fart that lingers for a couple of days.

It was about 7.30pm and the children who were less trouble than the stinking wretches who were smoking were aged about 10 years. So the word scum seems very appropriate. What decent adult smokes within breathing space of children, other than a totally selfish scumbag.

Frankly most people don't give a damn about whether you object to being prevented from smoking indoors or not.

It will soon be illegal to smoke in public buildings in England and you can either accept it or emigrate, either way is fine by me.

I suppose we should allow you the luxury of whinging about it in the meantime, so make the most of it.

Regards

Mick

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rasher:
I heard that in Scotland, 1 in 4 deaths are caused by smoking. Can that be true?

---

Nope, they are all (100%) caused by dying.

Mick

Not a gripe but a question....

You strive to label smokers in the vicinity of children as scum. What is the difference between adults and children in the same room ?

Surely it is the act of smoking in the room containing others that is the problem, not the young age of the "victims"...........

Except that the children are not there by choice, but there because their parents have decided to go there. Smoking around children is abuse.

Legislation is a very blunt tool. To expect it to do what society cannot is asking too much. I suspect a prohibition against tobacco smoking would achieve similar results to a prohibition against alcohol.

Joe is right about the indirect effects of smoking. Language is used too loosely. Smoking does not cause cancer. If smoking caused cancer everybody who smoked would get cancer.

Deane

This is all fine and good, but I await Steven Toy's opinions on this matter.