Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Governments new smoking policy.
Comments
-
I think we need to find out the effects of vaping as a matter of urgency. If it is much safer than smoking to the vapers and those around them, it needs encouraging as ultimately it will be the easiest way to stop people smoking. But we don't want to find out down the line that it is more dangerous or as dangerous. And preventing somebody dying of lung cancer has to be a noble aim, forgetting about costs. That could be a person's parent or grandparent.0
-
Regarding staff - if you don't want to get shot, don't join the army. As long as they know what they are getting into it's up to them - there will still be loads of pubs with one bar they can work in.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
I think it's to protect the staff as much as inconvenience smoking punters. But I reckon that public houses should be able to allow smoking if they can keep the air quality within limits and to certain standards, with the use of extractor fans etc. The legislation should dictate legal limits as opposed to an outright ban imoAlgarveaddick said:I am an ex-smoker, but I defend the right of others to smoke if they wish. Pubs with two bars should have a smoking bar and a non-smoking bar if they want to. Clubs should have the right to vote on whether they allow smoking or not (that was in the manifesto that the Labour government who banned smoking in pubs and clubs was elected on). People who complain about smokers outside, when they are the ones who have driven the smokers outside, should be given a right royal shoeing.
Anyone who goes on about the cost to the NHS should think about the logical conclusion. You do something out of choice that can be detrimental to your health? So anyone thrown from a horse because they choose to go horse riding should pay? Anyone who breaks a leg playing Sunday morning football should pay? Anyone who smashes their thumb with a hammer doing DIY should pay?
Making it illegal? Brilliant - another thing for your overworked and undermanned police force to worry about...
I wont even start on civil liberties.
Never smoked in my life btw
However you are spot on about air quality mate. A friend had a "brown café" in Amsterdam. They had a massive air purifier, and he said it was like magic. The place could be like a pea souper inside, within ten seconds of switching it on the air was totally clear. However he did say that you didn't want to be there when they changed the filter...
That said, he still smokes to this day.
2 -
I would argue that smoking anywhere that impacts on employees or other non smokers should be illegal. Why should a barman in your “second” bar be subjected to the smoke from people willingly and knowingly doing harm to themselves. I usually agree with most things you post but you’ve got this one around your neck.Algarveaddick said:I am an ex-smoker, but I defend the right of others to smoke if they wish. Pubs with two bars should have a smoking bar and a non-smoking bar if they want to. Clubs should have the right to vote on whether they allow smoking or not (that was in the manifesto that the Labour government who banned smoking in pubs and clubs was elected on). People who complain about smokers outside, when they are the ones who have driven the smokers outside, should be given a right royal shoeing.
Anyone who goes on about the cost to the NHS should think about the logical conclusion. You do something out of choice that can be detrimental to your health? So anyone thrown from a horse because they choose to go horse riding should pay? Anyone who breaks a leg playing Sunday morning football should pay? Anyone who smashes their thumb with a hammer doing DIY should pay?
Making it illegal? Brilliant - another thing for your overworked and undermanned police force to worry about...
I wont even start on civil liberties.2 -
The air in smoking pubs would probably be better than non-smoking establishments, with the right equipmentAlgarveaddick said:
Regarding staff - if you don't want to get shot, don't join the army. As long as they know what they are getting into it's up to them - there will still be loads of pubs with one bar they can work in.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
I think it's to protect the staff as much as inconvenience smoking punters. But I reckon that public houses should be able to allow smoking if they can keep the air quality within limits and to certain standards, with the use of extractor fans etc. The legislation should dictate legal limits as opposed to an outright ban imoAlgarveaddick said:I am an ex-smoker, but I defend the right of others to smoke if they wish. Pubs with two bars should have a smoking bar and a non-smoking bar if they want to. Clubs should have the right to vote on whether they allow smoking or not (that was in the manifesto that the Labour government who banned smoking in pubs and clubs was elected on). People who complain about smokers outside, when they are the ones who have driven the smokers outside, should be given a right royal shoeing.
Anyone who goes on about the cost to the NHS should think about the logical conclusion. You do something out of choice that can be detrimental to your health? So anyone thrown from a horse because they choose to go horse riding should pay? Anyone who breaks a leg playing Sunday morning football should pay? Anyone who smashes their thumb with a hammer doing DIY should pay?
Making it illegal? Brilliant - another thing for your overworked and undermanned police force to worry about...
I wont even start on civil liberties.
Never smoked in my life btw
However you are spot on about air quality mate. A friend had a "brown café" in Amsterdam. They had a massive air purifier, and he said it was like magic. The place could be like a pea souper inside, within ten seconds of switching it on the air was totally clear. However he did say that you didn't want to be there when they changed the filter...
That said, he still smokes to this day.1 -
See the answer I gave the honourable member for Grove Park some moments ago...ShootersHillGuru said:
I would argue that smoking anywhere that impacts on employees or other non smokers should be illegal. Why should a barman in your “second” bar be subjected to the smoke from people willingly and knowingly doing harm to themselves. I usually agree with most things you post but you’ve got this one around your neck.Algarveaddick said:I am an ex-smoker, but I defend the right of others to smoke if they wish. Pubs with two bars should have a smoking bar and a non-smoking bar if they want to. Clubs should have the right to vote on whether they allow smoking or not (that was in the manifesto that the Labour government who banned smoking in pubs and clubs was elected on). People who complain about smokers outside, when they are the ones who have driven the smokers outside, should be given a right royal shoeing.
Anyone who goes on about the cost to the NHS should think about the logical conclusion. You do something out of choice that can be detrimental to your health? So anyone thrown from a horse because they choose to go horse riding should pay? Anyone who breaks a leg playing Sunday morning football should pay? Anyone who smashes their thumb with a hammer doing DIY should pay?
Making it illegal? Brilliant - another thing for your overworked and undermanned police force to worry about...
I wont even start on civil liberties.
0 -
Hate smoking, both my parents were at least 20 a day. I hate the smell with a passion and am pleased it's banned from pubs. (Wish it was banned from toilets at football grounds as well).
But ... government is wrong on this. People will do it anyway, I get the whole "nudging" them out of it but people should be free to smoke in their own spaces.1 -
Less people smoke nowadays. Sometimes it isn't a bad thing to save people from themselves.0
-
I would add that (for example) in the bar I "work" in, 50% of staff are smokers, so it's a pain for them to have to go outside for a cig.0
-
I have since I posted but your argument is still totally flawed. I suspect you realise that too.Algarveaddick said:
See the answer I gave the honourable member for Grove Park some moments ago...ShootersHillGuru said:
I would argue that smoking anywhere that impacts on employees or other non smokers should be illegal. Why should a barman in your “second” bar be subjected to the smoke from people willingly and knowingly doing harm to themselves. I usually agree with most things you post but you’ve got this one around your neck.Algarveaddick said:I am an ex-smoker, but I defend the right of others to smoke if they wish. Pubs with two bars should have a smoking bar and a non-smoking bar if they want to. Clubs should have the right to vote on whether they allow smoking or not (that was in the manifesto that the Labour government who banned smoking in pubs and clubs was elected on). People who complain about smokers outside, when they are the ones who have driven the smokers outside, should be given a right royal shoeing.
Anyone who goes on about the cost to the NHS should think about the logical conclusion. You do something out of choice that can be detrimental to your health? So anyone thrown from a horse because they choose to go horse riding should pay? Anyone who breaks a leg playing Sunday morning football should pay? Anyone who smashes their thumb with a hammer doing DIY should pay?
Making it illegal? Brilliant - another thing for your overworked and undermanned police force to worry about...
I wont even start on civil liberties.
Having worked 30 years in Cancer care I have a very low tolerance for smoking and smokers.1 -
I have tried that with Chippy - doesn't work...MuttleyCAFC said:Less people smoke nowadays. Sometimes it isn't a bad thing to save people from themselves.
3 - Sponsored links:
-
just another hogwash nanny state piece of legislation which is not enforceable. Im a life long non smoker but id rather have whats left of the Plod force chasing muggers,burglars and nones than nicking people for smoking or closing down boozers that dont enforce the ban3
-
No - I honestly don't mate. I know plenty of people in the bar industry who would prefer to work in a bar where they can smoke inside while working. Anywhere else, you have my total agreement.ShootersHillGuru said:
I have since I posted but your argument is still totally flawed. I suspect you realise that too.Algarveaddick said:
See the answer I gave the honourable member for Grove Park some moments ago...ShootersHillGuru said:
I would argue that smoking anywhere that impacts on employees or other non smokers should be illegal. Why should a barman in your “second” bar be subjected to the smoke from people willingly and knowingly doing harm to themselves. I usually agree with most things you post but you’ve got this one around your neck.Algarveaddick said:I am an ex-smoker, but I defend the right of others to smoke if they wish. Pubs with two bars should have a smoking bar and a non-smoking bar if they want to. Clubs should have the right to vote on whether they allow smoking or not (that was in the manifesto that the Labour government who banned smoking in pubs and clubs was elected on). People who complain about smokers outside, when they are the ones who have driven the smokers outside, should be given a right royal shoeing.
Anyone who goes on about the cost to the NHS should think about the logical conclusion. You do something out of choice that can be detrimental to your health? So anyone thrown from a horse because they choose to go horse riding should pay? Anyone who breaks a leg playing Sunday morning football should pay? Anyone who smashes their thumb with a hammer doing DIY should pay?
Making it illegal? Brilliant - another thing for your overworked and undermanned police force to worry about...
I wont even start on civil liberties.
Having worked 30 years in Cancer care I have a very low tolerance for smoking and smokers.
There are plenty of other hazardous jobs that people choose to do knowing that it can be detrimental to their health. I am not suggesting anyone is forced to do it either - it would be their choice.
0 -
F***ing nanny state. If I want to slowly kill myself, be consistently coughing and spluttering, always have a sore throat and inconvenience others around me then I should be allowed to make that choice.
7 -
I spose the argument is, why should non-smokers have to tolerate breathing in unfiltered smoke, from someone else's "life choice".
We won't sit outside bars or restaurants here, because everyone and their dog smokes here, and outside bars and restaurants can be horrendous. That and my heightened risk of skin cancer0 -
They have enough problems trying to stop Shisha being chuffed inside the shops during winter time. There will also be opposition from the Rastafarian’s. There’s also been talk about legalising cannabis... banning smoking doesn’t add up.0
-
Roy Castle1
-
The government takes in a total of about £9.5 billion in tobacco duties, and the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association has told us another £2.5 billion goes to the Treasury in VAT. So the Treasury is taking in about £12 billion directly from tobacco sales
october 2015
the example @Algarveaddick
gave was a good one one sunday morning i had to take my mum to a&e quite a bad cut requiring stitches and there must of been 20 plus with footie injuries all clogging up the a&e for something they have chose to do. in vegas you smoke and you do not notice the smoke because they have air treatment systems,
0 -
The ban is a civil matter isn't it? If so police not involved.Goonerhater said:just another hogwash nanny state piece of legislation which is not enforceable. Im a life long non smoker but id rather have whats left of the Plod force chasing muggers,burglars and nones than nicking people for smoking or closing down boozers that dont enforce the ban
Edit. It's enforced by Environmental Health Officers not the police and is a civil matter.1 -
Choice will I imagine remain. I doubt very much that any government would ban smoking outright rather than make it very difficult to make that choice to smoke. Ban smoking in all public places. Increase taxes to prohibitive levels. That would still leave a choice for those willing to choose to smoke but would deter the majority.
As for those claiming “nanny state”. Do you object to having to wear a seat belt or crash helmet on a motorcycle ? I doubt it. Sometimes people do need protecting from themselves, when the evidence is overwhelming that legislation will save lives.
There is nothing redeeming about smoking. Nothing at all. It creates misery and kills or shortens the life of millions. The sooner it is consigned to history the better.3 -
palarsehater said:The government takes in a total of about £9.5 billion in tobacco duties, and the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association has told us another £2.5 billion goes to the Treasury in VAT. So the Treasury is taking in about £12 billion directly from tobacco sales
october 2015
the example @Algarveaddick
gave was a good one one sunday morning i had to take my mum to a&e quite a bad cut requiring stitches and there must of been 20 plus with footie injuries all clogging up the a&e for something they have chose to do. in vegas you smoke and you do not notice the smoke because they have air treatment systems,I wouldn't worry about the tax revenue and I doubt the government does either. If no one smoked the government of the day would quickly find a new thing to tax or increase it on something else, e.g. fuel, food, water, clothing, air, death, etc. It would mean we all pay more but you smokers, no longer smoking, would have the money to pay from the freed up spare smoking money.
Football injuries are probably like your mothers just bad luck you can hardly lump them in the same category as a smoking related diseases. In fact football related injuries should be encouraged. It shows a healthy life style. (says someone who has been a burden on an A&E department on a Sunday afternoon with a broken leg).
1 - Sponsored links:
-
yep ive had a broken shoulder, broken wrist, elbow, ankle and 4 fingers so have had my fair share of trips to a&e, i was pointing out in my original post, that i have paid into the system via tax through work and tax through the cigarettes that i buy, someone that was 30st plus cannot work has contributed f all to the system and probably is more of a burden than mecharltonkeston said:palarsehater said:The government takes in a total of about £9.5 billion in tobacco duties, and the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association has told us another £2.5 billion goes to the Treasury in VAT. So the Treasury is taking in about £12 billion directly from tobacco sales
october 2015
the example @Algarveaddick
gave was a good one one sunday morning i had to take my mum to a&e quite a bad cut requiring stitches and there must of been 20 plus with footie injuries all clogging up the a&e for something they have chose to do. in vegas you smoke and you do not notice the smoke because they have air treatment systems,I wouldn't worry about the tax revenue and I doubt the government does either. If no one smoked the government of the day would quickly find a new thing to tax or increase it on something else, e.g. fuel, food, water, clothing, air, death, etc. It would mean we all pay more but you smokers, no longer smoking, would have the money to pay from the freed up spare smoking money.
Football injuries are probably like your mothers just bad luck you can hardly lump them in the same category as a smoking related diseases. In fact football related injuries should be encouraged. It shows a healthy life style. (says someone who has been a burden on an A&E department on a Sunday afternoon with a broken leg).
hence why now there is a massive drive on obesity levels dropping.0 -
Around 110,000 people play organised football each weekend according to the FA, whilst around 10,000,000 people smoke. Footballers may be clogging up AE for an hour or two a week, but smokers are clogging up ward after ward 24/75
-
Not all of the money that people saved on their smoking related taxes would be lost to the treasury though; people would do other things with their cash and most of those other things would be liable for tax (VAT at least, if not duty). To work out the financial advantages (or not) to the treasury, you'd need you'd need to have an idea what substitutes people would start spending on. If that money was spent abroad, put into tax-free savings or spend on essential food then the govt would lose. It people switched from smoking to drinking more, a big chunk of that revenue would be retained.palarsehater said:The government takes in a total of about £9.5 billion in tobacco duties, and the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association has told us another £2.5 billion goes to the Treasury in VAT. So the Treasury is taking in about £12 billion directly from tobacco sales
october 2015
the example @Algarveaddick
gave was a good one one sunday morning i had to take my mum to a&e quite a bad cut requiring stitches and there must of been 20 plus with footie injuries all clogging up the a&e for something they have chose to do. in vegas you smoke and you do not notice the smoke because they have air treatment systems,
0 -
the point wasnt just about amateur footballers on a sunday it was in general - people do things and get injured all the time, most of which is preventable - i smoke and ive no one to blame but myself, but i have paid in via taxes to the system.randy andy said:Around 110,000 people play organised football each weekend according to the FA, whilst around 10,000,000 people smoke. Footballers may be clogging up AE for an hour or two a week, but smokers are clogging up ward after ward 24/71 -
But how many of these choices directly impact upon other people? Sure, if I box I may have a higher chance of concussion or broken noses, but the people watching or who walk around near me won't get broken noses as a result.palarsehater said:
the point wasnt just about amateur footballers on a sunday it was in general - people do things and get injured all the time, most of which is preventable - i smoke and ive no one to blame but myself, but i have paid in via taxes to the system.randy andy said:Around 110,000 people play organised football each weekend according to the FA, whilst around 10,000,000 people smoke. Footballers may be clogging up AE for an hour or two a week, but smokers are clogging up ward after ward 24/7
Second hand smoke is a genuine problem, especially for people who already have respiratory conditions.4 -
You can vape Cannabis, there's no need to burn it.Solidgone said:They have enough problems trying to stop Shisha being chuffed inside the shops during winter time. There will also be opposition from the Rastafarian’s. There’s also been talk about legalising cannabis... banning smoking doesn’t add up.
0 -
.0
-
I think that's a Whoosh1
-
No one is doubting that, no one is saying people should be forced to breathe second hand smoke.WattsTheMatter said:
But how many of these choices directly impact upon other people? Sure, if I box I may have a higher chance of concussion or broken noses, but the people watching or who walk around near me won't get broken noses as a result.palarsehater said:
the point wasnt just about amateur footballers on a sunday it was in general - people do things and get injured all the time, most of which is preventable - i smoke and ive no one to blame but myself, but i have paid in via taxes to the system.randy andy said:Around 110,000 people play organised football each weekend according to the FA, whilst around 10,000,000 people smoke. Footballers may be clogging up AE for an hour or two a week, but smokers are clogging up ward after ward 24/7
Second hand smoke is a genuine problem, especially for people who already have respiratory conditions.
The point is that if you are going to discriminate against people because of their life choices (in this case smoking - and paying a hell of a lot of tax) then logically you should discriminate against anyone who does anything they don't need to do, which they know could result in a hospital visit.
0 -
San Fransisco recently banned the use of Vaping in public places and buildings.i_b_b_o_r_g said:I think that's a Whoosh0
