Smokefree England: Good Or Bad?

[Gopzap]

If you live in England, you should know by now that as of July 1st 2007 smoking in public places (e.g, cafes, streets, post office) will be illegal. However, you will still be permitted to smoke in private places such as your own home, your office, etc.

From 1st of July 2007 virtually all enclosed public places and workplaces in England will become smokefree. A smokefree England will ensure a healthier environment, so everyone can socialise, relax, travel, shop and work free from secondhand smoke.

What are your opinions on this? Is this a good or bad decision by the council? For more information click here.

[K-RadPie]

Well, it's already happened, and it fucking rocks. Since I have breathing problems, I cough uncontrollably around second hand smoke, and now I don't have to!

[K-RadPie]

Sorry for the double post, but I meant to say it's already happened where I live.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

Will jus tpoint out that the suite you quoted form states ' Enclosed public spaces'

You can still smoke on the street, in parks etc as they are outside.

[Charon]

its a great thing, it will be nice to go out of an evening pubbing/clubbing or w/e and not come back reeking of smoke, although what i find quite funny is that the government still wants the tax extra from cigarettes and hasnt made them illegal they have just hidden that fact in the swirl of making britain "clean and healthy"

[ClareMcG]

Good: I don't smoke, so I don't have to inhale smoke all day.

Bad: The law got passed in Scotland ages ago, and friends still haven't stopped bitching. ¬_¬

[Zamber0ni]

New Jersey has been like this for over a year now.

It's a terrible idea, I realize smoking is a choice, but most businesses aside from bars and diners already had smoking sections and enough ventilation to clear out the vast majority of the smoke.

Now if you want a cigarette, especially when you're dione eating (when it's just too hard to pass up for some reason), you have to walk outside and stand there like a creep.

Not the most dignified situation I can see myself in.

[fahrenheit]

I think its a good idea, now their choice to smoke doesnt affect those who chose not to.

[Cheekyvincent]

good thing- you can smoke in football pitches as long as the roof is open too.

less people who i have to curse to have lung cancer...

[tawc]

It means alot of rum cunts out on the streets from the pubs an clubs causing shit whenever they want a fag.

[J1993]

Its supposed to be the law that public places have none smoking sections but a lot of places dont comply so getiing rid of it indoors altogether is the only way forward.
Also places like Ireland have commited to total smoking bans with no problems.

[Lagerkapo]

Taking away personal freedoms to avoid secondhand smoke is dumb. If you're smoking outside and someone is irritated by the smoke the simple solution is to move 5 feet to either side, not to pass legislation. I can see banning it indoors, but outside? what the fuck England?

[J1993]

It isnt banned outside its still legal outside since it goes into the dissipates quicker outside.

[Memorize]

At 6/28/07 02:54 PM, Lagerkapo wrote: Taking away personal freedoms to avoid secondhand smoke is dumb. If you're smoking outside and someone is irritated by the smoke the simple solution is to move 5 feet to either side, not to pass legislation. I can see banning it indoors, but outside? what the fuck England?

I have a better question. Why the fuck would you ban it inside and not outside?

Outside there are people. Public places. People also have the right to NOT inhale YOUR smoke which COULD give them cancer.

What I don't understand is why some can't smoke in their own house. I don't understand why people can't smoke in bars.

[Gopzap]

At 6/28/07 02:54 PM, Lagerkapo wrote: Taking away personal freedoms to avoid secondhand smoke is dumb. If you're smoking outside and someone is irritated by the smoke the simple solution is to move 5 feet to either side, not to pass legislation. I can see banning it indoors, but outside? what the fuck England?

Sorry, I made a mistake. It's not banned outside - It's banned on places that have roofs.

[Gopzap]

At 6/28/07 03:05 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/28/07 02:54 PM, Lagerkapo wrote: Taking away personal freedoms to avoid secondhand smoke is dumb. If you're smoking outside and someone is irritated by the smoke the simple solution is to move 5 feet to either side, not to pass legislation. I can see banning it indoors, but outside? what the fuck England?

I have a better question. Why the fuck would you ban it inside and not outside?

Outside there are people. Public places. People also have the right to NOT inhale YOUR smoke which COULD give them cancer.

What I don't understand is why some can't smoke in their own house. I don't understand why people can't smoke in bars.

You ARE allowed to smoke in your own house, because thats not a public place.

The reason why it's banned inside and not outside, is because if you smoke outside the smoke will quickly go into the atmosphere and affect less people. However, if you smoke inside it will affect more people because there is a roof and the smoke cannot travel up.

[Memorize]

At 6/28/07 04:16 PM, Gopzap wrote:

You ARE allowed to smoke in your own house, because thats not a public place.

Not where I live.

The reason why it's banned inside and not outside, is because if you smoke outside the smoke will quickly go into the atmosphere and affect less people. However, if you smoke inside it will affect more people because there is a roof and the smoke cannot travel up.

That's why I said "some". If you live on your own, you should be able to smoke in your house. You should not be able to smoke in public places outside your house. You should be able to smoke in a bar.

[D2Kvirus]

Even though I quit smoking a decade ago (it fucked my throat up something chronic), I have sympathy for the castigated outcasts of modern society that are smokers - mostly as militant non-smokers are a bunch of annoying idiots.

The thing I have a problem with is that, in order to smoke in a pub, they have to have a beer garder or suchlike - which most city centre pubs don't have. What I feel is needed is the ability for a pub to have a smoking license, especially since all the propeganda about people enjoying pubs when they're smoke free has been proven false in Scotland and Wales, as attendance is down.

But what I don't like is the ability to shop your neighbours for smoking in their house if you live in a semi-detached: I can see feuds turning vioplent that one person persecutes their smoking neighbour, repeatedly getting them fined - especially on council estates.

However, I have converted my shed to be a smoking speakeasy, complete with a Tabac in it: £5 entry, and you can't bring your own as you have to buy our cigarettes.

[SmilezRoyale]

It's fine, There's absolutely nothing wrong with being smoke free in public places.

if the americans can deal with it, the UK can too.

[Bolo]

At 6/28/07 02:54 PM, Lagerkapo wrote: Taking away personal freedoms to avoid secondhand smoke is dumb. If you're smoking outside and someone is irritated by the smoke the simple solution is to move 5 feet to either side, not to pass legislation. I can see banning it indoors, but outside? what the fuck England?

Because an 18 year old guy with a marijuana leaf in his sig really has an educated opinion about what non-smokers' problems with smokers should and shouldn't be.

[HighlyIllogical]

It makes smoking inconvenient, so perhaps you cause less people to smoke that way. Of course, that's the best case. In the not as good case, but still quite good, there's less secondhand smoke, and secondhand smoke is damaging: "Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke," for one (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O 0E&b=35422).

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 6/30/07 03:37 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote: Statistically, you are more likely to die from lung cancer from eating a carrot every day than from 30 minutes of passive smoking.

I'd like to see the statistics that say this.

Personally, I think it is a bit over the top. Cigar bars, pubs, etc. should be allowed to get a license to allow smoking, as long as they inform potential employees about the smoke.

As for other workplaces, I'm divided. On one hand, it's the employers building, but on the other hand, I, along with many others with asthma and other breathing problems, shouldn't have to suffer to accommodate someone else's drug addiction.

[Gaaz]

Good fucking riddance. I'm sick of breathing in other peoples shit.

[EmoNarc]

I personally seeing all the science don't give a crap about second hand smoke, but I'm glad they're enforcing this so many England people will be forced to reduce their smoking which will hopefully save lives... just my two cents.

[Noddys-Revenge]

It's Discrimination!

(J/K i'm s smoker and i don't care, i'm perfectly willing to go ouside for a fag.)

[SyntheticTacos]

At 6/30/07 02:54 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: It makes smoking inconvenient, so perhaps you cause less people to smoke that way. Of course, that's the best case.

Not really. Hindering people's choice to smoke is a violation of their right to use their own property that they legally acquired. They shouldn't go around smoking in people's faces but likewise people shouldn't run into a restaraunt they know allows smoking and bitch about it as if they could just go to a restaraunt with a no-smoking section.

[EmoNarc]

At 7/1/07 04:43 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

At 6/30/07 02:54 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: It makes smoking inconvenient, so perhaps you cause less people to smoke that way. Of course, that's the best case.

you sux0rz

Yes, but there comes an extreme point when the officials are forced to step in for the better health for the nation...

[HighlyIllogical]

At 7/1/07 04:43 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Not really. Hindering people's choice to smoke is a violation of their right to use their own property that they legally acquired.

Yes, really. The fundamental freedom to do what you will to your own body is not your freedom when it interferes with the bodies of others.

For example: Guns are restricted not to restrict your freedom to own one but to protect the essential liberty to life that others have.

[crushy]

Its a great thing. In the short run.

Now there will be less deaths and more over-population.

More population will cause more disease, un-employment and pollution. Home prices will rise dramatically and homelessness wil ensue. Homelessness will cause riots, along will the high unemployment rates, a civil war will begin. The high increase in diseases will also destroy England. The maximum children will be made 1 and people will disobeye. Then there will be full prisons, causing jailbreaks and let-off murderers. The murderers will kill the remaining population as the sea level swallows the UK with everything.

In the long run of course :D

[SyntheticTacos]

At 7/1/07 06:49 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 7/1/07 04:43 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Not really. Hindering people's choice to smoke is a violation of their right to use their own property that they legally acquired.

Yes, really. The fundamental freedom to do what you will to your own body is not your freedom when it interferes with the bodies of others.

For example: Guns are restricted not to restrict your freedom to own one but to protect the essential liberty to life that others have.

Except smoking in an establishment that's not non-smoking isn't interfering with the bodies others because nobody's forcing you to go to that particular establishment. Saying that smoking should be banned in these establishments is like saying that saying the word "fuck" should be banned on HBO. In both cases, nobody is forcing you to endure the thing in question if you don't want it. Go to the non-smoking section, or turn the channel, don't complain about the thing if you know that you don't own the channel/establishment and you can just go somewhere else where the thing isn't there. We don't have a right for other people to run their businesses the way they want to.

And why oh why are you bringing up gun control? We know that some restrictions are necessary (i.e. not letting insane violent people buy them and doing background checks), but if you're going to talk about hardcore gun control (heh i just coined a term! :D ), we've got plenty of counterpoints there. Like in the gun control thread: you can give me statistics about guns all you want but you can't prove that illegalization will make them any better.