England Smoking ban: 1st July

[Tuumble]

On July the 1st there will be an all-out ban on smoking public places in England.

The basic premise behind the new law is to protect employees and the public from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke.

• It will be against the law to smoke in virtually all enclosed and substantially enclosed public places and workplaces.
• Public transport and work vehicles used by more than one person will also need to be smokefree.
• No-smoking signs will have to be displayed in all smokefree premises and vehicles.
• Staff smoking rooms and indoor smoking areas will no longer be allowed, so anyone who wants to smoke will have to go outside.
• Managers of smokefree premises and vehicles will have legal responsibilities to prevent people from smoking.
• If you are uncertain where you can or can’t smoke, just look for the no-smoking signs or ask someone in charge.

I am a non-smoker and am understandably very pleased to see the legislation introduced. There is nothing worse than having another person’s smoke inflicted on you especially in a restaurant environment.

It is interesting to note that no matter how long you know someone and how close you are to them it is still very difficult to ask that person to refrain from smoking. By the same token it does surprise me when people light up without asking for permission.

Curiously, even when asked, many will still still say: ‘Yeah fine, go ahead.’ when secretly they hate it.

This says something very interesting about people that they will allow this to happen and yet they will complain and feel victimised when the smoker concerned is out of ear-shot.

Some statistics and data

Personally I am amazed that this law ever got passed in the first place. I guess it had to happen sooner or later but considering the revenues generated by tax on smokers it’s still surprising it happened so quickly. However, if we compare these figures with those needed to treat smoke related illnesses it is, if we’re honest, a bit of a no brainer.

In the US alone for every packet of cigarettes you can add $8.00 that society pays for medical and lost productivity costs. A total of $3780 each year is attributed to every single smoker in the country equating to $160 billion in smoking health-related costs.

In 2005 $13 billion from tobacco taxes contributed to US state budgets but with 2.8 billion fewer packs being smoked compared to a decade earlier governments’ are having to rethink how they fund national and local community services.

Perhaps the most staggering statistic is that while 6 million people died during the 5 year Jewish Holocaust over 15 million people died worldwide from the effects of smoking over the same time period.

There is some good news because that certainly in the West the message is starting to get through. In Australia for instance a quarter of all adults smoked in 1993 which was slashed to 17% just 12 years later. There’s still a long way to go but it’s a start.

Are you smoker? What do you think of the new legislation? Will it encourage you to give up?

I've written a fuller article on my blog for those who'd like to read it.

[Chet]

Smoking bans would make more sense if they also banned alcohol and sodas.
Probably a few other things should go - high heel shoes, peanuts, cars ... well I guess you get the idea.
(but on the other hand smokers should be more considerate of their second hand smoke most of the time too)

[Lallymac]

Government banned smoking in public and work places in New Zealand a couple of years ago. Last year they banned smacking children and the latest policy that passed through parliament last week was the ban on sales of high sugar, high fat content foods in schools (targeting obesity in children). The bigger kids are now being bullied by the skinny kids because they can't buy pies for lunch.

I guess now they've identified church ministers and scout leaders as pedophiles, school principles as porn addicts and legalized homosexuality, they have to create more ludicrous social wrongs and find someone new to pick on.

Lallymac

[Nathan]

I live in Victoria and we are one of the last states to be passing the same laws in Australia. The laws are coming in at the exact same time as England. It's a pity the Victorian government didn't follow the example of other states and implement this earlier (when I was hanging out at bars every weekend :P). Still happy it's finally here though!

As for the banning of other things, none of them have a direct impact on the people around them like the smoker has on passive smokers. If I eat 12 pies my friend next to me doesn't get obese as well. Alcohol has similar, less direct impacts, but it is due to abuse of the substance and is relative to the person drinking.

I have no problem with people choosing to smoke, as long as I don't have to be anywhere near it

[Michelle]

Originally Posted by Chet

Smoking bans would make more sense if they also banned alcohol and sodas.
Probably a few other things should go - high heel shoes, peanuts, cars ... well I guess you get the idea.
(but on the other hand smokers should be more considerate of their second hand smoke most of the time too)

Not true. Someone elses smoking hurts me where my drinking a beer is of no consequence to anyone.

[Swede]

I am a non-smoker too. I see no reason not to ban smoking from public places. Since smoking, as Michelle points out, affects me against my will it is the smokers who has to adjust. Not me.

[Matthew Shea]

I think smoking bans are practically inevitable as we move forward. We've known for years that smoking harms both smokers and those around them. I'm concerned, though, that if these bans are too strict and/or too tightly enforced, it will drive people to rebellion and serve as a means to alienate people from the government that's basically there to protect them.

[Chet]

While I certainly agree with the problems caused by second hand smoke and think people should be a lot more careful I really hate that the gov. is dictating so much. I somehow don't see it as much of leap before something like a weigh-in along with your taxes .. fatties would get charged more ...
Well my imagination runs wild with the possibilities.

I mean why not have bars and restaurants for smokers only?

[free spirit]

I have no problem with a smoking ban in pubs/clubs etc. But why not have liscenced smoking venues? Then we all have a choice.

They don't have to breath in my smoke and I am then not forced to apologise or "ask permission" before I light up. I also am not then forced to listen to the artificial coughing and spluttering when I do smoke.

[Tuumble]

I don't think that smokers only venues would be that popular to be honest, even amongst smokers.

Think about it. When you to a bar and say 33-50% are smoking there is a definite 'cloudiness' to the air. In a wierd sort of way I like that - it adds a certain ambience to a night out.

However, once it's 100% of people smokers I would imagine it would be really unpleasant to everybody. Would you want to spend a whole evening in that environment?

I don't have a huge problem with people smoking but imagine how your clothes would smell in that situation.

If it was made a choice then it would be fair enough but I really can't see it being that successful long term.

[Nathan]

You shouldn't even need to "ask permission" to smoke right next to someone, its blatent disrespect to do it.

Artificially coughing and spluttering should not even be necessary, people should NOT have be subjected to the effects of your addiction period

[tejama]

Originally Posted by Chet

Smoking bans would make more sense if they also banned alcohol and sodas.
Probably a few other things should go - high heel shoes, peanuts, cars ... well I guess you get the idea.

I don't understand your reasoning behind this statement. Smoking is being banned in public because second hand smoke is directly harmful.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by tejama

I don't understand your reasoning behind this statement. Smoking is being banned in public because second hand smoke is directly harmful.

As a moderate smoker, (I like to have an occasional cig. with a beer) I fully agree that the smell of cigarette paper burning indoors is offensive and smells to a lot of people.
(It's not the tobacco that stinks, its the chlorine and ammonia in the paper. Natural tobacco smells good when you burn it.)

But now we have some cities banning smoking outdoors.

To me this is unbelievable and boggles my mind that people fall for the reasoning.
Why?

Example;
The "smoke" from petroleum based vehicles gives off 1000 times more carcinogens then the wispy smoke coming from a persons cigarette.
(I have no problem moving away, if someone asks me to, when I smoke.)

To prove the lethal effects of engines, start your car in a closed garage and see how long you can last.

So, what are you guys thoughts about bans on outdoor smoking?

[Chet]

Cars are a lot more dangerous, so is alcohol. Smokers are just easier to pick on.

[absvan]

Originally Posted by Chet

Cars are a lot more dangerous, so is alcohol. Smokers are just easier to pick on.

How can cars be dangerous?? Its the drivers (bad) that are dangerous. If you stick to the rules, then there wont be any accidents. I dont think you can compare cars to cigarettes.

BTW, I think the smoke ban is a great idea

[JohnGalt]

Interesting precedent. I wonder if other countries will start following suit.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

In Texas, US (at least in my city) we have something similar. I believe you are permitted to smoke in establishments which are solely bars, but that may have changed by now. I do like the no smoking rule for restaurants. I can enjoy my food much better without the smell of cigarettes wafting around. Most people I know who smoke are very considerate of others and usually go outside anyway.

[Scin]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

As a moderate smoker, (I like to have an occasional cig. with a beer) I fully agree that the smell of cigarette paper burning indoors is offensive and smells to a lot of people.
(It's not the tobacco that stinks, its the chlorine and ammonia in the paper. Natural tobacco smells good when you burn it.)

I disagree. Pipe smokers smell even worse than cigarette smokers.

But now we have some cities banning smoking outdoors.

To me this is unbelievable and boggles my mind that people fall for the reasoning.
Why?

Example;
The "smoke" from petroleum based vehicles gives off 1000 times more carcinogens then the wispy smoke coming from a persons cigarette.
(I have no problem moving away, if someone asks me to, when I smoke.)

To prove the lethal effects of engines, start your car in a closed garage and see how long you can last.

So, what are you guys thoughts about bans on outdoor smoking?

Drinking a glass of wine a day has heart health benefits. Taking even just a single drag off a cigarette in your entire life shortens it statistically by 5 minutes. There is no positive effect to smoking whatsoever. I see no problems with the government banning smoking in all places except for private self-owned property.

I rarely drive my car; I prefer biking, it's much better for me and for the environment. I look forward to the day when combustion engines are banned in favor of newer, greener, more advanced propulsion systems.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Scin

ITaking even just a single drag off a cigarette in your entire life shortens it statistically by 5 minutes.

Lol................!


How on earth were they able to compute it down to exactly 5 minutes?
Did they consider all other factors?
Unhealthy diet, toxic environment, toxins in the drinking water, toxins in the foods (preservatives) etc, etc. ???

Just this statement should wake people up to the possibility that "facts" are not what they seem.
Don't blindly believe what you're told.
Think it through, research on your own.

Watch any special on indigenous tribes. You will always see old men with tobacco (cigarette or pipes) hanging from their mouths.

How did they get to be that age, smoking tobacco their whole lives, when we are told tobacco (which is a simply a plant with healing properties) is supposedly so lethal ?
.
.
.
.
.
.

[Tuumble]

Of course this guy has just celebrated his 28th birthday.

No, I'm being silly of course. It is hard to take the 5 minute claim too seriously I'll admit for just the reasons you state. Personally the financial implications of a pack a day and smelling of smoke are enough to stop me smoking.

I find the smell unpleasant when being around it so the thought of it going directly into my lungs is quite horrifying.

That's just my view. Some people may enjoy it but it's just not for me and never will be.

[Blythe]

Gosh ,flash back to when I was 10years....a long time ago...

I can remember my mom smoking in the TV room ,doors closed with all us kids inside with her...I can still remember that cloying,disgusting air that I was forced to breathe. I remember rebelling and shouting at her that the smoke was killing me...alas it didn't ,I'm still here.

So I passively smoked via enforced circumstances.....I've never smoked....and thank goodness now I never have to again.

Smile

[free spirit]

Originally Posted by Nathan

You shouldn't even need to "ask permission" to smoke right next to someone, its blatent disrespect to do it.

Artificially coughing and spluttering should not even be necessary, people should NOT have be subjected to the effects of your addiction period

How true. Thats why I think have smoking and non smoking venues, then I wont be forced to ask permission.

I find that many non-smokers are not even prepared to come to some sort of compramise.

It makes me laugh, when a non-smoker says things like "blatant disrespect to smoke next to me" and then proceeds to jump in their 4x4 to drop their one child off to school 1/2 mile down the road. What about blatant disrespect to the planet?

I also do not use planes to travel. There are much more eco friendly ways of getting places. However, do non smokers even consider the effect they are having on polluting the air I breath to a far greater extent (25% of pollution is caused by air travel) when they fly?

I am not advocating smoking. It is indeed and expensive and derogatory to my health and those around me. All I ask for is a compremise.

[Nathan]

free spirit,

You make some good points, and some generalisations about non smokers. I agree with you that smoking venues would be a good idea, from a smokers point of view. However in terms of business I couldn't see many venues pulling it off successfully. As for air pollution, thats that completely different playing field... tobacco is a drug not a means of travel.

My original post to you was mainly directed at this statement

I also am not then forced to listen to the artificial coughing and spluttering when I do smoke.

making it sound like you are the victim which is ironic.