Smoking Ban

[johnl]

The Scottish parliment has now passed the outlawing of smoking in pubs,private members clubs,eating establishments & all public enclosed spaces to take affect on 26 March 2006.What do u think about it.
ps I am an ex smoker stopped 10 years ago!

[johnl]

Should have pointed out that as ex smoker I don't agree with it.

[hereboy]

brilliant... bout time.

I guess there will be more dowps in the streets now though and people huddled in doorways etc having their fix... wasters....

Why don't they put fags up to 20 quid a packet too when they are at it... dirty filthy habit...

One time I kissed this girl who smoked, she was beautiful, but even kissing someone as beautiful as her who smoked was like kissing an old ashtray -no wait a minute that wasn't me - that was JR.

PS. I am a sanctimonious ex smoker.

[golach]

As an righteous convert I am all for a full ban

[champagnebaby]

We've discussed this already *groan*

http://www.caithness.org/phpBB/viewt...hlight=smoking

[George Brims]

As a non-smoker I am also in favour of the ban.

However, here's an odd one (from an odd place, some would say!). The California legislature has voted to ban cigraettes from prisons. The inmates have about another 3 weeks to enjoy a smoke, then they're done. I wouldn't want to work in a prison anyway, but if I did, I think I would quit before they all get withdrawal symptoms...

[linzy222]

LOL thats a good point, so would i, coz i know whats its like trying to give up, i smoke alot and i get in a really bad mood if i am dying for a fag, i need a fag to calm down, so just imagine what it is going to be like in a prison full of mad men or woman gasping for a fag


They aren't banning it in prisons here

I'm not bothered about the ban coz i don't go to the pubs and if i was trying to give up and i did go out at least i wouldn't be tempted to smoke coz no smell of the smoke about

I know its all public places

[weeboyagee]

All my mates smoke (and I mean ALL of them!!!). I don't. I wouldn't miss their craic for the world so it's my choice to join their company and inhale. Can't say I get a kick out of it though. Ban it in public places but let the pubs and clubs decide whether they want to have smoking or not - and let joe public decide whether he/she wants to frequent the place.

Champagnebaby is right - this has been discussed before - but I didn't give my tuppenceworth! I don't personnaly know how hard it is to give it up but I've watched some of my mates try......not a pretty sight!

Banning alcohol - now that's when the world would really give way beneath my feet!

[fred]

The Scottish parliment has now passed the outlawing of smoking in pubs,private members clubs,eating establishments & all public enclosed spaces to take affect on 26 March 2006.What do u think about it.
ps I am an ex smoker stopped 10 years ago!

People seem to have an inherant need to divide, to feel superior and to control.

The nation has been split into smokers and non smokers, the smokers have been made to feel they are second class citizens and they have been told where they can or can't smoke.

In a free country proprietors would have the choice of having a smoking or none smoking establishment, or both. People would have the informed choice of which sort of establishment they went to. This is not a free country and what's worse is that Holyrood
seems more intent on oppressing the people than Westminster did.

[Rheghead]

I have said this once and I have said it a million times, this ban is not about restricting people's freedom to choose, as that is already hindered by their addiction, it is about health, purely and simply. I find it hypocritical of smokers complaining that their freedom is hindered when their freedom to pack in the fags is hindered by the addictive affect of nicotine.

And weeboyagee, there is no direct proportionality to smoking and having a good craic, I have just been this afternoon to a dinner at Mackays hotel, about 30 people there, non smoked and a good craic was had by all. Your friends would not suffer as much packing in if they went to a pub and was free of someone blowing smoke in his direction for a laugh.

After all the teething problems that this legislation brings and the effect that it will have on our young people, we will be still sitting at our computers in 10 years time wondering why we didn't ban cigarrettes all together.

Think about this, before Columbus's trip to the New World, we already had smoke free inns which were full of good craic no doubt, now if you asked one of the serving wenches about whether it would be a good idea to fill the room with acrid, eye nippin' smoke that will give you a good chance of an early death. What do you think her answer would be?

[skydivvy]

I think it is a good idea. It hasn't stopped the drinkers or the craic in ireland why should it here? I don't go to pubs becuse I have asthma and smoke affects it badly - maybe i can enjoy a few nights out with the craig now!

[fred]

I have said this once and I have said it a million times, this ban is not about restricting people's freedom to choose, as that is already hindered by their addiction, it is about health, purely and simply.

Then why didn't they legislate where it would do some good?

Heart disease is still the greatest killer, much of it caused by a bad diet. Why don't they prohibit eating in public places? Why don't they make junk food illegal and fine people who eat unhealthy food? Why not tax food to the hilt till no one can afford to eat any more?

They don't because everyone eats so they can't divide the population and the control freaks on one side dictate to those on the other side what they can or can't do. This isn't about health any more than the hunting with dogs bill was about foxes.

[George Brims]

Much of heart disease is caused by bad diet, but much of it is also caused by SMOKING! Combine the two and you're in big trouble. Other countries (notably Norway) do intervene in the food side of health through their tax structure. They tax alcohol very heavily for example. IMNSHO, a heavy tax on fast food would be a good idea.

Fred, I strongly dis agree with your comment that "This isn't about health". Why can't people get the idea that sometimes governments do actually do things for the good of their people? That's what they're elected to do. Certainly they get it wrong sometimes but give them some credit.

[fred]

Much of heart disease is caused by bad diet, but much of it is also caused by SMOKING! Combine the two and you're in big trouble. Other countries (notably Norway) do intervene in the food side of health through their tax structure. They tax alcohol very heavily for example. IMNSHO, a heavy tax on fast food would be a good idea.

At least smokers pay for the National Health service with the tax they pay which is a lot more than the eaters do.

[quote="George Brims"
Fred, I strongly dis agree with your comment that "This isn't about health". Why can't people get the idea that sometimes governments do actually do things for the good of their people? That's what they're elected to do. Certainly they get it wrong sometimes but give them some credit.[/quote]

So by the time they've made smoking, drinking and eating junk food illegal then they'll start banning anything that might be a bit risky, like sports or going out without your vest on in winter then pass a law that everyone has to do an hours exercise every morning.

Then there's the cars, how many journeys are really necessary? They polute the atmosphere, cause asthma, kill and maim people every day yet people still drive just for the fun of it. There would be a strong case for making the vast majority of car journrys illegal by your logic.

It isn't governments place to force everyone to be healthy, we elected MPs not nannies, we elect them to serve not to rule.

[katarina]

[Heart disease is still the greatest killer, much of it caused by a bad diet. Why don't they prohibit eating in public places? Why don't they make junk food illegal and fine people who eat unhealthy food? Why not tax food to the hilt till no one can afford to eat any more?.

Because we have to eat to live. We do not have to smoke to live - in fact if we don't smoke we are more likely to live.
But then it is a choice.
I do not chose to smoke, so why should i be forced to inhale some one elses second hand nicotine? At least bad diet only hurts the consumer, not those around him.

[fred]

Because we have to eat to live. We do not have to smoke to live - in fact if we don't smoke we are more likely to live.
But then it is a choice.
I do not chose to smoke, so why should i be forced to inhale some one elses second hand nicotine? At least bad diet only hurts the consumer, not those around him.

But you arn't forced to go into the places where smoking has been banned, like specialist tobacco shops which have been included in the ban. I see no reason why pubs and hotels should not be able to have a smoking room or even a non smoking room but that isn't the law which has been passed, smoking has been banned in all public places. I'm all for freedom of choice and no one should be forced to inhale second hand smoke if they don't want to, the people who do want to should also have their freedom to choose.

[George Brims]

Fred, you need to learn to work the "quote" facility better. I didn't say that bit about the NHS. (Do the tobacco taxes even cover a fraction of the costs to the NHS from preventable disease caused by tobacco? I doubt it but perhaps someone has the numbers?)

Don't preach to me about logic until you learn the meaning of the term "non sequitur" . In fact I'll tell you. It means "doesn't follow". Just because the government decides to legislate against one thing that kills people on a daily basis, it *doen't follow* that they're going to ban everything that's slightly risky.

[Jeid]

well, here's my two cents on this subject.

i work in a bar. i don't smoke. but i think that the smoking ban is pretty much a recipe for disaster. are the government niaeve enough to think that banning smoking in public places is gonna "improve" the health of an unhealthy nation? i think not. you see, whats gonna happen now is an epidemic of the "closet alcoholic" yeah, you know, the ones that sit in the house all night and drink about 3 bottles of wine and think that its "ok"(compared to people who go to the pub and get told to go home by the barperson). people sit and drink in pubs, have a smoke and a laugh with their mates, but they know that at some stage, they gotta go home. drink at home and they will keep going all night. banning smoking in enclosed public spaces ain't gonna stop people doing it, nor is it gonna improve the health of the nation. its gonna ruin thousands of businesses throughout scotland. i mean, seriously, who wants to go to a pub with no customers?? i know i don't.

its a no win situation for the public really. i reckon that within 5 years, liver problems will rise and that people suffering from smoking related illness will continue to increase

what the government should of done was impose a minimum criteria on extraction and air conditioning.

[cullbucket]

Rheghead - find myself agreeing with you again - seems to be happening more and more....
Jeid - I was in Ireland a couple of weeks ago and the pubs were hoaching, the smoking ban didn't seem to put people off going out on the town. There were a few folk nipping outside for a smoke but my pregnant wife was happy in the pub. Didn't come home smelling like an ashtray either. My mate told me that the landlords couldn't afford to allow smoking in bars due to potential lawsuits down the line.
I was listening to a debate on the radio a while ago between a doctor and a representative of the licensing trade. The licenser was strong on ventilation, AC etc. but the doctor just told him that (even proper) ventilation does not remove the invisible, odourless carciogens that are still in the atmosphere. The doctor also went on to say that most smokers want to stop, but the most common reason thay can't stop or have most problems stopping is when they go to the pub for a drink so the legislation can help people make the final step and quit.
If they don't want to quit they can still go outside, but thats not going to be so nice in a January Storm.
In 10 years time the pubs will be as busy as ever, less people will smoke, bar staff will be protected from second hand smoke and related health issues and we will wonder what all the fuss was about.

PS. I am a non-smoker (in case you didn't guess_

[macc]

Well I have nothing against smokers and a lot of my friends smoke. I agree slightly with the ban as it is nice to go in to a pub with a no smoking area. But all the ban is going to do is increase the amount of smokers in doorways, bus stops etc... As adults we can choose not to go into these smoking places but when smokers are puffin in a huddle outside doorways they take that right away. You can't avoid the fumes when you walk past. I was at Raigmore last week with my child and we decided to catch a bus to the town for a whilie. It was raining but we had to stand outside the bus shelter and wait for the bus as it was like a kipper shed with the amount of smokers in it. We stood away but only to have another huddle light up beside us, they were all making the most o their fag as the bus is non-smoking. I get fed up of hearin how smokers should have the right to smoke but what about our right and innocent childrens rights not to inhale smokers fumes. My friends allways ask if it is allright to smoke in my house, and many choose to go outside, but they never smoke in front of my or their own children. A lot of that is to do with manners of course.