Smoking to be banned in all outdoor public places, town centres, streets, etc

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80

cuckoo99

Edit: how do i make dis **** big?

Reply 81

demetria

It is disgusting when you're outside and get a load of cigarette smoke blown into your face but I can't say it happens to me much at all and I don't see it being banned anytime soon

Reply 82

Steevee

Jesus christ, some of you people.

As a healthy, considerate smoker I want to see chewing gum banned from public areas then, because of littering. I also want to see young men and women banned from using body spray or 'cologne'' in public, the smells are offensive and overpowering and I don't want to be inhaling all that rubbish. While we're at it can we ban people from being too noisy? And let's start setting modesty standards on clothing, oh and let's make everyone drive hybrids so we don't get those nasty fumes when we have to walk near a road!

Or we could not be fascistic at every turn and perhaps, just perhaps try and be reasonable adults about the situation?

Reply 83

Indismissable_Me

Does this mean we can also ban all carbon dioxide emissions?, all none-electric vehicles?, after all cars and energy production are a billion fold more devastating for your health than the odd face full of cigarette smoke.

Or don't these count, because they make your lives a little more convenient?

Reply 84

AmyAintDead

I don't even... Honestly, I don't like smoking either, but here's the thing. How on earth are you going to police people smoking outside? Pay X amount of taxes for X amount of patrol officers to watch people trying to light a cigarette and slap it out of their hands and fine them? It's anything but convenient and cheap. This is exactly why there's no active ban to stop people smoking in cars.

Reply 85

Prandtl

Original post by Lady Comstock

Don't see a problem with this. I would be arrested if I walked through Oxford Street chugging at a bottle of wine in my hand.

I thought drinking in public was legal in the UK?

Reply 86

donutaud15

Original post by mikeyd85

It's threads like this that make me wonder why I bother moving away from bus stands or blowing my smoke away / holding it in if there are children about. I'm vilified without evidence.

**** it, from now on, I'm just going to blow smoke in all your faces.

there's not a lot of people who would be considerate enough to do that at least in my experience.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 87

MagicNMedicine

Original post by Prandtl

Disagree. I find the majority of smokers are fairly considerate to non smokers and it's quite easy to avoid groups of smokers for prolonged periods if it bothers you that much.

I agree with this and actually its been for me a surprising benefit of the smoking ban. I was old enough to be going out a few years before the smoking ban came in and I used to really hate it that I'd be sat round 2/3 people chain smoking one after another in my face and if I ever said anything that the smoke was irritating my eyes or throat I found back then smokers were a lot more dismissive and cocky about it and more "its a free country, you don't like it, leave" kind of thing.

But since the smoking ban one I've noticed lots of my friends that smoked have given up as they said it was easier to give up once the ban came in, and two I've noticed those that do are more aware that non smokers don't like it and they are generally OK with it. I find it works best when you're out and a smoker is like "right Im going for a fag, anyone coming" so the other smokers go off for a bit and then come back when they've finished, the smoke doesn't bother anyone and they usually have company out there anyway.

Reply 88

Monkey.Man

Stalin, is that you?

(but I still agree that banning smoking is extremely tyrannical and against individual freedom)

Reply 89

joebloggs434

Original post by Monkey.Man

(but I still agree that banning smoking is extremely tyrannical and against individual freedom)

What about my freedom to be able to breathe clean air?

Reply 90

midget101

Coming from a person who has never smoked before, I don't understand the other side of the argument. However, what long-term benefits does smoking give you? It isn't healthy, it could eventually kill you and it's an expensive habit. Wouldn't it be better if smoking was banned altogether?

Reply 91

joebloggs434

Original post by midget101

Yes it would be better if it was banned altogether. There are NO benefits to smoking. It does nothing except harm to people. Smoking literally serves no purpose whatsoever.

Reply 92

MostUncivilised

Original post by joebloggs434

Yes it would be better if it was banned altogether. There are NO benefits to smoking.

Nor is there to adultery, but we don't ban that.

It seems like you have issues with other people's choices, they make you genuinely angry. What else angers you?

Reply 93

midget101

Original post by MostUncivilised

Nor is there to adultery, but we don't ban that.

Unfortunately the media (i.e. TV soaps and films) have almost made it morally 'ok' to commit adultery. :L

Reply 94

joebloggs434

Original post by MostUncivilised

Nor is there to adultery, but we don't ban that.

It seems like you have issues with other people's choices, they make you genuinely angry. What else angers you?

A lot of things anger me mate. Too much to go into here. I'm not generally an angry person, though, I'm pretty laid back.

Reply 95

Monkey.Man

Original post by joebloggs434

What about my freedom to be able to breathe clean air?

then take reasonable steps to avoid smokers; I'm not saying that smokers have a right too literally force you to sniff in the smoke, I'm saying that you should not be telling someone to not smoke in public when you don't have to be near them. and your "freedom" to breathe clean air is simply a desire to not sniff dirty smelling substances - you could extend that "right" to any such smell. in terms of the damage of the smoke to you, it is virtually non-existent and would only have an impact on your health if you were shut in smoky places/rooms for a large proportion of your life without fresh air

Reply 96

pane123

Original post by the bear

Smokers are generally less intelligent than normal people ? they definitely need positive action to stop them harming others with their ridiculous pastime.

People who make comments like yours are generally less intelligent than normal people.

Reply 97

Studentus-anonymous

Original post by MostUncivilised

The vehemence of the anti-smoking brigade reminds me very much of a book I read called The Anatomy of Disgust.

It talks about how visceral disgust (the language used by the OP and others, about inconsiderate smokers blowing smoke in other peoples faces, how it's on their breath) is usually a prerequisite for hatred. For example, racists who say that black people are unhygienic, or foreign food smells funny.

It's an attempt to, psychologically, keep the chaos at bay. I'm guessing the anti-smokers feel very put upon, and it seems to upset them to a considerable degree. Fascinating

I wrote off your post the minute you used 'brigade' in the post without referring to the Fire Service or the military.

Your pseudo pop psychology is meaningless. People don;t hate or "are about to hate" smokers, they simply feel that self destructive tendencies should ideally only effect the individual themselves and leave everyone else well and clearly alone.

Smoking unfortunately pollutes everyone's air, which is why generally people would rather smokers aren't allowed to light up in public places, and generally why a lot of other places have rules dictating that smokers do not crowd entrances and exits, even in the absence of legislation.

I mean if you wanted to walk around wearing a funny belt with a mechanical leg that periodically boots your nards then you go right ahead. it's about social manners and not gassing everyone else is pretty much a widely accepted breach.

You wouldn't like it if I went around sticking people with needles and injecting small amounts of poisons and carcinogens. Being airborne doesn't make it any more proper.

But you're clearly trolling because I like to believe in this day and age no-one (even smokers, because I know plenty who have more then enough manners) walks aronud with that attitude and opinion.

Original post by L i b

I never so much as noticed it in the non-smoking sections of restaurants. Many were simply non-smoking anyway.

As for pubs, it was perfectly fine. They were smokey. If you didn't like it, you could go elsewhere - but notably few did.

replying for the sake of replying there champ?

TBH you are entitled to your opinion and your own memory of things.

But for the record, it's a simple fact by virtue of smokers being allowed to light up anywhere freely that a lot of establishments were less pleasant for it (oh hey look, air pollution, who fancies attempting to enjoy a meal or drink and socializing while inhaling poison?).

You're right, if I didn't like it I needn't patronise their pub. But as it turned out a lot of people didn't either, I don't see any serious publicans, restaurateurs and other business owners (apart from perhaps tobacconists) lamenting the loss of the rancid smog. If they had the smoking ban would have found a much more contested birth.

Reply 98

driftawaay

It should be made illegal, period. The world doesn't need cigarettes, its only purpose is to get cancer and die. And spend a lot of money getting there. If it actually became illegal, people would just be forced to quit and after a while no one would crave it and future generations wouldn't be smokers.

Of course that would be utopia, it's never going to happen, because making money out of everything is the most important thing in the world. :rolleyes: