Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Ban smoking from the streets Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So villages are exempt. Great, so only the poor city dwellers will have to find their nearest shelter to light up amoungst the droves of down and outs and chavs who have monopolized on your nazi shacks.
    You think your proposal will flout given the volume of busy bodies in cities walking to their work, cigarette in hand?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by domino0806)
    That's limiting one's freedom. Whatever next, a dress code?
    How people dress doesn't cause innocent people to get cancer or respiratory diseases. Passive smoking does.
    I completely agree with the OP. Smoking should be allowed only in your own home or in designated areas, don't force your foul smoke to go in everyone else's face. The only thing is that if less people smoke it will mean less money for the government in taxes, the reason why it hasn't been completely outlawed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llpokermuffinll)
    I agree with you. I know this is gonna give loads of negative rep but thats how TSR works: If you say something the others disagree with you get negative rep.

    Anyway non-smokers shouldn't be suffering from the fact that smokers smoke and they don't do nothing. I just can't stand that smell of smoking and whenever I pass a smoker, I hold my breadth until I am at least 5 metres away from them. A study has also shown that passive smoking is even more harming than active smoking.
    Obvious solution here- start smoking. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So villages are exempt. Great, so only the poor city dwellers will have to find their nearest shelter to light up amoungst the droves of down and outs and chavs who have monopolized on your mandatory smoking shacks.
    You think your proposal will flout given the volume of busy bodies in cities walking to their work, cigarette in hand?
    Positive Rating!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 01010000 01001010)
    If you're not trolling you're pretty ****ing stupid. Banning drinking full stop should be of much higher priority.

    Why should non-drinkers have to suffer from the violence, vandalism and anti-social behaviour that drinkers produce, usually without concern for other people - so long as they can get a fix from their habit?
    Because prohibition worked so well...

    Maggie, your suggestion is nonsensical. Not only does it restrict a common liberty, but the proposed "smoking shelters" - of which there would have to be thousands, in every UK city, ten minutes apart - would cost the taxpayer to a ridiculous extent. You could have smoking "areas" (uncovered) on the street, but non-smokers still have to walk through them. Also, they would get very busy with smokers, creating an even more unhealthy atmosphere, simply congregated into a single area.

    Not one of your best ideas, to say the least.

    (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
    Smoking shelters can be paid for by the VAT on cigarettes. Or just increase it.
    The VAT on cigarettes is already used up, if not exceeded by, the cost of smokers to the NHS.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Claire_Spoon)
    Obvious solution here- start smoking. :rolleyes:
    lol joka. I'm not sure how true and reliable that study is though.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Nazi Thatcher, get out of here you wrinkly old bag.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joanna-eve)
    How people dress doesn't cause innocent people to get cancer or respiratory diseases. Passive smoking does.
    I completely agree with the OP. Smoking should be allowed only in your own home or in designated areas, don't force your foul smoke to go in everyone else's face. The only thing is that if less people smoke it will mean less money for the government in taxes, the reason why it hasn't been completely outlawed.
    (Original post by Boobies.)
    Build smoking shelters + increase policing duties to ensuring noone smokes outside shelters, or Huge NHS costs in treating people with illnesses related to passive smoking, loss of output from people who die early from passive smoking, and overall unhealthier workforce.

    I don't think cost is the issue here.
    (Original post by llpokermuffinll)
    I agree with you. I know this is gonna give loads of negative rep but thats how TSR works: If you say something the others disagree with you get negative rep.

    Anyway non-smokers shouldn't be suffering from the fact that smokers smoke and they don't do nothing. I just can't stand that smell of smoking and whenever I pass a smoker, I hold my breadth until I am at least 5 metres away from them. A study has also shown that passive smoking is even more harming than active smoking.
    Those studies refer to sharing a house or workplace with a smoker. Youre in no danger what so ever of inhaling smoke if its 4 metres away from you :confused:

    Walking along the street you might accidentally inhale a lung full of second hand smoke once a week tops. That's equivalent to smoking perhaps one cigarette every 3 months? The damage to your health is going to be negligible compared to all the exhaust fumes you breath in every day.

    Spend the millions of pounds you would on building 'smoking shelters' on tackling real health problem like STDs or childhood obesity.

    PS: Im not a smoker, if passive smoking in the street really did cause cancer I would agree with the idea. Its just 30 seconds of rational scepticism shows its not a real health risk :dontknow:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    Nazi Thatcher, get out of here you wrinkly old bag.
    You do realise that the party you mindlessly worship banned smoking in pubs?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Totally agree with you OP
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    no... just no.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Oh piss off Maggie, you've torn the country once and no-one wants to see you do it again.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llpokermuffinll)
    Anyway non-smokers shouldn't be suffering from the fact that smokers smoke and they don't do nothing. I just can't stand that smell of smoking and whenever I pass a smoker, I hold my breadth until I am at least 5 metres away from them. A study has also shown that passive smoking is even more harming than active smoking.
    Cross the street then.

    Why should you cross the street? Why should I cross the street? :holmes:

    And so on and on the infinite circle of regress goes. Some smoke, others don't. Deal with it. It's not like I'm going to open mouth kiss you after I've taken a drag, and it's not like your clothes are going to stink of smoke after you walk past someone who is smoking.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Minister

    Surely before banning/ controlling outdoor smoking we ought to ban activities that are more dangerous to the lungs of the population.

    Lets start with all vehicles that operate using carbon based fuel systems. I have no idea of the correct ratio of smoke from one car to one smoker, but I suspect quite a number of smokers will be needed to match the vehicle.

    Its a shame Tesco's shelves will now be empty, and carrying the family shop home will be quite time consuming, however the improvement in the nations health from all the walking will justify the measures.

    While we are at it lets get rid of those cows. Yes we get dairy products, leather and meat, but bovine flatulence is not good for our health, the substantial drop in emissions justifies the policy. Also all that fat in milk and red meat, not good for our bodies.

    While you are at it I am sure there is more legislation that could be implemented to control our behaviour. Alcohol has been mentioned, what about food rationing to ensure we maintain our bodies with the correct diet.The added benefit of all of these is that the UK will become so controlled that nobody else in Europe will want to come to live here, so thats the immigration issues covered, a great little island nation again.

    However before we are to hasty the economic case for smoking does need considered. Those annoying smokers pay duty on the product, vat on the real cost and on the duty, tend not to receive the state pension for as long as healthy people and often their hospital treatment is short lived. In fact maybe, in the absence these days of a world war or two , it is the healthy individuals that need to be taken to task. There they are preserving their bodies to last for a ridiculous time beyond when their minds will be useful to society, their nursing home care in old age costing £35,000- £50,000 a year, year after year after year.

    Ok, change of tack, lets scrap the legislation on smoking, lets introduce a tax on gyms.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by G8D)
    And why are people throwing the term 'Nazi' around?
    Perhaps a lot of people see the term Nazi to be synonymous with the word authoritarian.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    As much as I agree with this, because I don't want to be breathing in fumes from their filthy habit, it may encourage people to smoke in their houses more than they do already. And they could harm their children even more than they are already.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    In Japan I saw signs saying don't smoke and walk, then I saw an old man smoking and walking along the road clearly not caring.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    Minister

    Surely before banning/ controlling outdoor smoking we ought to ban activities that are more dangerous to the lungs of the population.

    Lets start with all vehicles that operate using carbon based fuel systems. I have no idea of the correct ratio of smoke from one car to one smoker, but I suspect quite a number of smokers will be needed to match the vehicle.

    Its a shame Tesco's shelves will now be empty, and carrying the family shop home will be quite time consuming, however the improvement in the nations health from all the walking will justify the measures.

    While we are at it lets get rid of those cows. Yes we get dairy products, leather and meat, but bovine flatulence is not good for our health, the substantial drop in emissions justifies the policy. Also all that fat in milk and red meat, not good for our bodies.

    While you are at it I am sure there is more legislation that could be implemented to control our behaviour. Alcohol has been mentioned, what about food rationing to ensure we maintain our bodies with the correct diet.The added benefit of all of these is that the UK will become so controlled that nobody else in Europe will want to come to live here, so thats the immigration issues covered, a great little island nation again.

    However before we are to hasty the economic case for smoking does need considered. Those annoying smokers pay duty on the product, vat on the real cost and on the duty, tend not to receive the state pension for as long as healthy people and often their hospital treatment is short lived. In fact maybe, in the absence these days of a world war or two , it is the healthy individuals that need to be taken to task. There they are preserving their bodies to last for a ridiculous time beyond when their minds will be useful to society, their nursing home care in old age costing £35,000- £50,000 a year, year after year after year.

    Ok, change of tack, lets scrap the legislation on smoking, lets introduce a tax on gyms.
    smoking smells 100x worst than all of those combined
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jaydemikaela)
    I don't want to be breathing in fumes from their filthy habit.
    How would one manage to breathe in fumes from another person's cigarette in the street? In a small, enclosed space - fair enough. But in a open space? That doesn't even make sense.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
    Why should non-smokers have to suffer from the nasty stench and the second-hand smoke that smokers produce, usually without concern for other people - so long as they can get a fix from their addiction?

    I propose that smoking is banned from the streets.

    However, to not make it so unfair on smokers - most places would have several smoking shelters - with one no more than 10 minutes walk from another. These would be covered areas where smoking would be permitted. A smoker could stop there, have a smoke and carry on walking - without affecting non-smokers.
    splendid.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.