We should ban people from smoking in public

Watch
BurstingBubbles
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Back in 2007 it was made illegal to smoke in enclosed public spaces such as a restaurant. But I still walk down the street and get met by a massive puff of smoke from someone in front of me. I don't think I should have to put up with that and just let these toxins enter my body unwillingly. Why should a stranger's lifestyle choices affect my health? Shouldn't they smoke in private locations instead?

Do you think a complete no public smoking ban would be implemented? Would you agree with it?

Edit: what about e-cigarettes? Should they be banned in public too? Or are they a safer option?
3
reply
TornadoGR4
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
I rarely walk into someone's smoke anymore as it goes.

I think smoking as a whole is dying out anyway due to the increasing cost & the younger generations wising up to the harmful effects. I'm not for or against a smoking ban, I don't really care.

Sorta makes my post kinda redundant now
0
reply
Viva Emptiness
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
Sometimes you just have to put your own wants aside for the sake of personal liberties. This is one of those times. A puff of smoke on the wind won't kill you.
2
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
I'm glad it is illegal in places like pubs.

But I can't say I think it should be illegal in open spaces outside. But I do find it annoying when someone lights up on a street in front of me so I get to breath in all that crap.
1
reply
cambio wechsel
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by BurstingBubbles)
Back in 2007 it was made illegal to smoke in enclosed public spaces such as a restaurant...
A restaurant is not a public space. If you suppose that it is, try taking in a picnic.

(Original post by BurstingBubbles)
But I still walk down the street and get met by a massive puff of smoke from someone in front of me.
Not "but“ but "because", the effect of the smoking ban was to push smokers out onto the streets that sensibly can be described as public spaces.

The markets might have been allowed to sort this one out. In any sizeable city I can find a pool bar, an Oirish bar, a titty bar. If there really had been demand for non-smoking pubs prior to the general ban, the market would have satisfied that want.

I'm at least as bothered by dog poo, cat pee, and exhaust fumes. But since that is "not very much" I don't piss and moan the while.
1
reply
Maid Marian
Badges: 20
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
I hate smokers but no, we shouldn't ban it. :no:
1
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by cambio wechsel)
Not "but“ but "because", the effect of the smoking ban was to push smokers out onto the streets that sensibly can be described as public spaces.

The markets might have been allowed to sort this one out. In any sizeable city I can find a pool bar, an Oirish bar, a titty bar. If there really had been demand for non-smoking pubs prior to the general ban, the market would have satisfied that want.

I'm at least as bothered by dog poo, cat pee, and exhaust fumes. But since that is "not very much" I don't piss and moan the while.
The market clearly wasn't. Most pubs were full of smoke. Not good for the staff working there. I would have still gone in the things due to peer pressure etc and second hand smoke on that scale on a regular basis is harmful. You can just go smoke outside.
0
reply
cambio wechsel
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
The market clearly wasn't. Most pubs were full of smoke. Not good for the staff working there. I would have still gone in the things due to peer pressure etc and second hand smoke on that scale on a regular basis is harmful. You can just go smoke outside.
I had meant ”the market would have met the demand for that", this in the same way that it met perceived demands for quiz nights and karaoke and pool tables and servers with big boobs. If there had been millions of people up and down the nation wanting smoke-free pubs there'd have been at least one on every high street just because there was a quid in it.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by cambio wechsel)
I had meant ”the market would have met the demand for that", this in the same way that it met perceived demands for quiz nights and karaoke and pool tables and servers with big boobs. If there had been millions of people up and down the nation wanting smoke-free pubs there'd have been at least one on every high street just because there was a quid in it.
Sorry job center people and Iain Duncan Smith. I don;t want to work in that pub even though I really need the money since I am worrying about intense second hand smoke effecting my health. What? You are cutting my benefits for turning down a job offer? You are now mkaing me work for nothing in a smoke heavy environment. Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

One of the flaws in "market god fixes all" is that it doesn't even apply to workers who for all intents and purposes may have very little choice in working in a smoke heavy environment. If you got a massive army of unemployed people all desperate for jobs no one has to change. Why is a pub goign to ban smoking inside it when it thinks that will drive away customers? Sod the bar staff, they can just get cancer and if they don;t like it I can just hire someone else. The blindly obvious solution is to just make it illegal for people to smoke inside offices or pubs. Don;t see how it is any different from all the laws that ensure people work in safe as possible and clean working environments. To hell with you "libertarians"
1
reply
n00
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by BurstingBubbles)
I still walk down the street and get met by a massive puff of smoke from someone in front of me. I don't think I should have to put up with that and just let these toxins enter my body unwillingly.
Maybe you could get one of these:



(Original post by BurstingBubbles)
Do you think a complete no public smoking ban would be implemented? Would you agree with it?
Only if they ban farting and perfume too.
2
reply
MinaM8
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
Oh god yes... or at least in the main streets. I have asthma and accidentally breathing in a puff of smoke while running late is the worst.
Maybe they can make more little closed off spaces for smokers? They have a few where I live. It's like an aquarium of cigarette smoke in the middle of the pavement
1
reply
cambio wechsel
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Why is a pub goign to ban smoking inside it when it thinks that will drive away customers?
this rather misses the point. If there really are a lot of people who don't like smoking in any shared space, then why weren't there non-smoking pubs and clubs catering to them before the ban? It only looks as if landlords missed a massive opportunity to make their pubs unusually attractive to some large proportion of the population. "Oh, we were putting on ceilidhs and steampunk evenings and ghost walks and christ knows what else but it never occurred to us to do that".

I sensibly wonder about the extent to which the agenda is set by a smallish but noisy special interest group.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by cambio wechsel)
this rather misses the point. If there really are a lot of people who don't like smoking in any shared space, then why weren't there non-smoking pubs and clubs catering to them before the ban? It only looks as if landlords missed a massive opportunity to make their pubs unusually attractive to some large proportion of the population. "Oh, we were putting on ceilidhs and steampunk evenings and ghost walks and christ knows what else but it never occurred to us to do that".

I sensibly wonder about the extent to which the agenda is set by a smallish but noisy special interest group.
Oh, also something else to add I thought of.

If one pub bans smoking, smokers may leave to rivals who allow smoking. That wont happen if all pubs have smoking banned since the state has forced them too. The market may well make it harder for an ethical pup owner concerned about the effetc of second hand smoking in his pub on staff and customers alike to scared to actually implement a ban. But he can now do so sicne the state has regulated the market.

In fact there are loads of example of this. If it costs you extra money to make your work environment safe you may then be out priced by competition that doesn't have have any concerned with implementing that stuff, they can undercut you. But if the state regulates then that factor goes away and everyone is better off. That's one of the reasons it is/was cheaper to ferry coal all the way from china than to mine it here. Which is also stupid int terms of stuff like energy efficiency as well as bad for worker rights.

There are examples where markets insentivise positive behavior but there are aloes examples where they encourage the opposite. There is too much worshiping of the god like hand of markets.
0
reply
SAA7S78
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
Yes we should , only idiots smoke and drink.
0
reply
cambio wechsel
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Oh, also something else to add I thought of.

If one pub bans smoking, smokers may leave to rivals who allow smoking. That wont happen if all pubs have smoking banned since the state has forced them too. The market may well make it harder for an ethical pup owner concerned about the effetc of second hand smoking in his pub on staff and customers alike to scared to actually implement a ban. But he can now do so sicne the state has regulated the market.
and if I don't like karaoke, and I don't, then I will eschew The Crown for The Mitre. But the landlord at The Crown doesn't have to worry about that, just as long as he's content that it'll bring in more custom than it costs him. All of these special interest groups got their needs catered to because landlords saw them as really existing and willing to vote with feet and pocketbooks. But the anti-smokers needed state intervention.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by cambio wechsel)
and if I don't like karaoke, and I don't, then I will eschew The Crown for The Mitre. But the landlord at The Crown doesn't have to worry about that, just as long as he's content that it'll bring in more custom than it costs him. All of these special interest groups got their needs catered to because landlords saw them as really existing and willing to vote with feet and pocketbooks. But the anti-smokers needed state intervention.
and there can never be any negative connotations to that mentality, ever. It also leaves no consideration for the workers and you dleibetly chose an issue that isn't not physically harmful like them breathing in carcinogenic substances. But it's fine, you libertarians are known for your sympathy to let people sit on benefits and refuse to work whilst looking for a better non carcinogenic job and totally wouldn't want to give people the chpioce between working in a carcinogenic environment or starving to death ¬¬

I give up, it's like talking to a brick wall.
0
reply
Falcatas
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Sorry job center people and Iain Duncan Smith. I don;t want to work in that pub even though I really need the money since I am worrying about intense second hand smoke effecting my health. What? You are cutting my benefits for turning down a job offer? You are now mkaing me work for nothing in a smoke heavy environment. Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

One of the flaws in "market god fixes all" is that it doesn't even apply to workers who for all intents and purposes may have very little choice in working in a smoke heavy environment. If you got a massive army of unemployed people all desperate for jobs no one has to change. Why is a pub goign to ban smoking inside it when it thinks that will drive away customers? Sod the bar staff, they can just get cancer and if they don;t like it I can just hire someone else. The blindly obvious solution is to just make it illegal for people to smoke inside offices or pubs. Don;t see how it is any different from all the laws that ensure people work in safe as possible and clean working environments. To hell with you "libertarians"
Another typical statist wanting the government to solve all their problems.

The smoking ban has crippled the pub industry and probably cost a lot of jobs too.

http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/is-the-sm...f-pub-closures

Also the risk of 2nd hand smoke is grossly overstated.
2
reply
neal95
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
Gosh you might aswell bring back the Stasi lol
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by Falcatas)
Another typical statist wanting the government to solve all their problems.

The smoking ban has crippled the pub industry and probably cost a lot of jobs too.

http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/is-the-sm...f-pub-closures

Also the risk of 2nd hand smoke is grossly overstated.
Good. I see it as my mission to close down every single pub in the country. You have been warned.

Less cirrhosis and less lung cancer :borat:
0
reply
cambio wechsel
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
and there can never be any negative connotations to that mentality, ever. It also leaves no consideration for the workers and you dleibetly chose an issue that isn't not physically harmful like them breathing in carcinogenic substances. But it's fine, you libertarians are known for your sympathy to let people sit on benefits and refuse to work whilst looking for a better non carcinogenic job and totally wouldn't want to give people the chpioce between working in a carcinogenic environment or starving to death ¬¬

I give up, it's like talking to a brick wall.
couldn't we just have a policy that allowed, say, one in three pubs to allow smoking and as well stipulated that no-one could be penalised for refusing to take a job in one of these? Then I could enjoy a cigarette in the one pub, while you could enjoy a smoke free environment in your choice of the others and a shandy if driving the Prius or a pint if still on the high horse.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Are you worried that a cap in student numbers would affect your place at uni?

Yes (245)
60.49%
No (83)
20.49%
Not sure (77)
19.01%

Watched Threads

View All