I’m all in favour where outdoor dining is possible, given the constraints of our U.K. weather.
Friends were eating outdoors at a local pub yesterday evening....we were on the adjacent table as our dinner was of the poured variety.
Then smokers turned up to eat, smoke in our direction, so we left as no other tables available, and the tables were packed in cheek by jowl. My non smoking friends weren’t happy.
Same in Spain where on the odd occasion we eat out we choose restaurants with lots of space between tables...nothing worse than second hand fag smoke when you are eating outside.
|
|
I'm ambivalent. As an ex-smoker I feel some sympathy towards those that still feel the need and with the high level of taxation on tobacco products I reckon they're stopping the government from taxing me more. However, I was waiting for a bus yesterday and two people at the stop were smoking something that smelled absolutely foul. Ready made, I wondered if it was some of the cheap, illegal imported stuff?
|
I was really pleased about banning smoking in restaurants and pubs. The stench of stale smoke in one's clothes was awful, just think, that was also in your lungs!
I have also been "smoked on" whilst having a pub garden meal and considered it very rude. I would like it to cease.
But then the same argument goes for fireworks / bonfire night. Mrs Z, many years ago was involved in a study about the deterioration in air quality / increase in hospital admissions due to lung problems shortly after 5/11 and it was noticeable.
|
Likewise as an ex smoker of nearly 7 years I can sympathise with those that do. I try not to judge as I have first hand experience. Its not hard to give up providing you have the mindset to do so.
You will make any excuse if you haven't the mindset in place.
Having said that its a filthy dirty smelly disgusting habit. Go and have your smoke but well away from those that don't, whatever the environment. Which is what I did when I smoked.
And pick up your dog ends. :-
|
I am now probably the only smoker here and the various smoking restrictions haven't bothered me a jot. I don't smoke in the house having my designated back porch to light up and I'd rather not smoke when I'm in company as I regard it as my solitary little "Chill out" moment to be enjoyed alone.
If I smoke in the car now it is never while I'm driving but after I've pulled into a layby for a coffee break. However, far worse than tobacco smoke is the dreadful stench off weed which seems to becoming increasingly common now, from car windows, houses and from dope the heads themselves as you near them. I tried it a few times in my youth and I honestly can't see why anyone bothers, all it did was make me a bit drowsy for half an hour.
|
Weed users are just as noseblind to their stink as tobacco smokers.
I have patients whose use of cannabis I have detected before they even reach my room (down a 15 metre corridor from the waiting area)
My mate cycles a fair bit in Edinburgh and says every second unlettered white van honks of weed.
Poetic licence no doubt but I have noticed it more too.
|
|
Any number of people mention the prevalence of the smell of weed but I can honestly say I've never smelled it, or at least not recognised it as weed.
|
|
..A daily occurrence, almost everywhere (and that's travelling about the whole country).
|
>> Any number of people mention the prevalence of the smell of weed but I can
>> honestly say I've never smelled it, or at least not recognised it as weed.
>>
Miss Z calls it a "homely smell". She was livid once when a letting agent took her to a flat that reeked of the stuff.
It's like a rotten or boiled cabbage smell but "sweeter" - it's horrible.
Last edited by: zippy on Sat 31 Aug 24 at 17:17
|
|
I understand the distaste for it, and the health reasons behind the ban. However, I feel its overreach by the state, thin end of the wedge stuff. Where does control of human behaviour stop?
|
Where does control of human behaviour stop?
Perhaps when that activity can potentially can cause great expense to the state and therefore society which could otherwise be avoided by that individual ceasing to indulge in that activity. See also not wearing a crash helmet, driving without a seatbelt or taking drugs.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Sat 31 Aug 24 at 20:45
|
>> Where does control of human behaviour stop?
>>
>> Perhaps when that activity can potentially can cause great expense to the state and therefore
>> society which could otherwise be avoided by that individual ceasing to indulge in that activity.
>> See also not wearing a crash helmet, driving without a seatbelt or taking drugs.
>>
Or drinking alcohol. But that of course is the great untouchable.
|
>> Or drinking alcohol. But that of course is the great untouchable.
>>
If alcohol were invented today, it would be banned.
That said, AIUI, alcohol is partly responsible for the society we have today: Ancient people grew crops to get grains they could turn to booze. Alcohol also helped keep water "safe" to drink in the middle ages etc.
|
Too ingrained in human behaviour for thousands of years. If alcohol and its effects were discovered today I think society would probably be wise to stop its use bearing in mind its effects and costs.
As it is is we can only try to restrict its abuse. Personally I would like to see a ban on drinking in public places.
|
Personally I would like to see a ban on ( alcohol) drinking in public places.
Couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately it would never be enforced and serial offenders being put into landfill may be considered by some to be a tad heavy handed.
|
Where does control of human behaviour stop?
caravan ownership next?
Last edited by: sherlock47 on Mon 2 Sep 24 at 14:13
|
|
Oh yes please! And dogs:-)
|
Mr Meldrew?
Is that you Mr Meldrew?
|
>>However, far worse than tobacco smoke is the dreadful stench off weed which seems to
>>becoming increasingly common now...
Agree.
>>every second unlettered white van honks of weed.
I was driving home one evening in the summer and there was that "smell" all the way down the last 20 or so miles home. I was behind a beaten up van and initially I thought someone's lit up at home - but it was all the way home - it must have been from the van in front...
Last edited by: zippy on Sat 31 Aug 24 at 17:12
|
I went into a trade counter recently and the scruffy guy in front of me in the queue stank of weed. After being served he went back to his van, lit up his wacky baccy, and drove off.
He fitted a certain stereotype/prejudice.
However there is also another stereotype locally. Around our neighbourhood you can often smell it and we are in an area where Hyacinth Bucket would otherwise feel at home. I reckon a lot of the middle classes are now occasional users despite otherwise being non-smokers.
On one level it doesn’t bother me but it is the tip of a miserable, criminal trade.
|
There are entirely rational arguments for an outdoor smoking ban - both to protect others from secondary smoke/smell, and the tobacco user from their own foolishness.
Whether there is a net benefit or cost in enforcing a smoking ban is debatable - tobacco generates tax revenues, less smoking reduces costs to the NHS. Offsetting this - reduced life expectancy of smokers whose pensions etc are avoided due to their habit.
The needs to be a balance between behaviours which should have regard for others in close proximity and banning that which is principally a personal choice.
Smoking whilst others are eating on an adjacent table is simply bad manners. Just as playing loud music, indulging in noisy DIY etc at inappropriate times. I don't think legislation is the answer to relatively trivial annoyances.
Legislating to limit individual freedoms due to the personal risks involved raises the prospect of other targets - ban rock climbing, cycling, introduce rationing of foods with high sugar or saturated fat content, etc.
It could get very "nanny state" if we legislated to satisfy any pressure group that did not like something - alcohol, animal rights, "just stop oil", fireworks, abortion etc etc etc.
So as an ex-smoker for 20+ years, and although I now dislike the smell, I would not ban outdoor smoking but work on increasing awareness of civil behaviours towards others.
|
|
Many years ago, I was told to pick up a van and deliver it. The crumbs and smell were obvious, but I thought nothing of it. I suppose I could've been done, but didn't think anything of it. In retrospect, wouldn've touched it with a bargepole now.
|
The rationale behind smoking in outdoor areas is not that it is an annoyance to others but that it lessons the pressure on smokers to curtail their habit and therefore continue to impose a cost on themselves and society.
I don’t care if people smoke but I do object to the NHS having to spend millions treating an avoidable disease
|
>> The rationale behind smoking in outdoor areas is not that it is an annoyance to
>> others but that it lessons the pressure on smokers to curtail their habit and therefore
>> continue to impose a cost on themselves and society.
>>
>> I don’t care if people smoke but I do object to the NHS having to
>> spend millions treating an avoidable disease
>>
>>
Using this logic one would also ban, on the basis that negative outcomes are avoidable, mountain bikers, rock climbers, rugby players, DIY incompetents, the obese, drunks, etc etc.
The NHS would then be left mostly with the fit, healthy and elderly to treat. And perhaps, having lived a life of risk free diet and exercise, even the elderly may live for ever!!
|
>> I don’t care if people smoke but I do object to the NHS having to
>> spend millions treating an avoidable disease
That's a poor example. If you wanted to save billions you would euthanise everyone at the age of 65. And those with birth defects. Those with allergies. Controlling what we eat? Now you see the slippery slope. The thin end of the wedge.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 31 Aug 24 at 23:12
|
You can hardly help becoming old, having an allergy or being born with a birth defect but it’s quite easy to go to a beer garden and not smoke. Your argument is rather silly. Nobody is saying ban smoking,they are saying ban smoking in public places.
I don’t think most people would now want to allow smoking in bars and restaurants and the policy has worked. There are now fewer smokers and the public is exposed to less passive smoking.
Extending the ban is logical and is likely to make smoking less attractive, surely something that is in everybody’s interest even, those who smoke or might be tempted to smoke in the future,
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Sun 1 Sep 24 at 10:08
|
>> You can hardly help becoming old, having an allergy or being born with a birth
>> defect but it’s quite easy to go to a beer garden and not smoke. Your
>> argument is rather silly.
Wasn,t I that justified it on social cost reasons. Let's be more rational, how about obesity? A greater cost to the public purse. Would you enforce dieting?
>>
What is the definition of a public place if such legislation occurs?
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 1 Sep 24 at 11:37
|
>>
>> What is the definition of a public place if such legislation occurs?
>>
In line with existing legislation,
“Public place” includes any highway [or in Scotland any road within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984] and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise.
|
So people would be able to smoke only inside their own homes, or gardens or cars if they have them? Seems a bit harsh.
I'm sure there are plenty of examples people can think of but what about people in flats? I imagine someone smoking in the flat downstairs could permeate through other flats in the block.
Even though I don't like the smell (mostly - though just once in a very long while it makes me fancy trying one, but that's likely a slippery path!!) I don't mind people smoking in controlled areas in pubs etc, when they are somewhat segregated, or even out in the street when done with consideration.
|
“Would you enforce dieting”
Clearly no. That would simply be impossible. I would however support moves to make high sugar food less attractive by taxation. I would also like to see the number of fast food outlets restricted in a similar manner.
Perhaps public place is the wrong word. The types of areas I think the government has in mind are beer gardens and restaurant terraces.
|
|
Is there any study as to whether smoking has a positive or negative effect on government spending? On the one side there are tax revenues and reduced pension payments and on the other healthcare costs and reduction of revenue from gainful employment.
|
Very common to smell weed when I'm walking around the hospital - the smell often drifts in through the department windows. Many complain but apparently we can't ask patients to stop smoking in certain areas so a blind eye is turned to it. We even have to send an HCA down with wheelchair bound patients who want to smoke to keep an eye on them in case they collapse (often the same patients who have vascular disease issues i.e. amputations).
|
A recent poll by YouGov: In response to the question "Would you support or oppose banning smoking in pub gardens and outdoor restaurants?"
Strongly support 35%
Tend to support 23%
Tend to oppose 17%
Strongly oppose 18%
Don’t know 7%
To be clear: 58% support a ban; only 35% oppose.
|
>> A recent poll by YouGov: In response to the question "Would you support or oppose
>> banning smoking in pub gardens and outdoor restaurants?"
>>
>> Strongly support 35%
>> Tend to support 23%
>> Tend to oppose 17%
>> Strongly oppose 18%
>> Don’t know 7%
>>
>> To be clear: 58% support a ban; only 35% oppose.
>>
And how many people would ban motorcycles, cycling on public roads, horse racing, dogs being walked in parks, etc etc? There are always a significant number of people who would cheerfully support a ban on anything they don't do themselves.
"And then they came for you".
|
The new Labour government have chosen to prioritise for legislative action, outdoor smoking.
By comparison to the other challenges they have - black holes, low growth, NHS waiting lists, EU relationships, overcrowded prisons, knife crime, green energy/net zero, etc etc etc - outdoor smoking must rank as utterly trivial, albeit predictably controversial.
Perhaps it is intended as a distraction - a focus for media reporting to avoid scrutiny of other plans they actually want to implement. The response to the proposals re the winter fuel allowance may have been better hidden behind a "smokescreen" of a high profile irrelevancy.
|
>> The new Labour government have chosen to prioritise for legislative action, outdoor smoking.
There's already a smoking bill planned. It's intended to pick up the previous government's plan to prevent today's youngsters ever being able to buy ciggies. I think it's also tackling the 'curse' of youth vaping.
Is banning outdoor smoking in some places a plan or just kite flying.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 1 Sep 24 at 12:55
|
>> >> T
>>
>> There's already a smoking bill planned. It's intended to pick up the previous government's plan
>> to prevent today's youngsters ever being able to buy ciggies.
>>
Which means the smoking habit will vanish in time.* So no need for more nanny laws to come in.
*Because prohibition always works, doesn't it?
|
I don’t smoke, and I drink very little, very rarely. That is my choice and preference. However, I really don’t care what others do. That’s up to them, if they want to smoke in a pub garden and or drink themselves into oblivion then that’s their choice. I couldn’t care less.
As an aside though, I tend to find the company of those who have had too much to drink way more unwelcome than that of someone who has had a couple of cigarettes.
I feel like we’ve “banned” enough to be going on with for now.
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Sun 1 Sep 24 at 14:50
|
"I don’t smoke, and I drink very little, very rarely. That is my choice and preference. However, I really don’t care what others do. That’s up to them, if they want to smoke in a pub garden and or drink themselves into oblivion then that’s their choice. I couldn’t care less. "
Thats OK up to a point but huge sums of money are being sent on treating lung cancer and alcohol abuse. Smokng cost the health service and estimated £2.5 billion per year. Is it not the duty of the Government to try to reduce that sum?
|
I covered that in the part of my post that you didn’t quote.
;-)
|
>> "
>>
>> Thats OK up to a point but huge sums of money are being sent on
>> treating lung cancer and alcohol abuse. Smokng cost the health service and estimated £2.5 billion
>> per year. Is it not the duty of the Government to try to reduce that
>> sum?
>>
Lung cancer would still occur if no one smoked, and how much of it is down to cigarette smoking alone is a matter of debate. Except that no-one is willing to debate the subject because they would immediately shot down in flames for going against the religious fervor of the antis.
This site has a table showing the countries with the highest smoking rates;
tinyurl.com/39vc82yk
And this has the countries with the highest rates of lung cancer;
tinyurl.com/5edjtzv3
No one is suggesting that smoking is good for you, but it is blamed for everything from cancer to ingrowing toenails and these "Facts" are never challenged.
Last edited by: smokie on Sun 1 Sep 24 at 17:39
|
"Lung cancer would still occur if no one smoked, and how much of it is down to cigarette smoking alone is a matter of debate. Except that no-one is willing to debate the subject because they would immediately shot down in flames for going against the religious fervor of the antis."
72% of lung cancer in UK is attributed to lung cancer. No one in the Government or Health Service is suggesting that smoking is the only cause but it is the major cause by far
Here are the facts. They are hardly being supressed.
www.macmillan.org.uk/cancer-information-and-support/lung-cancer/causes-and-risk-factors-of-lung-cancer
|
>>
>>
>>
>> 72% of lung cancer in UK is attributed to lung cancer. No one in the
>> Government or Health Service is suggesting that smoking is the only cause but it is
>> the major cause by far
>>
>>
I have no idea about the major cause of lung cancer, but the fact that there is no correlation between national smoking rates and the disease in the above tables suggest the whole subject needs to be looked at again.
|
>>
>> I have no idea about the major cause of lung cancer, but the fact that
>> there is no correlation between national smoking rates and the disease in the above tables
>> suggest the whole subject needs to be looked at again.
>>
I don't think those two sets of statistics can be combined to prove anything very much.
The (current) death rate has been normalised to recognise the fact that cancer (in general) affects older people.....
Death from lung cancer associated with smoking is likely to correlate with historic rates of smoking, not current.....
etc.
|
"I have no idea about the major cause of lung cancer, but the fact that there is no correlation between national smoking rates and the disease in the above tables suggest the whole subject needs to be looked at again."
It has been
academic.oup.com/ije/article/29/6/963/659223
|
These @#£_ing control freaks have nothing better to do than ban smoking in pub gardens?
Glub help us.
|
As I understand it the intention is to reintroduce a Bill in identical or similar terms to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill introduced last March under the previous administration:
www.gov.uk/government/collections/tobacco-and-vapes-bill-2024
Whether additional clauses will be added to, in some way, further regulate smoking in public is still up for debate but I don't think the cost/time involved really stacks up a 'nothing better to do' argument as though it had a huge opportunity cost.
|
Regardless of which party thought of it, its nothing more than an attention grabber, a diversion, something someone can say "look what we did" to divert attention away from stuff that should be done, stuff that is kicked in the long grass, the too difficult pile, the long term stuff a short term administration wont get credit for. Something to pad out a very thin manifesto.
Its a smoke screen
|
Outdoor smoking ban - bathtub tom
