Ban on smoking in public.

Bepolite

Moderator: for context, this thread is a spin-off of a thread discussing the legalisation of cannabis for medicinal pain relief.

Just legalise it full stop, the benefits to society far, far out weigh the current cost of enforcement and loss of tax revenue.

Of course I'd couple this with a total and complete public smoking ban for all substances.

FreudianSlippers

Bepolite wrote: »

Just legalise it full stop, the benefits to society far, far out weigh the current cost of enforcement and loss of tax revenue.

Of course I'd couple this with a total and complete public smoking ban for all substances.

I think the public smoking ban is a bit too nanny state, but legalisation of cannabis and cocaine with all tax income going to the health sector (with a ringfence for addiction services) seems like a no-brainer IMHO.

Bepolite

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think the public smoking ban is a bit too nanny state, but legalisation of cannabis and cocaine with all tax income going to the health sector (with a ringfence for addiction services) seems like a no-brainer IMHO.

The issue I have is that what ever you smoke you're a drug addict. I say this sipping my cup of coffee that if I didn't have I'd be even more unbearable than I normally am. Drug addicts can't be expected to act responsibly. With smoking tobacco that's just litter and rudeness, with other substances I'm not so sure. Perhaps cannabis would just result in a load of spaced out hippies, but even then I wouldn't like them tumbling out into the road.

The issue I have is that although passive smoking from tobacco in open areas is largely though to be nothing more than an offensive smell, we haven't got the same data on cannabis. I also don't like the idea of people coming back into work after a crafty one at the side of the building. Again from someone who wouldn't be adverse to a lunchtime pint now and again.

It seems to be the perfect solution for the majority non-smokers. Do what you want in private, don't inflict it on me at bus-stops, train stations and we might even begin to get the litter problem under control.

hullaballoo

Bepolite wrote: »

The issue I have is that what ever you smoke you're a drug addict. I say this sipping my cup of coffee that if I didn't have I'd be even more unbearable than I normally am. Drug addicts can't be expected to act responsibly. With smoking tobacco that's just litter and rudeness, with other substances I'm not so sure. Perhaps cannabis would just result in a load of spaced out hippies, but even then I wouldn't like them tumbling out into the road.

The issue I have is that although passive smoking from tobacco in open areas is largely though to be nothing more than an offensive smell, we haven't got the same data on cannabis. I also don't like the idea of people coming back into work after a crafty one at the side of the building. Again from someone who wouldn't be adverse to a lunchtime pint now and again.

It seems to be the perfect solution for the majority non-smokers. Do what you want in private, don't inflict it on me at bus-stops, train stations and we might even begin to get the litter problem under control.

There is a serious issue with the above, though.

Take me, for example. I am a smoker (20-a-day) for now. I cannot smoke in my house because I don't live alone. That means that until I can afford my own garden, I have to smoke outside, in public.

I'm aware that people don't like the smell or inhaling "second-hand smoke", that's totally understandable. I don't particularly like it either. As such, I consciously do everything I can to avoid upsetting other people.

For example:
- I stand downwind of other people nearby to the greatest extent I can;
- I blow smoke either up or away from others;
- When walking while smoking (which I avoid), I will cross the street to avoid exposing others to the smell;
- If none of the above work, I will put the cigarette out and wait until I'm not going to be exposing others to what I admit is a nasty habit.

A few other things, I also do my best to ensure that when I've finished smoking, I don't smell of it. I use mints, wash my hands, make sure I am not still breathing smoke before getting into closed containers (cars, trains etc.) with other people.

Yes, some people don't take these precautions against affecting other people. To me, I'm being as polite and considerate as I can to others. If I'm going to be forced off the streets, where do I go? I'm not going inside to stink out my house or anyone else's. What's wrong with designated smoking areas away from the throngs rather than a blanket ban?

As an aside, despite all of the above steps I take to avoid upsetting people, there remain those anti-smoking evangelists who will make a point of standing around in designated smoking areas/move upwind of me when I'm practically at the end of a train platform and tut tut and cough and splutter while giving me evils. The worst was someone who walked her BUGGY right up to the very end (open air) of Pearse St station and loudly asked the smokers to put out their cigarettes. What are we to do?

Johnboy1951

I have more problems with BO in such situations than I do with ciggie smoke.

Maybe we should ban people with BO from going into public places too?

While we are at it, lets do a blanket ban on all those devices that contaminate the atmosphere ...... such as motor vehicles country wide ...... but we could hardly go back to the horse & cart because of the excrement upsetting some people.

Considering how small the contribution of ciggie smoke is to lowering the quality of the air in the open, it would appear that all those others should be banned first!

Bepolite

The problem is that not all smokers are any where near as polite. The vast majoirty are pig ignornant. My concern with cannabis is we'd see even more anti-social behaviour*. That said I suppose the two can be seperated. But what about your issue if you like the occational 'funny cigerette'? (Im not for some second suggesting you do!)

I supose my suggestion would have to be share with people of simialr interests, oddly enough though I know may smokers that would not want smoking in the house. I do just wonder why people don;t just quit / take up other forms of nicotene.

I suppose my suggestion is rather harsh and not much short of tough - as with many things a small number of people ruin it for others.

(Sorry at work no spell check)

*This comes in many forms.

Bepolite

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I have more problems with BO in such situations than I do with ciggie smoke.

Maybe we should ban people with BO from going into public places too?

While we are at it, lets do a blanket ban on all those devices that contaminate the atmosphere ...... such as motor vehicles country wide ...... but we could hardly go back to the horse & cart because of the excrement upsetting some people.

Considering how small the contribution of ciggie smoke is to lowering the quality of the air in the open, it would appear that all those others should be banned first!

This is an attempt at a serious thread, please feel free to contibute at any time. The one point you do make is on cars - there is a social utility here but I'm all for banning journies of under two miles.

2Mad2BeMad

Bepolite wrote: »

The problem is that not all smokers are any where near as polite. The vast majoirty are pig ignornant. My concern with cannabis is we'd see even more anti-social behaviour*. That said I suppose the two can be seperated. But what about your issue if you like the occational 'funny cigerette'? (Im not for some second suggesting you do!)

I supose my suggestion would have to be share with people of simialr interests, oddly enough though I know may smokers that would not want smoking in the house. I do just wonder why people don;t just quit / take up other forms of nicotene.

I suppose my suggestion is rather harsh and not much short of tough - as with many things a small number of people ruin it for others.

(Sorry at work no spell check)

*This comes in many forms.

Sorry what? Are you some form of advanced Human species that doesn't have a bad day?
Smokers have bad days
non smokers have bad days
been pig ignorant doesn't mean your been ignorant because you smoke
seriously :rolleyes: you basically insulted half the population of the world with that sentence :pac: very impressive.

Alot of people don't drive, including myself, but I have to suffer with "pig ignorant drivers" who drive all day every day to and from work in a public place inhaling their toxic fumes which pollute the air. I say ban all petrol/diesel fuelled car's

Smoking will never be banned in a public place in Ireland. Thats just being realistic. It will never happen
The government love people who smoke, they pay extra tax. They won't try and slow that down no matter what they try and tell you. Its all got to do with money.

I love smoking, no matter how many cancer storys I am told, no matter how many lungs I am shown from people who passed away to it.
I won't give up, because I enjoy it. You only live once, why should I give up or cross the road because "you" a stranger who means nothing to me, whos face I won't remember 5 seconds after seen you, doesn't like the smell.

If I am on a bus, and someone beside me has BO, I get up and move. I don't expect them to get up and move.

Life comes with things we love and hate, if you were able to avoid everything you hated sure how the hell would you know you hated the thing in the first place?

think of it this way, every time you cross a smokers path, just tell yourself if it helps you "Thank god I don't smell like that".

Only time I will ever think about where I am smoking is if I am near or around children/babys due to obvious reasons, I am not in the habit of trying to dodge every person that I happen to cross while I am smoking, it would take me hours to get to work if that was to case, and thats if I got their before it closed.

Bepolite

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

Sorry what? Are you some form of advanced Human species that doesn't have a bad day?
Smokers have bad days
non smokers have bad days
been pig ignorant doesn't mean your been ignorant because you smoke
seriously :rolleyes: you basically insulted half the population of the world with that sentence :pac: very impressive.

As I said you can't trust drug addicts, who are likely to have many more bad days/times becuase of their addictions. I've also insulted less than 30% in Ireland and less than that in the rest of the developed world.

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

Alot of people don't drive, including myself, but I have to suffer with "pig ignorant drivers" who drive all day every day to and from work in a public place inhaling their toxic fumes which pollute the air. I say ban all petrol/diesel fuelled car's

Almost everyone, including myself, behave differently behind the wheel of a car, hence why driving is so prescriptive.

Johnboy1951

Bepolite wrote: »

This is an attempt at a serious thread, please feel free to contibute at any time. The one point you do make is on cars - there is a social utility here but I'm all for banning journies of under two miles.

I thank you for giving your permission to me to post in this thread.
Mighty generous of you.

Bepolite

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I thank you for giving your permission to me to post in this thread.
Mighty generous of you.

I can't give you permission or deny you permission to post, what I was asking you and others to do was to contribute to it.

Pat Mustard

Just talking about smoking of tobacco only.

I don't smoke, but it annoys me that a nanny state attitude is becoming more prevalent in this country.

If smoking costs the State one way or another, the government can tax smokers more. If smokers don't cost the State any more than they do already, well, the government shouldn't tax them more, but probably will anyway.

If we are going to stop smokers from smoking in open air public areas, where are they going to smoke? It's not right to insist that they smoke in their own homes only. They are addicted to nicotine. Either they are allowed to smoke in public, or they are criminalised outright, or they will be coralled into particular smoking parks. I find the idea of smokers congregating in designated public smoking areas in the rain in November a bit depressing really. I genuinely hope that it never comes to that.

The idea of a State mandated witchhunt against a section of the population is a bit disturbing, to be honest.

pillphil

Bepolite wrote: »

The issue I have is that what ever you smoke you're a drug addict.

Well that's not remotely true is it? That's like saying everyone who drinks is an alcoholic. Almost all cigarette smokers are addicts, and a lot more people are addicted to cannabis that would admit it, but not everyone who smokes cannabis, or does any other drug for that matter, is addicted to it.

goz83

Lots of people used the smoking ban as a way to stop smoking, or switch to vaping, which I see as a good thing. I would not at all be surprised if public smoking was banned. Nobody ever thought smoking in the pub would be banned, but there you have it. If a ban on smoking in public places was introduced and it encouraged smokers to smoke less, or to quit altogether, then that can only be a good thing.

Some smokers are considerate, some are not and think it's the non smokers problem if they don't want to be poisoned by their second hand smoke. My most recent experience of absolute disregard was when I was sitting on a public bench at Howth harbour about 2 weeks ago with my wife and 4 young children, when a woman decided to walk up to the bin, less than 3 feet away from where my 1 year old was in her buggy, and stood there, smoke blowing into my childs face, while she casually went about finishing her cigarette. I actually had to point out to her, that her smoke was blowing into my childs face. She was oblivious to the scores of children around the place, despite us being at the playground :rolleyes:

Bepolite

pillphil wrote: »

Well that's not remotely true is it? That's like saying everyone who drinks is an alcoholic. Almost all cigarette smokers are addicts, and a lot more people are addicted to cannabis that would admit it, but not everyone who smokes cannabis, or does any other drug for that matter, is addicted to it.

Perhaps, but I was under the impression the jury was still out on Cannabis addiction. In all honesty though I'm not aware of much else, that's smoked, that isn't highly addictive.

Zambia

You can't ban smoking in open air public places. It can't be done.

Bepolite

Zambia wrote: »

You can't ban smoking in open air public places. It can't be done.

Looks like it is going to be done in both Ireland and Scotland. Granted it's not a total ban but bus stops, around building etc it will eventually happen.

Zambia

Bepolite wrote: »

Looks like it is going to be done in both Ireland and Scotland. Granted it's not a total ban but bus stops, around building etc it will eventually happen.

Granted in de marked areas. However I do recall when I once lobbied for the introduction of no smoking in cars with under 18's. The cry was I was dreaming. That is way easier to enforce than a ban of this nature.

pillphil

Bepolite wrote: »

Perhaps, but I was under the impression the jury was still out on Cannabis addiction. In all honesty though I'm not aware of much else, that's smoked, that isn't highly addictive.

Not sure what you mean by this. It certainly is possible to become addicted to cannabis, it is not highly addictive though. It has a lower addiction rate that alcohol.

Johnboy1951

I have oft wondered about the figures around nicotine addiction.

I had a 40/day smoking habit.
I enjoyed indulging in my habit.

I never had an addicts longing for nicotine when in places it was inappropriate to smoke.

I was involved in a youth club many decades ago, and I (with my 40/day) habit was the one to introduce a no smoking rule there.
(I suspect it was more easily accepted because of my known habit)

I never felt the need to smoke thereafter in that club, regardless the hours spent there.

Many would say I had a nicotine addiction because I smoked so much ........ but I honestly doubt I had/have.

I most definitely had a habit that I enjoyed to excess, and subsequently cut that habit to 20/day .... by controlling the habit, not by feeding myself nicotine in other forms.

All of that made me wonder if the figures for 'nicotine addiction' are really true ...... or is there a considerable percentage of those due to habit rather than addiction.

hullaballoo

Lads/Ladies, this is about the proposed ban on smoking cigarettes in public. The cannabis thread is elsewhere so please let's keep this thread on topic.

Off-topic posts deleted.

babaracus

As far as I see it there are 4 reasons why people would wish smoking to be banned in public, two of which are oft repeated in any smoking debate:

1. They object to the litter it causes: Littering is already an offence. More bins need to be provided in Irish cities full stop (not just for smoking litter) but councils actually appear to be removing bins due to cost cutting! Smokers who throw cigarette butts on the ground should be fined as should anybody else who litters. At the moment there is essentially no sanction for walking along with a packet of crisps, finishing them and tossing the bag over your shoulder and the amount of people who do it, in cities at least, is infuriating. Fine as many litterers as possible to try and improve behaviour, it should be easy to recoup enforcement costs from fines so could be cost neutral.

2. Second hand smoke dangers. An absolute irrelevance in an open air environment clogged with vehicle, coal, oil and gas fumes. Akin to blaming global warming on people lighting candles. Passive smoking may not even be all that harmful in itself, it is at least a hysteria completely unrelated to its actual effects. A recent study of people who lived in houses with smokers over 40 years (inhaling second hand smoke in an internal environment) found that the increased risk of cancer among the non smoking spouse exposed daily for many many years was negligible. Radon gas is far more dangerous and causes 10% of lung cancer causes - often the ones blamed on passive smoking I would guess - "sure he never smoked a day in his life Joe". All the people I know who died of lung cancer were smokers themselves.

3. To deter people from smoking. Yes, it probably would but that is an unacceptable intrusion into personal freedom. We all should have the right to do whatever we wish to ourselves once it does not harm others. I would include alcohol and drugs here. If I want to drink myself to death or smoke myself to death that is not James Reilly's business, Leo Varadkar's business or any body elses business. The next argument will inevitably be "but it costs the health service a fortune". Living to 90 costs the state a fortune, people who shuffle off at 60 are financial patriots. Open your mind and do the maths.

4. To make it socially unacceptable/unusual in order to deter children from taking up the habit. Nanny state nonsense.

Many Irish people love nothing more than controlling the lives of others. Leave people who do you no harm alone.

Johnboy1951

babaracus wrote: »

Living to 90 costs the state a fortune, people who shuffle off at 60 are financial patriots. Open your mind and do the maths.

P_1

At present I'd have to say banning smoking in ALL outdoor areas is totally unworkable. Banning it around say, bus shelters is probably possible but out on the street? Not a chance. Even hospitals calling themselves 'smoke free campuses' is farcical and quite unsafe for patients who smoke.

And don't get me started on those in authority who consider vaping to be the same as smoking.

Johnboy1951

P_1 wrote: »

At present I'd have to say banning smoking in ALL outdoor areas is totally unworkable. Banning it around say, bus shelters is probably possible but out on the street? Not a chance. Even hospitals calling themselves 'smoke free campuses' is farcical and quite unsafe for patients who smoke.

And don't get me started on those in authority who consider vaping to be the same as smoking.

Heck it is possible to ban smoking completely ...... but it is not what is possible we should be discussing, but what would benefit most people.

Maybe where you live ye have fully enclosed bus shelters, but those I have used are open to the street ..... and thus all the fumes of passing traffic, not least that of the buses themselves.

So what is the real point of banning smoking near such shelters?
Cannot be for health reasons .....

Bepolite

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Heck it is possible to ban smoking completely ...... but it is not what is possible we should be discussing, but what would benefit most people.

Maybe where you live ye have fully enclosed bus shelters, but those I have used are open to the street ..... and thus all the fumes of passing traffic, not least that of the buses themselves.

So what is the real point of banning smoking near such shelters?
Cannot be for health reasons .....

That's an unknown AFAIK. I've not seen the data on passive smoking and proximity, people seem to break them down into 'open air' and 'enclosed'. I believe the Scots would have based their ban on more than common courtesy but I could be wrong.

It comes down to choice. I choose not to stand in a plume of cigarette smoke. No one has the right to remove that choice from me. Because I'm not the one with an addiction problem I'm not the one that requires the rules to be set.

Perhaps the cafe idea a la Netherlands.

One of the issues here was that this thread was linked to the idea of legalising cannabis, some of stricter elements of a total ban were linked to that. It makes sense, imo, simply to have a policy on all smoked substances. At the very least that should be a ban in all areas where people congregate.

Johnboy1951

Bepolite wrote: »

One of the issues here was that this thread was linked to the idea of legalising cannabis, some of stricter elements of a total ban were linked to that. It makes sense, imo, simply to have a policy on all smoked substances. At the very least that should be a ban in all areas where people congregate.

I see no logic in banning one version of an objectionable 'fume/smell' and not banning all others too.

I am open to persuasion on that and would welcome someone explaining the logic to me.

Bepolite

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I see no logic in banning one version of an objectionable 'fume/smell' and not banning all others too.

I am open to persuasion on that and would welcome someone explaining the logic to me.

This argument has been made before and while you're entitled to your opinion, everyone objects on some level to things going on in their environment. If they didn't whole areas of planning law would become redundant.

Is it really you're position that no smell/fume is offensive? Do you really not understand there is a hierarchy of social utility? If you don't that's fine but it would completely undermine your argument.

Johnboy1951

Is it really you're position that no smell/fume is offensive?

Of course not ....... I asked for the logic in banning one and not others.

I could understand if the one being singled out caused some serious health issues for everyone.
I could even understand if it was singled out because it was much more costly to the exchequer than any other.

So what is the logic in proposing a ban on smoking in the open air?

Bepolite

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Of course not ....... I asked for the logic in banning one and not others.

I could understand if the one being singled out caused some serious health issues for everyone.
I could even understand if it was singled out because it was much more costly to the exchequer than any other.

So what is the logic in proposing a ban on smoking in the open air?

I'm sorry I don't understand your logic. You've made the point you don't understand banning one thing over another, now you're asking specifically about smoking?

I've made my position rather clear, its fine if you don't agree with it but resorting to a well rehearsed obfuscation isn't arguing the merits of a particular position. If I've misunderstood I apologise, but I don't buy the 'if you're banning one thing you must therefore ban another. A corollary would be banning a string quartet on Grafton Street because we don't allow someone to stand there singing the first three lines of Danny boy over and over again.

Perhaps an even better analogy would be we don't allow the same string quartet to play at 1am in a residential area but we allow someone to drive home down the road. One is a nuisance the other has social utility.

Mountainsandh

Nanny state, ridiculous idea.
Legalise cannabis, and let people live their lives for Heaven's sake.

I'm an ex smoker,but strongly dislike the smoke, and even smell of fags off someone's clothes or breath now.

Right, I dislike it, big deal.

I dislike strong peppery perfumes too, BO, and patchouli or other spicy scents some people deliberately wear. Big deal.

It is not a ridiculous notion, and is totally relevant to this discussion, to state that other people in society will indeed "do" things and make choices others won't like. Hair colour, tattoos, piercings, attire, smoking, burping, spitting, sniffing, smelling rank... Scratching something in public, wearing loud earphones, talking on your phone, chewing gum...
Need I go on ?

It is not right to outlaw a behaviour because some dislike it.

I want to keep my kids off the fags when they grow up, and would prefer them to smell lightly sweet, not spit and not adopt some of the behaviour we all witness around us in every day life, but I strongly feel none of these should be outlawed, including smoking of whatever substance.
I hope my kids will be clever and educated enough to simply respect others' choices without following suit.

Bepolite

None of the things on your list involve a chemical addiction, few remove someone else's choice. Some of them are are illegal in certain circumstances.

Johnboy1951

Bepolite wrote: »

I'm sorry I don't understand your logic. You've made the point you don't understand banning one thing over another, now you're asking specifically about smoking?

Yes ..... hardly surprising since that is what this thread is about!

I've made my position rather clear, its fine if you don't agree with it but resorting to a well rehearsed obfuscation isn't arguing the merits of a particular position. If I've misunderstood I apologise, but I don't buy the 'if you're banning one thing you must therefore ban another. A corollary would be banning a string quartet on Grafton Street because we don't allow someone to stand there singing the first three lines of Danny boy over and over again.

Please don't mis-quote and mis-represent my posts ...... I asked what is the logic of doing so with regards to smoking in public.

You have not attempted to answer that, yet accuse me of obfuscation?

Perhaps an even better analogy would be we don't allow the same string quartet to play at 1am in a residential area but we allow someone to drive home down the road. One is a nuisance the other has social utility.

That is not even attempting to answer the question posed.

If you wish or can, please show me the logic behind the banning of smoking in public whilst other more health-damaging and personally intrusive items are ignored.

Bepolite

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Yes ..... hardly surprising since that is what this thread is about!

If you don't wish to engage with the subject you've no need to.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Please don't mis-quote and mis-represent my posts ...... I asked what is the logic of doing so with regards to smoking in public.

You have not attempted to answer that, yet accuse me of obfuscation?

Perhaps it became more difficult to follow because this thread was split out form the cannabis thread - see post #3

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

That is not even attempting to answer the question posed.

As I indicated I'm somewhat lost in relation to exactly what it is you're asking.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

If you wish or can, please show me the logic behind the banning of smoking in public whilst other more health-damaging and personally intrusive items are ignored.

I've not made any statement on other unenumerated issues. To what are you referring?

Mountainsandh

Bepolite wrote: »

None of the things on your list involve a chemical addiction, few remove someone else's choice. Some of them are are illegal in certain circumstances.

I think if someone wishes to become chemically addicted to something, that is their own choice.

For example some people are OK to get chemically addicted to anti-depressants, that is their choice.
Some people may get chemically addicted to pain killers, that is their choice.
Some people choose to do things that are illegal. Their poor choice.

Bad choices, depending on one's opinion, but all theirs to make.

How does smoking whatever substance out in the open air remove someone else's choice ?

It is a given that buildings/indoors are out of the equation, with the smoking ban.

A park, along the pavement, on a patio outside a hospital, under a shelter outside a pub or a company ... these are places where the smoke needs not affect others.
It's all about courtesy and manners, not law or bans.

I know in my case, if people are smoking outside a pub and I find that particular spot gets a bit too smoked up, I simply walk a few steps further. Don't need to get someone fined for their smoke wafting a bit my way.

Bepolite

Mountainsandh wrote: »

How does smoking whatever substance out in the open air remove someone else's choice ?

I choose not to smoke. Not for health reasons, I'm not a particularly healthy person. I chose not to engage in the habit as I've seen what it does to people. I also chose not to do it because of the smell, rubbish and thought of not being in control of myself. People filling up the outdoor areas in pubs, smoking in bus shelters and walking along, especially in crowded areas in Dublin removes that choice from me. I've no choice but to breath in cigarette smoke.

Oddly enough it has already been put forward in parks and on beaches because of the litter. The point on enforcement there is well taken to be fair, it's as easy to fine someone for littering than for smoking. That said why should I move because someone wants to light-up near me? If I was there having sex on the beach someone would ask me to stop (honestly they wouldn't join in), but what harm am I doing?

It is a given that buildings/indoors are out of the equation, with the smoking ban.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

It's all about courtesy and manners, not law or bans.

Actually I don't disagree with this as far as it goes. Unfortunately smokers seem to be rather tough group to put manner on, coupled with the suggestion of legalising cannabis and cocaine, which I agree with, a ban to me seem the only way. That said, I suppose there is room to keep cannabis in private use only and maintain the staus quo in relation to tobacco. That said I will be very surprised if we don't have a more restrictive ban withing 5 years, in relation to places where people congregate.

Mountainsandh

But what I don't understand in your argument Bepolite, is why you would put yourself in the situation of breathing the smoke ?

The outdoor areas for pubs are mostly designed for smokers. How many beer gardens were there before the smoking ban ?
If the people smoking are not your friends in a beer garden, you are free to move to a further seat. If they are your friends, I am sure they would either a) understand your discomfort and move accordingly, or b) understand why you are moving seats.

In a beer garden situation/smokers' space outside a pub, there is absolutely nothing to entitle you the non-smoker, over the smoker.
You want your pleasurable experience, they want it too.
There is nothing forcing you to choose that particular pub, and that particular spot outside, where you are exposed to smoke.

If a pub's outdoor area is too cramped for your liking, well then maybe consider another pub, or maybe stay at home. After all, I know a lot of smokers who have made the choice to stay at home (and have house gatherings if they so wish) because they did not wish to smoke in the outdoor area of a pub.

They made that choice, and you can too.

The argument that it is unhealthy for them as well as you is not a valid argument to ban the thing. Loud music can harm your and every body else's ears, and yet some pubs and discos have loud music. Do you go to loud music pubs ? (I know I don't !) You choose the pub setting that pleases you most accordingly.

Smokers areas outside offices and factories are just that : areas. Why would you wish to stand in the same area if you don't like the smoke ?

It seems your best argument is that when you walk by you have to breathe the smoke.
Ok, you do, that's not nice.

Come on though, that's you just walking by, that's not going to harm you in the few seconds you are walking by, in an outdoor setting.
That is similar to breathing somebody's BO for the length of time it takes you to overtake them.

I have noticed that in airports, and hospitals, before the full ban came on, they usually kept the smokers' areas away from the main doors. I was a smoker, and I stuck to it, as most other smokers did. That meant people coming out of the main doors might get a faint scent of tobacco for a few seconds from far away, rather than them having to walk through the smoke. Surely tolerance levels should stretch to that, it is petty to argue something should be outlawed when a reasonable compromise has been reached in these instances.

Like you said, fines (or warnings in a company setting) should be dished out for not abiding by these rules, and the litter rules, and really in my opinion, that would be quite enough.

Now that I've quit smoking, I hate the smell, and have to walk through my co-workers whom I used to smoke with outside the door every morning coming in, and suffer their stink in gathering rooms at work. But hey, that's ok, that's no biggie, the second hand smoke exposure is negligible. The discomfort is on a par with smelling that really strong perfume on somebody else in the staff room

edit : I have seen anti-social behaviour mentioned earlier in the thread too should cannabis be legalized, I think it would be the opposite in fact, and late hours in towns and encounters with certain crowds in chippers would be a lot more peaceful if they were stoned rather than drunk. (don't touch the stuff myself, but I have worked with people in both states ie drunk vs stoned. Much easier to deal with stoned !)

Bepolite

Mountainsandh wrote: »

But what I don't understand in your argument Bepolite, is why you would put yourself in the situation of breathing the smoke ?

The outdoor areas for pubs are mostly designed for smokers. How many beer gardens were there before the smoking ban ?
If the people smoking are not your friends in a beer garden, you are free to move to a further seat. If they are your friends, I am sure they would either a) understand your discomfort and move accordingly, or b) understand why you are moving seats.

In a beer garden situation/smokers' space outside a pub, there is absolutely nothing to entitle you the non-smoker, over the smoker.
You want your pleasurable experience, they want it too.
There is nothing forcing you to choose that particular pub, and that particular spot outside, where you are exposed to smoke.

If a pub's outdoor area is too cramped for your liking, well then maybe consider another pub, or maybe stay at home. After all, I know a lot of smokers who have made the choice to stay at home (and have house gatherings if they so wish) because they did not wish to smoke in the outdoor area of a pub.

They made that choice, and you can too.

That's a lot of words for both parties have a choice. Yes they do. I'm suggesting they shouldn't. Smoking creates an area around them that is undesirable for the majority. While individual rights should not always be overridden my the majority in this case I disagree.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The argument that it is unhealthy for them as well as you is not a valid argument to ban the thing. Loud music can harm your and every body else's ears, and yet some pubs and discos have loud music. Do you go to loud music pubs ? (I know I don't !) You choose the pub setting that pleases you most accordingly.

?

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Smokers areas outside offices and factories are just that : areas. Why would you wish to stand in the same area if you don't like the smoke ?

Where I work they're impossible to avoid, fairly well demarked though with all the litter despite the bins and designated area at the side of the building.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

It seems your best argument is that when you walk by you have to breathe the smoke.
Ok, you do, that's not nice.

Come on though, that's you just walking by, that's not going to harm you in the few seconds you are walking by, in an outdoor setting.
That is similar to breathing somebody's BO for the length of time it takes you to overtake them.

This is a well worn argument, it's actually like walking past people constantly spraying something anyone who suggests they wouldn't be annoyed by several people spraying them on their walk to work is simply lying I'm afraid.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I have noticed that in airports, and hospitals, before the full ban came on, they usually kept the smokers' areas away from the main doors. I was a smoker, and I stuck to it, as most other smokers did. That meant people coming out of the main doors might get a faint scent of tobacco for a few seconds from far away, rather than them having to walk through the smoke. Surely tolerance levels should stretch to that, it is petty to argue something should be outlawed when a reasonable compromise has been reached in these instances.

Why not simply keep it to the privacy of your own home? Simple answer is you are not physically able to because of your addiction. That to me is not a good enough reason. What you do in the privacy of your own home is your concern, public behavior is regulated in all sorts of ways.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Like you said, fines (or warnings in a company setting) should be dished out for not abiding by these rules, and the litter rules, and really in my opinion, that would be quite enough.

Now that I've quit smoking, I hate the smell, and have to walk through my co-workers whom I used to smoke with outside the door every morning coming in, and suffer their stink in gathering rooms at work. But hey, that's ok, that's no biggie, the second hand smoke exposure is negligible. The discomfort is on a par with smelling that really strong perfume on somebody else in the staff room

The difference is with someone perfume, is that if someone said it the probable response would be to be reasonable about it. Certainly if that person was spraying perfume on you, accidentally, I'm sure they would be nothing but apologetic. That is the case with some smokers, the vast majority however, it's not. This stems from addiction, where people are not fully in control of themselves, bans become necessary.

Mountainsandh

"Creating an area" around oneself that is undesirable to others ?
People being "annoyed" because they get a seconds' worth of spray as they pass someone in the street (where, presumably, they could have bypassed situation unless in Venice maybe) ?

Again, you are suggesting that the chemical addiction of others to something gives you (non addicted) the right to outlaw their right, because in your view, something is undesirable or annoying. Basically you seem to imply that since what they are doing is unhealthy, their rights are less than yours.

I think we're going to go in circles in this discussion you and me because my simple outlook is that :
a) whether someone else does something detrimental to their health or not is not something that should be regulated by law, or that Others should have a veto over.
b) there is a scale of "undesirable" to "annoying" to "intolerable" that justifies laws and bans at a certain level for you and a whole different level for me.

I sincerely hope no more will be done in terms of law in that regard, other than implementing the current litter or civic regulations and actually handing out the fines for non compliance.
And I would support legalisation of cannabis, with the same rights to smoke outdoors and in regulated areas for users (as other smokers), although I hate that smell too and it would surely put me off my sandwich for all of 20 seconds.

Bepolite

Mountainsandh wrote: »

"Creating an area" around oneself that is undesirable to others ?
People being "annoyed" because they get a seconds' worth of spray as they pass someone in the street (where, presumably, they could have bypassed situation unless in Venice maybe) ?

Again, you are suggesting that the chemical addiction of others to something gives you (non addicted) the right to outlaw their right, because in your view, something is undesirable or annoying. Basically you seem to imply that since what they are doing is unhealthy, their rights are less than yours.

I think we're going to go in circles in this discussion you and me because my simple outlook is that :
a) whether someone else does something detrimental to their health or not is not something that should be regulated by law, or that Others should have a veto over.
b) there is a scale of "undesirable" to "annoying" to "intolerable" that justifies laws and bans at a certain level for you and a whole different level for me.

I sincerely hope no more will be done in terms of law in that regard, other than implementing the current litter or civic regulations and actually handing out the fines for non compliance.
And I would support legalisation of cannabis, with the same rights to smoke outdoors and in regulated areas for users (as other smokers), although I hate that smell too and it would surely put me off my sandwich for all of 20 seconds.

The point you keep missing is, non-smokers are not the one's creating the issue, hence they should not have to make allowances, smokers should.

Will a complete open air ban ever happen? Probably not. We will see a ban in area where people gather within thew next few years - how strictly this will be enforced is another story. I also suspect that as vaping ect becomes more prevalent we will see more and more restrictions placed on smoking.

Mountainsandh

What issue ?

That someone cannot walk in the exact spot they want to walk because a smoker is having a cigarette there ?


That someone cannot sit in the exact seat they wanted because a smoker is sitting next to it ?


That someone has to smell something unpleasant for a few seconds, possibly a few short times a day ?


The smokers are really not the ones creating the issue here IMO, if issue there is.


Once again, it is not a health concern, that has been addressed with the smoking ban.


It all boils down to your tolerance levels of others exercising their right to live as they wish, while possibly causing you some slight degree of inconvenience.


If I'm driving ahead of you at 50mph in a 60mph zone, I am going to cause you some inconvenience, maybe even stress, if you are the 60mph type, but I am perfectly entitled to do so, and it does not grant you permission to ban me from driving.

Bepolite

As you've said a circular argument. We've both made our positions clear, thank you for your input.