FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Partial Smoking ban breaches human rights - UK





710ths
The Uk's Governmant plans to allow smoking in some pubs and private clubs could breach human rights was revealed today.

But whos human rights are we talking about; the bar staff in danger of second hand smoking or the smokers rights to smoke.

A total ban is what is needed none of this messing around giving exemption to exclusive private clubs.

Before anyone asks, I am a smoker, but trying to give it up, a ban would help.

Your comments please.
Bondings
Smoking should be forbidden in every public space, including bars, restaurants and offices. People have the right to smoke, but they don't have the right to let me or anyone else (passively) smoke.
tidruG
Breach human rights?
Humans have been given basic rights to smoke where they want? Laughing

I think I agree with you... smoking should be banned in places where there is a clear danger to other people of passive smoking.
a.han
I have always wondered why we can't just have smoking pubs and non smoking pubs and offer some sort of monetary incentive to encourage non-smoking pubs.

This way its the choice of the consumer and then surely no rights are breached.
tidruG
a.han wrote:
I have always wondered why we can't just have smoking pubs and non smoking pubs and offer some sort of monetary incentive to encourage non-smoking pubs.

This way its the choice of the consumer and then surely no rights are breached.

Good point. Generally, most restaurants have a Smoking and Non-Smoking section. I suppose working along these lines will benefit both the smoking community as well as the non-smokers.
SunburnedCactus
The partial ban refers mainly to pubs that serve food, and places like dingy old men's clubs are exempted. I suppose they'd lose their "atmosphere" otherwise. It still seems like pussyfooting to me though. A blanket ban has been successful in Ireland and is likely to follow in Scotland, yet despite it being popular opinion in England for some reason they have come to this lame compromise. Confused
SunburnedCactus
UPDATE: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1684007,00.html?gusrc=rss

Seems a total ban is much more likely now. Good news I'd say. They must have been reading this forum. Wink
CamiBor
i think that people shouldn't smoke in public buldings and places because it can cause other people's desseas
silvermesh
this very issue came up in local city government quite recently. what was on the table originally was a partial ban, where bars and pubs would be spared(just no smoking in restaraunts, etc.). What ended up being passed was a total ban. Although I am a non-smoker, and although I HAVE felt benefit from this total ban, I still oppose it.

what it really comes down to has little to do with human rights. you have the right to not go to a place where people do things that you don't like. what right do you have to say "I want to go there, so YOU have to change."?
Its stepping on one persons CURRENT rights, to allow for anothers THEORETICAL rights. While I agree that smoking is a filthy habit, if they want to make it illegal, they should ban the sale, not the use. I'm not of the opinion that either is necessary. If there is enough demand for non-smoking pubs, they will happen in a free trade society, because people will pay for the pleasure of drinking in a clean-air establishment. the right thing to do would be to provide tax incentive for smoke-free establishments, if one wanted to weed out smoking.

I don't see how one person ever has a right for other people to not do something in a place where that opposed person doesn't ever have to go near.
ocalhoun
It's already illigal here
In the whole of Florida, it is illigal to smoke in any resturaunt or any bar that serves food.
This was effected by a vote from the public a few years ago, and is now enforced. (I voted for it)
Individuals smoking in resturaunts are rarely prosecuted, the resturaunt itself is given a stiff fine (I heard $2,000) for each instance. (four people smoking at one table would warrant a fine of $8,000)
710ths
Thanks for all your replys so far.

Role on the total bad. At least may give me more incentive to give it up.
Bondings
silvermesh wrote:
I don't see how one person ever has a right for other people to not do something in a place where that opposed person doesn't ever have to go near.

You are sitting in a bar or restaurant, eating your meal. Then a few people come in, sit next to you and start to smoke intensively. So not only it bothers you a lot, some people also get allergic/asthmatic reactions and it's very bad for your health. So this should be allowed?

You are working in a room completely filled with smoke due to some people constantly smoking. This for tens of years, every day. Your body reacts very bad for it and you get severe diseases, not even speaking of cancer.
Quote:
During an asthma episode, inflamed airways react to environmental triggers such as smoke, dust, or pollen. The airways narrow and produce excess mucus, making it difficult to breathe.

So that person should get a different job?
a.han
I agree with a lot of stuff said here but still disagree with a total ban. A lot of people smoke because they really really enjoy a smoke and its their choice. A partial ban (chosen by places serving food as currently suggested) in my opinion isn't practice. Like someone said before, providing tax incentives to non-smoking pubs is a much better.

This ban is only controversial because essentially the the option for the public to choose is taken away. Having smoking and non smoking pubs at least gives everyone (staff and customers) a fair choice.

Doing things this way will probably allow a more gradual and smoother change.
Bondings
a.han wrote:
I agree with a lot of stuff said here but still disagree with a total ban. A lot of people smoke because they really really enjoy a smoke and its their choice.

The discussion is about smoking in public spaces, not about a total ban. I certainly don't want to ban smoking. Some people choose to smoke and it is their right to do so as long as they don't harm other people with it - which they do if they smoke in public spaces like planes, trains, restaurants, bars, bus stations or at work.
superphysics
Smoking is one of the worst things that one can do to mutilate himself/herself. It kills slowly and steadily, it is proven. Any kind of smoking is the same. And the people round you suffer as well. Banning is a fundamental right for those people who do not want to become passive smokers.
monkeystravels
Im a non-smoker who works behind a bar, so I suffer from second-hand smoke. Thus I support a ban. Although as I work in a private members club that does not serve food, such policy will probably not apply. Fortunately my workplace has recently been equipped with high quality smoke extractors.
dray101
What about the Staff of these places?

tidruG wrote:
Generally, most restaurants have a Smoking and Non-Smoking section. I suppose working along these lines will benefit both the smoking community as well as the non-smokers.


The people working in these places will almost be forced to work in the smoking section as well as the non-smoking section. The can't exactly say "Sorry Sir, but I don't want to do that bit of work". They will be fired and most people with jobs like that can't get any other job(s) and are stuck for money.

And who would want to work in a place like that anyway, I don't think even smokers like second hand smoke and I think everyone (including smokers) hates the repercussions of first and second hand smoking!
Dark_Jedi06
Just ban it in public, everywhere, no exceptions.

You want to smoke and slowly kill yourself, then do it in your own home and don't force other people to inhale your crappy second-hand smoke. It's sickening.
KungFuChris
I'm certainly for some kind of smoking ban, however I think perhaps a full out blanket ban may cause it's own problems at this stage. The streets will be lined with people outside clubs/pubs etc puffing away.

Personally, I would suggest a more enforced version of the designated smoking area policy that is in place in many public areas e.g. a seperate, well ventilated room. These areas could be inspected in much the same way food establishments are checked for hygiene, and perhaps they are required to be 'lisenced' for a fee, meaning that some areas may have a total ban in any case to avoid this.

Later then once this is settled down and people are more used to not being able to smoke everywhere, then a total ban could be put in place a lot more smoothly.
Animal
In Scotland, a total ban is being introduced in March. There's a really good commercial about it on the TV.

Basically, it follows a woman going through several stages of being smoked at, getting Cancer etc:

Passive Smoking - it's a bit of a nuisance

Being ill all the time, that's a bit of a nuisance

Going to hospital... that's a bit of a nuisance

Chaemotherapy, that's a nuisance

Dying. That's a real nuisance.

Passive smoking's more than just a nuisance... it's a killer.

Maybe not so hard hitting when typed on a forum, but on TV it's pretty powerful. I fully agree with the ban - I'm sick of feeling like the one who's in the wrong when I want to move away from somewhere because a lot of people are smoking.
benwhite
Not only to staff, but smoke has also been show to be harmful to pregnant women and their children.

The point is, people don't want to be adversely affected by the personal decisions of others. It's one thing for someone to smoke, it's a whole 'nother for that person to bring their personal choice to a place where it affects people who do not share it. In the end, that's a selfish decision. Tyranny of the majority makes this reasonable.

The US government, for example, takes drugs off the market that cause adverse effects, even if the people taking them want to continue. Take vioxx. Some people bemoan not being able to take it, but it's harmful to the heart and so is prohibited. In this way, it's not surprising the governments around the world are trying to limit the damage of smoking. It's one thing to prohibit their use, that could be considered intrusive. But in a public area, an individual sacrifices some of their personal freedoms to function in society. Smoking is becoming one of those things.

Dallas already has a law in place for resturants and such. However, because the city is actually made up for several different smaller "cities" that change every few miles, one can still go to resturants that allow it within a ten minute drive. Oh well.
wolfhnd
Passive smoking in the context of a well ventilated Bar has got to be way low on the list of cancer causes.
d722002
The City of Chicago, Illinois has done a similar thing, banning smoking in all public places, including bars. This, in my opinion, is a breach of some kind of rights, and a breach of tradition. You go to a bar either to drink, watch tv, pick up girls, or smoke.
Jeslyn
New York has also banned it - I think they were one of the first states to do so, but I could be misinformed. I'm actually glad they banned it.

I remember, when I was still living in DC, about reading an article in the newspaper about some woman who was adament about believing that the government was discriminating against her as a smoker, and was actually attempting to sue. The hilarious part was her arguement, it was completely absurd, there was no rhyme or reason to it. I tried searching for the article online, but I can't find it... if I do, I'll try to post it. Some of the things she said... Laughing
biga57
superphysics wrote:
Smoking is one of the worst things that one can do to mutilate himself/herself. It kills slowly and steadily, it is proven. Any kind of smoking is the same. And the people round you suffer as well. Banning is a fundamental right for those people who do not want to become passive smokers.


Well, first: I am not a smoker .Second: I enjoy smokefree places. Third : I think it is time to realize that these "talebanic" and "fundamentalist" laws banning any tipe of smoking anywhere are deeply damaging the basic right of the human being that is :Freedon to have a choice!

We have a choice to go to vegetarian restaurants or normal ones. We have a choice to go to movies or theatre...why not a choice to go to smokefree pubs or disco instead of the ones where smoking is allowed ??

This all thing about smoking is crazy. Governaments fill their coffers with taxes levied on tobacco related products. Governaments shoud be concerned that smoke inducted diseases like cancer dent into the public healthcare system and take away precious money. Governaments collect too much tax money to be really trusted to help fighting the smoking habit.

I think another issue the non smokers should be deeply concerned is how much of their paid taxes is spent to cure those patients with smoke related illness.

Finally to comment on the quote, I do not think that smoke is one of the worse things. Eating too much , and too many fattening things is a worse killer nowdays. Over eating is as bad as smoking. Look how many people in the US or Europe are now obese. Kids are all overweight.
Smoking can cause cancer but eating can cause heart attacks , ictus , and many other related diseases.

I think we should stard banning "Eating Too Much" as it is the next bad thing to smoking.
animefanlee
well smoaking may be bad but it sure does not cause as many deaths as the damn drunks on the road the health nazie go after the smoakers but still drink and drive i rather be on the road with smaokers then people that are drunk
benwhite
We do have the right to make choice, but only when they don't harm others.

I might like to be naked I might like to blast my music loud. But if I walk nude in public, that's a no-no. If my music keeps my neighbors awake, that's also a problem. This is no different. We retain freedom only in situations where our choices don't adverely affect those around us. If you want to argue against a medding progressivist government, that's one thing. But this development has lots of precedent.

And as for bars...I prefer coming home at night without the 10 pounds of smoke in my hair. Nothing is grosser than taking a shower and smelling the smoke coming out of your hair. Well, I suppose the pictures of mouth and lung cancer are worse.

Second-hand smoke is detrimental, that's scientifically valid. Moreover, it's been shown that even one cigarette is significantly worse than none for your health. If you go to concerts and bars frequently, as people often do in their 20's in the US, you end up smoking several packs over the course of the years. That is bad. As bad as smoking yourself? Nah, course not. But worse than if you weren't exposed at all? You bet.
MWANGI
a.han wrote

Quote:


I agree with a lot of stuff said here but still disagree with a total ban. A lot of people smoke because they really really enjoy a smoke and its their choice. A partial ban (chosen by places serving food as currently suggested) in my opinion isn't practice. Like someone said before, providing tax incentives to non-smoking pubs is a much better.

This ban is only controversial because essentially the the option for the public to choose is taken away. Having smoking and non smoking pubs at least gives everyone (staff and customers) a fair choice.

Doing things this way will probably allow a more gradual and smoother change.



I totally agree. At least this makes sense compared to the apartheid that was once in S> Africa
Idea Idea
joshdifabio
People shouldn't be forced to have to put up with smoke at their favourite pub or find another pub or something. I think any smokers who believe they have a right to smoke in public and damage the health of others who have chosen not to smoke are plain selfish.
Nick87
I think it should be allowed in bars to smoke. It's indeed a tradition. I don't smoke everyday but sometimes I do like a cigar or a cigarette with my drink in a bar. In the Netherlands we have a smoking ban in theaters cinemas and other public places. Most of our restaurants have non smoking areas and I think if you want to go out in a smoking free area. Create one. Make a non-smoking bar and enjoy it. That's your choise. But let me go to my smoking bar and let me enjoy my cigarette when I'm drinking my beer.
I think if you want to go to a bar you know beforehand there will be people smoking. So deal with it, or don't go.
Carl
No one has the right to stop someones Humans right but then isnt someone coming into a Restruant/pub/bar and smoking next to a non smoker in breach of those home rights or vice a verse.

i dont think there will ever be an easy option to get around this growing problem. they have tried many ways but now it is getting out of hand, Iam talking about the story about a women who got sacked from her Job because she is a Smoker. She wasnt smoking inside the buliding so how could that be affecting her Colleges.

I personally say we do what they did in one pub where they put a sheltered area outside of the buliding and say that is a smoking area, i personally know that 95% of smokers will not have a problem of going outside to smoke. Put then if you stop smoking in a public area isnt a park or Flat blocks a public area.

In rare cases what about people how have to take it for medication i dont mean Ciggarette i mean drugs to help people. Should they be banned to.
toshlad
Firstly, let me give you some background on where I'm coming from with my comments.

I live in the Republic of Ireland where a totoal ban on smoking is in place in ANY public enlosed area.

I am also a smoker.

It's really nice to go in to my local pub and not have to deal with all the residual smoke even though I myself am a smoker.

The other thing it has done here in Ireland is make smoking a more social gathering as anyone who wishes to smoke has to go to a designated area outside the public building which means to get to chat to people of a like mind.

There was only limited resistance to the ban and the press made more of it than actually happend.

For staff working in pubs and clubs, they are now no longer at risk of secondary smoke damage to their health.

Bring in the ban in the UK as an ex UK resident, not only should they ban smoking as we have done in the Republic but also they should change to the Euro asap.!! Maybe that's another topic for another time Smile
animefanlee
actually the owner of the pub should have more say then the government but unlike the us england has no constutition and the health nazies can do basically what they want
srdjan
I think this issue is fairly simple to resolve in a totally piecefull and non radical way. There are people who enjoy smoking (like myself) and the others who are bothered greatly.

Well I say ban it, let me smoke in my private space, I don't wanna be responsibile for any asthma seizures, heart attacks, deaths, cancers and all the other bs..

But, the only reason I'm saying this is not because I care so much about all of you non smokers whose rights are broken (remember that you are breaking mine just the same), but because smoking is kind of an ugly habbit, disgusting too! So no one should even watch me smoke and enjoy it, let alone inhale my smoke and cancer. Doesn't everybody agree?

S.
Soulfire
I agree that a total ban would help. While the rights of a non-smoker and a smoker are (or should be) the same, the smoker is putting the non-smoker in a health hazard, and I believe that trumps the smoker's right to smoke wherever s/he pleases. If you need to smoke that bad, step outside for a few minutes, it's not that hard.
Jeslyn
I believe there should be a complete smoking ban. To say that it's discrimination even though others are being harmed is heinous.

It's the equivalent of having me drive all around the streets at crazy speeds and hitting anyone I pass, and then saying that it's my right to drive at 150 mph, and anyone who I hit shouldn't be on the road if they don't like it, go drive on another road. Rolling Eyes
benwhite
To a person who would say "Bars are for smoking, so you go there knowing there will be smoke, get over it"

I think the point is, in a lot of places, it is and will continue to be the opposite: "public places are for not smoking. If you want to give yourself cancer, you can go do it in a well ventilated corner somewhere far away"

I know lots and lots of smokers who don't enjoy smoking anymore. They did when they started, but now they simply feel enslaved to their cravings. It's been proven to be incredibly hazardous to your health. This trend won't stop, not since the world's governments know how dangerous it.
KungFuChris
toshlad wrote:

The other thing it has done here in Ireland is make smoking a more social gathering as anyone who wishes to smoke has to go to a designated area outside the public building which means to get to chat to people of a like mind.


I'm not sure how this is going to be implemented, at least in Scotland. For instance, the current news from the union in work is that there will be no designated smoking areas at all i.e. no smoking on the premises whatsoever, even outside.

Smokers will have to move a good 25m or so out to the nearest street where, and I quote the union member, "smokers will not be allowed to congregate in groups on the street".

Knowing the amount of smokers in the building, and no doubt the many others in surrounding businesses, I now have this image of my head of a line of people smoking all the way round the industrial estate! Shocked
raver
To everyone here i would like to ask you something...
Go watch episode 713 of SOuth Park.. It`s called Butt Out... and it discusses smoking...
talk later
Wink
lukeropro
Did you know that there is this spraying thing that you spray into your mouth and you won't feel like smoking anymore. I saw an ad on it on tv. I'm in singapore though, wonder if they have this product in your country
Reiji
Bondings wrote:
Smoking should be forbidden in every public space, including bars, restaurants and offices. People have the right to smoke, but they don't have the right to let me or anyone else (passively) smoke.


But there is still something.

I am a passive smoker, my parents smoke in our house right next to me. They are in their house, so they can do it here, but Im here too, so what is need is to stop the sell of cigar.

Thats a drug...if you legalized it, legalize the MJ (i dont use MJ ^^, but its relatively fair).
dray101
What I don't understand is why so much attention is on it (and similar laws) when there are laws like THE DEATH PENETY which should be way more controversial. I live in New Zealand so we don't have it but what about countries that do... and what about nuclear power/missiles/ships.

Are they not more important than smoking? Confused

Personally I'm more afraid of having by whole country blown up, the growth stunned and people growing extra limbs just because a nuclear power-plant became unstable in an earthquake.

I'm not going to smoke (and never have) and don't think I will die from second hand-smoke.

A nuclear war on the other hand...... Wink
Tumbleweed
I am a smoker.........but I would'nt mind a total ban in enclosed spaces... I dont think it will discourage people from smoking (sadly) and anyone who has been to a uk highschool bike shed area will tell you it wont stop people from starting to smoke.
atin
It kills and should be done in private with consenting adults only.
d722002
ah, wait, Elk Grove Village, IL just proposed a ban on the sale, distrobution, or use of cigarretes within the village, with the exception of inside your own home or out of public view (your backyard).
Jazz
dray101 wrote:
I'm not going to smoke (and never have) and don't think I will die from second hand-smoke.


Actually from scientific research loads of people die of passive smoking a year so i would just stay away from smokers especially the ones that are rude and blow smoke in your face Evil or Very Mad and it would make it more easy for smokers that want to give up to actually give up if it was against the law to smoke in public places. And by the way before any of you ask i am not a smoker and never will be, that is one reason that dray101 got totally correct. Oh yeah and to everyone "if you dont smoke now and never do in your life time science says you have less chance of dying young.
freedomandjustjuice
I am 23 year old who took up smoking in school at about 14, i managed to quit about a year ago and have since stopped having any cravings for cigarettes in pubs even when there is an ashtray on the table (I used to move then off my table when i first quit to avoid the assosciation!!) or someone smoking on my table.

I think if i hadn't been subjected to cigarette smoke in pubs etc it would have helped. My major problem though isn't really with the human rights aspect of smoking in public places but more with the responsable potrayal of habits to minors, if they see smokers are excluded from places and in some sense alienated then it doesn't seem so 'cool'.

So be a good role model and give the generally exploitative tobacco industry a big bloody shock!!


SEB
morat
a total ban would indeed imo not be the answer, a simple ban in places where there is a danger from second hand smoking would be a much more sensible approach, but i guess then we encounter the problem that is "who decides wher exactly there is a clear danger from secondhand smoke" ?

lets be sensible, let smokers smoke outside where there it is not, imo, possible to be accused of secondhand smoke issues

pubs/clubs should have the right to decide whether they are a smokers establishment or not

oh and yeh i do smoke Smile
benwhite
Of course there is second hand smoke outside, just less damange because it is dispersed into the air quickly and not circulating in a poorly ventilated room.

When you walk on the sidewalk in New York and smell the person smoking in front of you as walk into the smoke they blow, you're definitely getting your daily dose of second-hand smoke.

To many, the sensible thing is preventing millions of deaths annually. If the government in the US is willing to take drugs off the market that help people because they "may have contributed to elevated risk levels," do you find it odd that city governments have taken action against something they know is bad? It's been a while coming.
morat
well yeh i can see what your saying, new york has a slightly denser population than say a village in the high;ands of scotland Smile

ok in places like you say there would need to be a definatly more strick a'area' for smokers ...perhaps even a city-wide banning to alleviate the problem.

i do find it quite surprising that rather than attack the tobacco producers directly by declaring their 'harmful' product unsafe for human consumtion the releveant governments attack rather the 'innocent' addict.

i guess the governmenets in question dont want the added hasle of tobacco compnies suing for whatever reason, tobacco companies dont want the addicts sueing for whatever. so yeh ok lets make it all a problem for those addicted to smokling rather than tackle the problem head on. i know im rambling a bit and probab;y not making myself completely clear but i am quite amazed that so many think this is the way to go ..

stop companies from making and selling the tobacco, to me, would be much more sensble, well might give people like me the opportunity to gain some compensation for having been sold a harmful product, become addicted to it only to have it taken away ...

i guess us in the remoter areas dont have it so bad as we can continue smking reasonably safe in the nmowlege that nobody lives near enough to be effected by our nasty habit Smile
paul_indo
It's amazing how much attention smoking gets and that it can be banned so easily from public places and yet alcohol also causes many direct and indirect deaths every year and no one really seriously considers banning that.

I am a smoker and a drinker and I think it is my right to do that. I we have smoking and nonsmoking pubs or clubs that's fine. Many jobs have health hazards and those who do not wish to work in a smoking bar can work somewhere else.

I only started to smoke when I was over 30 and I never complained or felt a need to stop other people smoking. If I did not like it I could always walk away from it.

As many puople have said
Quote:
Whose human rights?

Do smokers not have any rights?

The world just keeps making more and more laws and rules for us and is life any better for it?

I don't think so.
Madkaz
I am an ex smoker living in ireland where the first smoking ban in europe was put in place, I find it to be much easier to forget about smoking since its not in my face all the time and especially since i belive once a smoke always a smoker it actually makes my life and everyone around me's life much easier and healthier!

The smoking ban rocks! And if we can do it in col d wet Ireland, anyone can!
Madkaz
smoking is a wast of time and energy, you get nothing positive from it, I smoke dope, drink alcahol, I am far from a tee totaller but why should I breadth in your second hand air? if you want to smoke od it in your own home, garden etc...
Paul Knight
If you want to smoke go outside. This should be the way of things in all countries.

Smoking is disgusting Mad
zluis
I dont smoke and never did.
But I respect the rights others have to smoke as long as they respect mines as non smoker, wich most times do not happen.
During the 3 years I spent in the Air force I was forced to make twice a day a 30 minutes ride in a closed van with 4 or 5 smokers. Sometimes the air was almost to thick to breath. When I asked them not to smoke they answered I should be gratefull to be allowed to smoke for free.
Those kind of answer made me angry. It also makes me angry when I see kids who think that they should smoke to be adults.
We speak about the freedom of choice, but does a kid who smokes because he wants to be considered a man, have freedom of choice? Or is he just beeing manipulated?
zluis
paul_indo wrote:
I

As many puople have said
Quote:
Whose human rights?

Do smokers not have any rights?

The world just keeps making more and more laws and rules for us and is life any better for it?

I don't think so.


No it is not a better place because the rullers don't use common sense. They just make laws and rules to hide behind them and to be excused for not using their inteligence.

Of course smokers have rights, as long as they remenber that they end where the others rights begin.
wowz
Smokers have the right to smoke.
I have the right to enjoy nonsmoke filled air - the smoker also has said right.

What if we're in the same room?

Some people, like myself, cannot be in a room of smoke due to allergies or medical issues. I have the right to be in the room like the smoker.

The smoker has the right to smoke, as stated earlier... but who said they have the right to smoke in my face? Not saying all do, but some will.. and the smoke blows around. They have the right to smoke all they want, that's why they made tobacco legal (although it never should have been). But no one ever said they have the right to smoke in close proximity to me. Smoke all you want at home, in your car, outdoors... Anywhere where the smoke is not comtained and infringing on other people's rights. You have rights as long as they don't infringe upon other people's. I have a right to freedom of speech, as long as it's not liable (ie spreading lies and rumors about someone else). I have the freedom of religion and religous ceremony, as long as it doesn't infringe upon other's rights (ie if I have human sacrifices - that's just a tad illegal).

Yes, the smoker has rights. But so does the nonsmoker. You can't work in a bar if you're allergic to nicotine or have bad asthma - that's an infringement on your rights. You have rights as long as they don't infringe on others. Think about it.
mikeymowse
I agree with any government trying to enforce the ban of smoking in public places. Pubs may be acceptable because of the nature of "The Pub" however the Pub should also have a proper ventilation system in order to clean the air so you do not get second hand smoke twice over. I live near a city that has just issued a city wide ordinance to ban smoking in all resaurants and I agree with it completely. However, if the establishment has proper ventilation to where a non-smoker can not tell that they are in a smoking restaurant, then the restaurant is allowed to have a smoking section. Personally, I can not stand smoke. I do not understand the desire to smoke, I do not understand the "peer pressure" to smoke, I do not understand "social smokers", and I do not understand the amount of money that is wasted on cigarettes. By now, people that are non-smokers KNOW the consequences of lighting up, so it baffles me as to why one would start to smoke in the 21st century. It is understandable back in the day before all the truths came out about smoking, but since then I can't figure out why people decide to put the stick-o-cancer in their mouth 25 times a day. It makes no sense to me whatsoever, but it is their choice. It makes me cough, my eyes itch and water, and makes me sneeze, so it would make even less sense for me to start smoking. Plus, I care about my body. That is enough ranting for now though, I have friends and family that smoke and I don't hate on them, I just don't like to see them killing their bodies.
PADRE[P.S.]
It should be allowed, but it must be warning, that people may smoke in this placement, so everybody, who goes there should know, that he(she) is wasting their health. You can do with your health all, what you want. Smile
Garg
Dark_Jedi06 wrote:
Just ban it in public, everywhere, no exceptions.



I'm a smoker. I don't mind not smoking for long hours while on a plane ride, I don't mind not smoking after a meal in a restaurant, i don't mind not smoking indoors if poeple can be annoyed (even in winter), but there's no way you'll ever get a ban on smoking everywhere with no exceptions !!

Fine, it inflicts bad things on bartenders and so on, i think most of us agree ! But I think there should be exceptions. Let's say you're in a restaurant in Stockholm and that it's -25C outside, there better be an indoor place where you can smoke !!! I don't care what you say !!!
Mike Schaefer
I can't stand being in a resturant when others are smoking. It completely kills my appetite. I have issues at work. They had designated smoking areas in the outside garage. This is a large garage but people still insisted on standing by the entrances. So they then moved all approved smoking areas to one location on an outdoor patio. However, it gets cold in Missour and the people are back in the garage. And lets talk about it being a productivity killer. I have a co-worker who must smoke at least two packs per day. He is never at his desk. Oh, and another pet peeve is when the heavy, heavy smokers use the elevator. They can step out on another floor and the elevator still smells.
metalwitch
I don't smoke and don't like it when in a restaurant, however in most places I do believe that it is your right to smoke where you want to if it is outdoors and don't conflict with others who do not wish to be breathing in your cancer, smokers should be more considerate, but not completely banned, it is one more freedom taken by our damn goverment. what's next can't wipe without permission?
zplitstonez
in the first place smoking should really be forbidden. I don't really understand why there is still a lot of people smoking, eventhough thou they know the risk and danger in smoking, Please value your life, GOD gave it to you without fee, take good care of it. coz, you know if you smoke you are wasting your money and killing your life softly. Don't smoke, value your life, someone loves you. GOD bless. Be a well educated being, don't be a fool.
Mishona
I am from Spain, and here we have a new law forbidding smoking in public places since Jan 1st. There has been a lot of controversial with the law, as we spanish are a country with a high percentage of smokers (I believe that cigarettes are quite cheap compared to the rest of Europe). But the law is a little bit complicated:

First of all, you cannot smoke at your work place, nor even in the coffee corners. You cannot put smoking rooms, smokers have to go out of the building. In some companies, it will be even forbidden to get out of the building to smoke, as they will lose time and it would be an unfair situation for people who don't smoke (that is what the company owners say, at least)

For restaurants and bars over 100m2 of surface, they have to set a smokers area, or forbid smoking everywhere. But many bars in Spain are less than 100m2, in this case they have to choose if they want to be a smoking bar or a non-smoking bar. For now, most bars have chosen to be smoking bars, as they are afraid that they will lose customers if they don't allow to smoke in (the ratio in my area is 70%-smokers against 30%-non smokers). The interesting thing would be to see if the non-smoking bars steal more customers from the smoking bars in the future, and the ratio is reversed. However, I don't think so.
spunblue
Well I've never been a tobacco user. I've never felt a craving for tobacco in any form. I could see how it is a violation of human rights on two counts. 1) The Craving could be so bad and people should not be subjected to such physical agony. 2) People can smoke. People can buy cigarettes... to be trully free, humans must be allowed to do everything that they are physically and mentally capable of. Of those two ideas, only the second one really has any weak spots. Smoking might hurt others... so does one have the right to hurt others simply because they can? Smoking can hurt the smoker.... so do people have the right to hurt themselves simply because they can?

I don't know the answers to those questions.... those were just a long winded way of getting to this sentence. I have been a cocaine user. I have been a marijuana user. I have been an opiate user. I enjoy the use of those substances, but no longer use them. There was a time when my body was in physical pain because i was not allowed to use. I am not allowed to use such substances in my own house without anyone else in the building. Are my human rights being violated? Drug use can hurt other and myself.... but can't anything?

It seems like human rights are decided by popularity, money, lobby, and mix of the three. I don't really know what I am saying. I guess that if these Brits are having their rights violated by being banned from smoking cigarettes in bars.... I think people of all nationalities are having their rights violated by drug laws. That might seem unrelated... and probably is, but... oh well.
gazzar
I am looling forward to the ban coming into force in scotland but there should be smokers pubs allowed
schu1162
This is a very complex issue. I live in an area where smoking was banned within all public buildings for about six months. The law has now changed so that any establishment with more than 50% of its revenues coming from liquor sales is allowed to have smoking. This change was made, because smokers "were being alienated". But what about me, I am being alienated. I hate everything about smoke and smoking, but I don't mind getting wrecked at the local watering hole once or twice a month. Take it outside!!!!!!!!!!!!
shut up
I am from Washington state where thank god they just passed a total indoor smoking ban. I cannot be in the same room with cigarrete smoke because I have asthma andbefore the ban I could not even go into a building with a smoking area. I think allowing smoking is a breach of our right to breath. Smoking is as dumb as putting lead dust and arsenic on burned wood and inhaling it while it's still hot. It will kill you, so I think cigarretes are a breach of rights, rights to others lives. If anyone lives in your house, especially kids you are breaching their rights by smoking.
Look, I think it would be better for you if you quit. Why? Because people that smoke smell like shit, sound like a toad, cough all the ****** time, and make other peoples breathing problems way worse. And I've always wondered this, What the ****** is so cool about smoking something that will kill you?
Tiger
In South Africa, they introduced tougher smoking laws a few years ago. Essentially these laws are fair to everyone and they have already become a part of normal, everyday life.

Basically, it is illegal to smoke in any public building - so all municipal and government buildings, airports, hospitals, shopping malls and office blocks, etc. don't allow smoking. If you are caught smoking you are given a heavy fine and may even be imprisoned.

Having said that, all of these places have designated areas where you can smoke. For example, in any restaurant, you will find a smoker's area. This is a section of the restuarant that has been closed off behind glass and has a door. So let's say you have a birthday party at your favourite restuarant - half the group can sit in the smokers area and the rest in the main part of the restuarant. You can still see each other, but non-smokers are 100% smoke free. When the smokers want to talk to the rest of the group, they leave their glass room and join the rest.

This way, smokers don't have to go for long periods without their smoke, and non-smokers (especially asthmatics) can relax too.

This is a reasonable solution for an imperfect world. Oh yeah, those landlords who didn't want (or couldn't afford) the expense of a glass room, simply banned smoking altogether. But the most popular places all have these rooms and offer the best of both worlds, which also makes good business sense..
shut up
That is also a good idea for the people who are too dumb to give up the cancer sticks, put them in a showcase. A showcase filled with smoke, and hacking noises from phlegm being choked on and coughing. A circus where normal people can look at the idiots and laugh... INGENIOUS!!!!! Twisted Evil Twisted Evil
broadparker
in Norway it's forbidden to smoke at public places... It's very cold and snowy here evey winter too. So it resulted in my own quiting. It became to diffucult to smoke and costed to much. But I still thing it was a stupid law made by a homofile politican. Evil or Very Mad
wumingsden
In my opinion smoking should be totally banned in public places. Not only is it a dirty habit but its also dangerous to other peoples health (passive smoking). My lungs are damaged and I hate being near smoke. Not only don't I like the smell but also the physical effect that the smoke has on my lungs which will completely collapse them altogether if I'm ever around it in the future.
The Government are hypercrites about smoking though. I can be illigal to help someone die but not illigal if you kill somebody fom passive smoking. Also smoking has been fount to kill yet the Government won't completely ban it because it gains too much tax from it, the scumbags.
SunburnedCactus
Well ban comes in Summer 2007, I look forward to being able to go out and not come back stinking of smoke. And I'm glad they went for the complete ban instead of the partial ambiguous nonsense.
ternoah
I'm a non smoker. Smoking isn't good for you an everybody knows that now a

days with all the non smoking campaigns. I don't think it's possible to forbid

everybody that they cant smoke in a bar is just like they cant drink in a bar.

Why don't people create smoking and non smoking bars. My guess is that many

people go to the smoking bars.
Crystal_tear
I think you should only smoke outside, not inside. Smoking does not help you in any way, so they should not allow inside public places, or offices, or stores, or resturnauts.
kd5nrh
mikeymowse wrote:
I agree with any government trying to enforce the ban of smoking in public places.


Who owns these public places? Hint; if it's not the government, they're not public places.
mOrpheuS
What we need is not partial or total bans on smoking at public places or a huge debate as to whose "rights" be trampled while trying to reach an agreement.

What we need is a high-performance, fast-action ventilation system.
Or perhaps cigarettes which produce dense smoke that doesn't spread out.

And before you laugh off that idea, let me remind you of the difference in problem solving efficiencies of scientists and politicians.
mikeyw79
Let me say that 1st I am a smoker. Yes I smoke a pack a day. 2nd I support all smoking bans in ENCLOSED places. To all of you non smokers when was the last time you went to the bathroom and didn't wash your hands? Thats GROSS!!!! EW! Is that Illegal to do so? No. Because there is no link to that leading to Cancer. (YET) It seems to me that when ever the media claims to be "UNHEALTHY" and "Could lead to Cancer" the entire world is anti! It's frustrating to an extent. I feel it's just a matter of time when they say going on vacation will KILL you! Don't GO!!!!! Then everyone will take it one step further and NEVER leave the house. When does it stop? Again, I am a Smoker in the U.S. and there are many Bans against smoking pretty much anywhere where I live. I cant stand 15 feet out the door of a pub and smoke. i have to be 25 feet away? Really? I didn't know smoke has a 25 foot killing zone! In the pub, absolutely! Smoke out side. I dont even smoke in my Garage at home.
Bondings
There is a more recent topic about smoking: http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-109145.html , so I'll -close- this topic.
Related topics
asian human rights
Pakistan human rights attacked
The Supreme court rules
The Middle East Conflict
Is this democracy?
America is you, no matter who you are
American bashing
Scottish Smoking Ban Leads to Huge Drop in Heart Attacks
anti-ISLAM movie WTF? (a neutral post)
Assange and Wikilieaks threatening human rights dissidents
Wingnut Deputy Att. General fired for anti-protester comment
China's Human Rights Record
Comrade Snowden: Russia is a great defender of human rights
Human rights violations
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.