Scottish smoking ban

[Job]

In force 2006, always confused me this one, what are you not allowed to smoke?
Does it apply just to cigarettes and pipes, what about bongs?
Could they make a cigarette with a huge filter on it and call it something different to beat the ban, or is 'smoking' itself banned.
Could I light a match and breath in the smoke or a teabag?
Or set fire to my paper and stick my head in the smoke, it wouldn't be smoking, is their a law allready in place to prevent me from burning things in public?
How about lighting farts? Is this illegal?

It may done with the best intentions, but trust me, this slippery slope will lead to a whole pile of shit, what will be next(considering that everything around us is a health hazard in some form).

And anyone who drives a car and moans about cigarettes can just STFU!!! (UNLESS ITS ELECTRIC )

 

[Robot]

Tbh i have not read much on it, but there have also been smoking bans inplaced recently in Dublin and Manhatan i think. I would personally like smoking to be banned in public places, as its really bloody awful. Nothing worse then going out somewhere then ya get home stinking of smoke, the stuff just makes me sick.

 

[oblimov]

ah its finally done then

I think this has been on the cards for a long time, its just public places job so u cant smoke anything in like bars, restaraunts, exhibits etc

I think this is a positive step as it might make it easier for people to quit smoking or never even start in the first place and that has to be a good thing.

However I cant help but worry that if the amount of smokers in the UK drops enough then the govt. will notice a significant drop in cash

 

[Cozak]

Tbh i have not read much on it, but there have also been smoking bans inplaced recently in Dublin and Manhatan i think. I would personally like smoking to be banned in public places, as its really bloody awful. Nothing worse then going out somewhere then ya get home stinking of smoke, the stuff just makes me sick.

Agreed, and Job: im sure they will have covered silyl little things like that when they wrote the law about it so they will probably tell you the do's and dont's

 

[Chesnox]

George Orwell got it wrong by a decade or two, and its not a Big Brother imposing his will on us, but a more insidious Nanny instead one tiny step at a time.

This sucks, big time. So your clothes smell after you been to a pub? Is that the best argument you can come up with to justify diminishing my rights? Your clothes smell?? Please.....What kind of BS is that? So its, lets ban smoking, cos its an easy target. Don't worry about the hordes of alcoholics in the very same pubs burdening the NHS with many more alcohol related injuries and ilnesses (much, much more costly than smoking I might add). Because they don't make you smell. Don't worry about the plethora of alcohol related accidents on the road right!

Its hypocrisy, and we let the bastards get away with it. So please, any smartasses trying to justify this ban with passive smoking or "my hair smells" arguments, please frame your arguments against why a ban of drinking alcohol in public places is actually much more beneficial and sensible from a society wide point of view than banning smoking is....

 

[Vireb]

ah its finally done then

I think this has been on the cards for a long time, its just public places job so u cant smoke anything in like bars, restaraunts, exhibits etc

I think this is a positive step as it might make it easier for people to quit smoking or never even start in the first place and that has to be a good thing.

However I cant help but worry that if the amount of smokers in the UK drops enough then the govt. will notice a significant drop in cash

and all pubs losing huge profits, laying of staff as for betting shops/ casinos / nightclubs. people who want to bet etc will just stay home and do it online will as for pubs wel as sen in dublin people still go to them ,but they drink less than half they are always going outside smoking etc
badidea tbh , ok smokers cause disease but the amount of money they fund the govmnt with tax they pay is alot more then smoking related medical costs, so huge national quiting of smoking = new taxes for all us non smokers THANKS

 

[oblimov]

tbh i wouldnt mind paying an extra few quid if it meant i would live longer and not die from some smoking related disease

 

[Vireb]

tbh i wouldnt mind paying an extra few quid if it meant i would live longer and not die from some smoking related disease

plenty of no smoking bars/clubs/areas/resteraunts around not like you dont have the choice.
And yes i am a non smoker

and nah you'll proberly die of something alot simpler and trivial that the nhs cant fund because of the huge revenue it generates from smokers

 

[Cozak]

George Orwell got it wrong by a decade or two, and its not a Big Brother imposing his will on us, but a more insidious Nanny instead one tiny step at a time.

This sucks, big time. So your clothes smell after you been to a pub? Is that the best argument you can come up with to justify diminishing my rights? Your clothes smell?? Please.....What kind of BS is that? So its, lets ban smoking, cos its an easy target. Don't worry about the hordes of alcoholics in the very same pubs burdening the NHS with many more alcohol related injuries and ilnesses (much, much more costly than smoking I might add). Because they don't make you smell. Don't worry about the plethora of alcohol related accidents on the road right!

Its hypocrisy, and we let the bastards get away with it. So please, any smartasses trying to justify this ban with passive smoking or "my hair smells" arguments, please frame your arguments against why a ban of drinking alcohol in public places is actually much more beneficial and sensible from a society wide point of view than banning smoking is....

Drinking alcohol in public places doesnt kill xxx number of people around you who are not stupid enough to smoke but still have to put up with arrogant bastards who only seem to think of themselves.

 

[Cozak]

plenty of no smoking bars/clubs/areas/resteraunts around not like you dont have the choice.
And yes i am a non smoker

and nah you'll proberly die of something alot simpler and trivial that the nhs cant fund because of the huge revenue it generates from smokers

Maybe plenty of non-smoking bars/clubs where you live but not everyone has that luxery where I live I know of one chain of bars (Wetherspoons) where you have to actually go to a smoking room to smoke. So not everyone has plenty of choice.

 

[Flimgoblin]

tbh i wouldnt mind paying an extra few quid if it meant i would live longer and not die from some smoking related disease

the government spends more treating smoking related diseases than it gets from cigarette tax.

 

[Sendraks]

Drinking alcohol in public places doesnt kill xxx number of people around you who are not stupid enough to smoke but still have to put up with arrogant bastards who only seem to think of themselves.

I think the point was that public consumption of aclohol is more likely to lead to disruptive and unpleasant behaviour by idiots, than smoking does. Banning alcohol in public places, while not something I would approve of any more than I approve of this smoking ban, would do a lot to reduce public disturbances and physical assaults on individuals.

Not to mention the obvious reduction in the number of very immediate and very real deaths associated with drunk driving.

I don't have a problem with a smoking ban in public places such as streets, parks and other public utilities, but the choice of whether people should be allowed to smoke in bars/restaurants or not should be down to their owners. If people don't like the smoke and an alternative venue is available, they can go there. If the bar owner notices a slump in profits due to the loss of the non-smoking clientelle, then they should consider a non-smoking policy.

But it shouldn't be dictated to them by the state.

*edit*

Had a quick think.

Where a government is elected democratically by the populace, I suppose it is fair for the state to issue such legislation. If the public don't like it, they can always vote them out next time round and get a party in that will remove the legislation.

 

[Vireb]

the government spends more treating smoking related diseases than it gets from cigarette tax.

really ?

It is true that NHS costs are lower than tobacco tax revenues. Tobacco taxation amounts to £10.5 billion per year whereas a figure for NHS spending on tobacco related disease is £1.7 billion. But so what? The comparison is a false one. Tobacco tax is not and never has been a down payment on the cost dealing with ill health caused by smoking.

taken from
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/smuggling/html/whytax99.html

 

[Vireb]

Drinking alcohol in public places doesnt kill xxx number of people around you who are not stupid enough to smoke but still have to put up with arrogant bastards who only seem to think of themselves.

how many people endup in hospital each weekend due to drink induced fights/ acidents?
a hell of a lot
how much damage to public property due to alchohol?
a hell of a lot too


and you dont have to put up smokers , you are free to go elsewhere just like they are free to be there

 

[Flimgoblin]

really ?



taken from
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/smuggling/html/whytax99.html

fair enough don't believe everything ye hear

interesting article that - tobacco tax is like the lottery tax, a sneaky tax on the poor...

 

[Cozak]

Deaths per year in the UK:

smoking related = 120,000 a year
http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/23068824/

Drink related = 15,000-22,000
http://lifestyle.scotsman.com/home/text_only.cfm?id=8191

I think we can see which is the more major problem here.

 

[Cozak]

how many people endup in hospital each weekend due to drink induced fights/ acidents?
a hell of a lot
how much damage to public property due to alchohol?
a hell of a lot too


and you dont have to put up smokers , you are free to go elsewhere just like they are free to be there

So if i dont want to breathe in smoke i have to go to the same bar over and over, so the minority (smokers) have the choice of where they want to go?Doesnt sound right to me.
If my friends are all going to a particular place im not going to go and sit in a non-smoking bar by myself

 

[Flimgoblin]

how many people endup in hospital each weekend due to drink induced fights/ acidents?
a hell of a lot
how much damage to public property due to alchohol?
a hell of a lot too

You don't have to be violent to damage anyone's health with smoking - even sensible amounts of smoking causes damage to those around you.

Sensible amounts of drinking won't.

Of course drunken thugs will cause a lot of damage, but that's not day in day out (depending on the pub anyway)

 

[Vireb]

So if i dont want to breathe in smoke i have to go to the same bar over and over, so the minority (smokers) have the choice of where they want to go?Doesnt sound right to me.
If my friends are all going to a particular place im not going to go and sit in a non-smoking bar by myself

no not at all my personal opinion is thebar/ venue / wherever should supply non smoking/smoking areas and also suitable aircon / extraction. outright banning will ruin al these bars/places most ofthem ill shut down , and you will only have a few places to go with your friends. At the moment there is no legislation for smoking and extraction (although people are taking it upon themselves with health and safety laws). introduce a directive that means all public places must have adequate smoking/non smoking areas and adequate extraction, far simpler solution to outright banning
i mean for starters enforcing it will be hard and at high cost to government, lay the cost onto buisinesses like i said and its a one of payment they will need to make to modify there premises ofc some buisness wont be able to afordthis , but then that is very likely minority and will be alot less drastic than the result of a bann would be.

 

[Sendraks]

I think we can see which is the more major problem here.

No, not really.

Deaths per year doesn't take into account the social problems described that drinking causes, which I would argue are far greater than those of smoking.

I'm not saying that smoking does not cause real physical harm, obviously it does, but if you're going to legislate against smoking then it is hypocritical not to legislate against drinking in public places.

I'd really rather they didn't do either though , and restrict non-smoking to those genuinelly public areas and allow private establishments to make their own decisions. I'm a non-smoker, I have no problems with smoke in bars. My decision to be there. If i I don't like it, I am free to go somewhere else or free to go in the non-smoking room. If my regular watering holes banned smoking, I'd not be bothered either way.

 

[Cozak]

no not at all my personal opinion is thebar/ venue / wherever should supply non smoking/smoking areas and also suitable aircon / extraction. outright banning will ruin al these bars/places most ofthem ill shut down , and you will only have a few places to go with your friends. At the moment there is no legislation for smoking and extraction (although people are taking it upon themselves with health and safety laws). introduce a directive that means all public places must have adequate smoking/non smoking areas and adequate extraction, far simpler solution to outright banning

That law would be a lot better suited than an outright ban, then if anyone is stupid enough to smoke then fair enough they are not inflicting their stupidity on anyone else, but its not just bars and clubs even when waiting at a bus stop or something its still not nice.
Tbh i dont think that an outright ban would put places out of business i see on posters around the North-East at the minute that only 27% on the population smoke and my guess is that at least half of that 27% is over 50 so will not go out drinking in bars/clubs all that often anyhow, and when they do i think they could go without a cigarette for a little while whilst in the club. Another guess is that out of the 13.5% under 50 (or say people who spend fair amounts of time in bars and clubs) most of them would still go out drinking, i dont think many would say 'i cant smoke outside my house anymore, therefore im not going out and wil lsit indoors all day' So i think the bars and clubs would be fine, just my opinion anyhow

Also if my understanding of this ban is correct, if its anything like the Californian one anyhow, then you can still smoke just on your own property. So if the government are really that bothered about losing money over people quitting and not buying cigarettes they can just hike the tax up on them even more. Then the 'hardcore' smokers, as opposed to the social smokers, will be making up for the 'social' smokers who decided not to smoke

 

[Cozak]

No, not really.

Deaths per year doesn't take into account the social problems described that drinking causes, which I would argue are far greater than those of smoking.

I'm not saying that smoking does not cause real physical harm, obviously it does, but if you're going to legislate against smoking then it is hypocritical not to legislate against drinking in public places.

I'd really rather they didn't do either though , and restrict non-smoking to those genuinelly public areas and allow private establishments to make their own decisions. I'm a non-smoker, I have no problems with smoke in bars. My decision to be there. If i I don't like it, I am free to go somewhere else or free to go in the non-smoking room. If my regular watering holes banned smoking, I'd not be bothered either way.

Obviously drinking is going to cause a lot more social problems than smoking, you cant get pissed off cigarettes now can you.

 

[Anastasia]

the government spends more treating smoking related diseases than it gets from cigarette tax.

Thought everyone new that smokers more or less pay for the NHS. Plus we die younger so no lingering old-age support costs. And lung cancer is a relatively quick (albeit unpleasant) death. The hospital beds we pay for are therefore free for all the holier-than-thou anti somkers to exist in for an extra few years.

What is the argument against allowing us to choose? If the overwhelming majority of pub-goers object to smoking (as the anti-smoking lobby maintain), then surely any landlord with an ounce of commercial savvy will ban it now. The misguided fools who believe that they can continue to run a business in a smoke filled cave can also continue to do so, and we can all decide where we want to go.

Personally, I hate the fact that I smoke. I enjoy it (unfortunately), but wish I'd never started. So I have mixed feelings (from a selfish point of view) about a ban - it might make me quit, which is good, but the government imposing it on me is just wrong. Ban driving, eating most food, stressful jobs, marriage, divorce, alcohol - in fact fuck it, just ban living!

 

[Vireb]

yes but still , go into your local bar/pub on sat/friday , only 27% of population smoke ok nice statistic , but at a guess when i go out 70%- 80% of people in bars/pubs/clubs do, tell me that wont take a hit on them , its already hapend in dublin in many ways, dublin used to be huge for stag do's etc its lost that now many pubs have shut down , or changed hands due to this. itsnot just that though i am a manager of a casino , our biggest competitor is tv really and to get people to come away from home and to come out. i would say again 70% - 80% of pople who come are smokers, we do have very good extraction facilities and have areas for non smokers and smokers. Non smoking area is about 30% size of smoking but that is rarely full. Now with competition of betting/gambling online/ new gaming act/ and smoking act why should smokers leave homethey can sit a comfert of home and gamble / bet online and smoke. this is same for MANY public componies its just my componies twist on this.

ok 80% of people in a bar smoke
say for example 50% of them stop coming as regularly due to this law so 40% of your customers are lost and 40% still come. ok now in dublin you were allowed to go outside and smoke i assume same law would aplyhere , so of those 40% who remain thy will now be spending say 20% of there time outside smoking another 8% loss so i meanthis isvery rough andjust guessing , but thats potentially 48% loss in buisness, NO buisiness will run at that they will sell up and move on simple really.

 

[Cozak]

yes but still , go into your local bar/pub on sat/friday , only 27% of population smoke ok nice statistic , but at a guess when i go out 70%- 80% of people in bars/pubs/clubs do, tell me that wont take a hit on them , its already hapend in dublin in many ways, dublin used to be huge for stag do's etc its lost that now many pubs have shut down , or changed hands due to this. itsnot just that though i am a manager of a casino , our biggest competitor is tv really and to get people to come away from home and to come out. i would say again 70% - 80% of pople who come are smokers, we do have very good extraction facilities and have areas for non smokers and smokers. Non smoking area is about 30% size of smoking but that is rarely full. Now with competition of betting/gambling online/ new gaming act/ and smoking act why should smokers leave homethey can sit a comfert of home and gamble / bet online and smoke. this is same for MANY public componies its just my componies twist on this.

Depends where you go really, if i was to go to an old mans pub they yes probably 70-80% would be smoking, but the bars i go to (only 18) i would say that only 35-40% smoke, hard to compare as many different places and areas will have different statistics.

 

[Vireb]

Depends where you go really, if i was to go to an old mans pub they yes probably 70-80% would be smoking, but the bars i go to (only 18) i would say that only 35-40% smoke, hard to compare as many different places and areas will have different statistics.

hahah yeah im 22 i regularly go out in old mans bars

 

[Anastasia]

That law would be a lot better suited than an outright ban, then if anyone is stupid enough to smoke then fair enough they are not inflicting their stupidity ..... etc

Do you drive?
Do you consider yourself stupid?

People like you preaching against smoking do more harm than good to your chosen cause. People will just ignore you if the first line of your argument is designed to patronise and antagonise them.

 

[Xeanor]

About cars and electric cars...

cars pollute the air yes, but hardly bothers anyone's health, if you look at it relatively.

if i go into a club with 50 smokers i come out with a pain in my throat (and possible damage to my lifespan) 3 hours later, it's something completely different.

 

[Cozak]

hahah yeah im 22 i regularly go out in old mans bars

Didnt mean it like that Cool job btw

 

[Cozak]

Do you drive?
Do you consider yourself stupid?

People like you preaching against smoking do more harm than good to your chosen cause. People will just ignore you if the first line of your argument is designed to patronise and antagonise them.

No & No

There is nothing antagonising against it m8, smoking is stupid. A Heavy smoker is paying like 10quid a day just to kill themselves?