Scottish smoking ban

[Roken]

Some people are complaining that the social venues they attend are made unpleasant by smokers.
Well... amazingly enough, humans have the capacity to relocate themselves.

How about suggesting to your 'mates' that you find a non-smoking pub / club / venue?

No such venue in your area? Then obviously the demand isn't there.

You'd be amazed, if the majority boycotted venues that allowed smoking, economics would take care of the rest.

But no, since the majority in fact tollerate / ignore smoking, the need is not there. So what happens?
A minority demand that it be banned... 'I'm going home and I'm taking my ball with me' mentality rules supreme.

If you don't like a restaurant do you demand it gets closed down OR do you decide you won't go there again?

Simple really.

Which person would you most like to socialise with?

Mister "I want to go to the pub, but I don't want smokers to go to the pub."

Or

Mister "I want to go to the pub."

 

[Sendraks]

Virtually ALL smokers would welcome full segregation in Pubs/Clubs/Casino's ....
We dont want to sit in the same room as you "self righteous, hollier than thou, band wagon jumping, blinkered" non smokers any more than you want to sit with the "Air polluting, foul smelling, suicidal, extra tax paying, happy go lucky, tolerant" smokers.
And when I say full segregation I mean FULL. Absolutly no non smokers in the smoking area.

This reminds me of a Bill Hicks skit about when you die and go to heaven, wouldn't it be great if the first thing St Peter says to you at the pearly gates is
"got a light?
"You all smoke up here?"
"Yeah, these aren't clouds, its cigarette smoke, why do you think its called heaven?!?!"
"So whats hell like?"
"Take a look"

*cue holier than thou voices*

"I can't believe what they do to their bodies, its so filthy, its disgusting, I can't stand the smell, I can't believe they do that!"

*end voices*

"How hellish!"
"No shit, come on in, Jimi Hendrix is on harp tonight."


In all seriousness though, I think the best approach to dealing with smoking in bars would be this.

1) By law make it that so all pubs have a properly ventilated, not in the open plan, smoking room in the pub. Rather than the current practice which is to provide only one room for non-smokers. This room will have be assessed by an inspector on a regular basis. If the room is not up to standard, cue fine.

2) If the bar owner see's someone smoking in their bar area, they are free to throw that person out.

3) Staff who collect glasses from the smoking room must receive extra pay.

4) If a Bar owner wishes to have an establishment where smoking is allowed through-out, they must buy a licence which permits them to do so. Cost of the licence must be so that setting up a proper smoking room is cheaper by comparison, but the owner can then hedge his bets that he'll make more money by making the place more appealing to the smoking clientelle.

 

[Seeaira_Tempest]

I'm allergic to cats and dogs, so should they be banned in public places? I also suffer mildly with hayfever, so can we grow less grass please? And I also don't fare too well in dusty environments, so can we also have stricter laws about how well dusted a public place is?

Basically I avoid putting myself in situations that are likely to cause aggravation (which is a real shame for me and my wife because we'd LOVE to have a dog ). Once again, all I want is the right to CHOOSE.

You're joking correct? I thought we were having a legitamit argument on the laws being passed for smokers, who ARE harming us with second hand smoking. So now you have just brought the discussion down a bit.

We are talking about the difference between things we CAN control, and things we canNOT control. Animals and the plant life are an important part of our environment. They are not man made, while they do at times cause harm, we did not create them. However, because there are types of animals that can cause us severe harm, we have laws to protect them and ourselves, we have corporations that take them further into the wild, etc., and keep them at bay the best they can.

How in the world can you compare this to smoking? The two are not even comparable. You choose to smoke, it is man made and it can be controlled.

Also keep in mind that animals are banned in public places unless its a seeing eye dog of some sort. You have to keep them outside restaurants, now smokers have to be kept out of restaurants too, so I think its far.

Lets not get into ridiculous arguments about things we cannot control in our environment verses things we can control.

And by the way, you can take a pill now for allergies you have with animals or grass so do it

 

[Chilly]

In all seriousness though, I think the best approach to dealing with smoking in bars would be this.

1) By law make it that so all pubs have a properly ventilated, not in the open plan, smoking room in the pub. Rather than the current practice which is to provide only one room for non-smokers. This room will have be assessed by an inspector on a regular basis. If the room is not up to standard, cue fine.

2) If the bar owner see's someone smoking in their bar area, they are free to throw that person out.

3) Staff who collect glasses from the smoking room must receive extra pay.

4) If a Bar owner wishes to have an establishment where smoking is allowed through-out, they must buy a licence which permits them to do so. Cost of the licence must be so that setting up a proper smoking room is cheaper by comparison, but the owner can then hedge his bets that he'll make more money by making the place more appealing to the smoking clientelle.

And what happens to the bars who can't accomodate such changed? The bar i worked at in Oxford has no way of doing as you suggest, and its one of about 90% of bars in oxford who are made up of one long single room, they would be shut down - less drinking holes for ppl


Its a nice idea, but ill thought out. Banning it totally is a better idea. Smoking does no good whatso ever to anyone. People who argue it calms them down are partially correct, but its the addiction that got them wound up in the first place so its a silly thing to say.

Smoking pot on the other hand should be legalised cos it DOES do good and it DOES chill you out

 

[Sendraks]

Its a nice idea, but ill thought out.

Well gee Chilly, I spent about 5 minutes thinking about it. I haven't had time to put together the steering group, consult with the commercial interests and the public, on how this idea might be implemented.

I've yet to see a better solution in this thread.

Banning it totally is a better idea.

No its not. Its a restriction of the personal freedoms, not only of those who smoke, but also of bar owners to decide if they want smokers in their bars. Like any total ban, its a poorly thought out, hysterical quick fix, to a problem (and I agree it is a problem) that could have a better solution.

Why not just ban the sale of tobacco? If you can make other equally harmful drugs (heroin, cocaine, amphetamines) illegal, why not do the same for tobacco. Banning where the public can and can't smoke it is ridiculous, when the Government could just ban the source of the problem instead.

I think the approach of having legislation for bars that makes the owner decide about whether they want smokers in the bar, makes them take responsibility for the wellfare of thier staff and their clientelle, is the right way forward, if you're not going to ban tobacco in the first place.

 

[Chilly]

what, so youd make it illegal to buy, but you could waltz around a maternity ward smoking a massive pipe yeah? ban the sale, ban the use, ban the whole fucking thing.

 

[Milne]

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

Which will lead to the legalisation of cannabis Right?

 

[enigma]

Smoking is nothing but a bad habit.

A bad habit that affects your immediate surroundings in a negative way.

Why do people smoke? You start for some obscure reason, and have a hard time quitting. It has no good effect besides to satisfy the need for more.

Why shouldn't this be banned in public places? If you try to kill yourself in a public place you will be stopped, why not stop this? It's not the same, ofcourse.. But it has nothing but a detrimental effect on your health and everyone next to you, that can in a lot of cases be tied to a fatal condition.

The truth is that smoking is an old tradition or habit that has been commonly accepted for a long time. To just suddenly ban it, will just create alot of problems concerning lawenforcement etc.. People have always done stuff that has no good reason, and will continue to do so aslong as they have a free will. I don't have a personal problem with things like that aslong as it only affects its users. The thing is that it doesn't only affect them.

In one way or the other it WILL affect non-smokers too. It costs time and money to deal with sickness tied to smoking and it costs extra to segragate the smokers from non-smokers in public places.

Why should a useless habit like smoking affect me as much as it does? Tell me why the greater part of the population should bend itself to the minority(smokers ARE a minority) when it comes to such a matter? If it had some good purpose I'd agree that it should be up for discussion. But it doesn't have a good purpose!

It's just a bad habit! Picking your nose is worse looked at than smoking is!

I haven't heard about people getting killed by someone picking their nose yet.

 

[Sendraks]

ban the sale, ban the use, ban the whole fucking thing.

Thats fair enough. I can go with that.

Why should a useless habit like smoking affect me as much as it does?.

If you work in a bar, I do see your point, but frankly bar owners should've been doing more to take responsibility for the wellfare of their staff and there should've been legislation in place to make them do so. But instead of that, rather than encouraging people to take more responsibility for their actions, we have this nanny state approach that says what you can and can't do, rather than trying to foster a spirit of greater responsibility.

Outside of bar work, and you can correct me if I'm mising something here, I fail to see how smoking affects non-smokers that much in their lives.

I'm a non-smoker, its affects on my life is marginal at best. Hence I'm not getting all worked up and calling for a ban.

But a more mature responsible world, that would be a finer thing to aim for.

 

[Weylander]

I hate this argument, always gets people wound up, but i have a simple way of dealing with the anti ciggie brigade; If you don't like my smoke then fuck off, i should charge you for breathing it in anyway.

So if a bar is smokey, don't go in!!!! ffs
go to another one, we don't want you there whinging about our cigs anyway.

Its like these people that watch a tv program about sex or violence and complain after its finished that it was disgusting!!!! FFs Change channel if you dont like it.

 

[[SS]Gamblor]

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.

they where trying to get this in Ireland, but instead the Goverment put a No smoking in the workplace ban in. So , no smoking in Bars/clubs .. no smoking in the building you work in, no smoking in any building whatso ever.

the Pubs in Ireland have announced that they are down 20% profits from this time last year.

but what gets me is , The smokers that are left ( a good few have given up wimps imo ;P ) have to go outside to smoke... so putting them at greater risk of catching cold, or something else.


the thing i really don't like is that we had no CHoice in this.... it was decided and then pushed onto us. Next will be that you can only drink at the weekend, after that only when ther eis a full moon .....

tbh freedom of choice doesn't exsits any more, and the rights we do have are beeing curtailed off so that we will be walking zombies drinking and eating when we get told to.

 

[Vireb]

they where trying to get this in Ireland, but instead the Goverment put a No smoking in the workplace ban in. So , no smoking in Bars/clubs .. no smoking in the building you work in, no smoking in any building whatso ever.

the Pubs in Ireland have announced that they are down 20% profits from this time last year.

but what gets me is , The smokers that are left ( a good few have given up wimps imo ;P ) have to go outside to smoke... so putting them at greater risk of catching cold, or something else.


the thing i really don't like is that we had no CHoice in this.... it was decided and then pushed onto us. Next will be that you can only drink at the weekend, after that only when ther eis a full moon .....

tbh freedom of choice doesn't exsits any more, and the rights we do have are beeing curtailed off so that we will be walking zombies drinking and eating when we get told to.

agree completly im not a smoker i dont like the habit but i tolerate it , my health will not suffer drasticly from sitting in a bar for 2hours with a few smokers. And i do just tolerate it, like you tolerate the ugly ginger kid in the corner with heavy breathing, it's not a big deal at all , yes there are extreme cases like people who work in enviroments where there is a lot of smoke,where i work its like that , but then thats down to employers to remove the risk and problem ,if they dont, call health and safety exec on there ass dont remove peoples choice and fredom ,as you say next you'l be told you can only wipe your ass 3 times after taking a crap and only use 3 sheets of single ply otherwise your using to much paper and harming the environment and everyone living in it......... like wtf.........................

 

[Cozak]

I hate this argument, always gets people wound up, but i have a simple way of dealing with the anti ciggie brigade; If you don't like my smoke then fuck off, i should charge you for breathing it in anyway.

So if a bar is smokey, don't go in!!!! ffs
go to another one, we don't want you there whinging about our cigs anyway.

Its like these people that watch a tv program about sex or violence and complain after its finished that it was disgusting!!!! FFs Change channel if you dont like it.

Why do you post stuff which has been posted 10 times before in the thread? Read the thread to see replies sick of repeating myself.

 

[Elewyth(TLSOA)]

but what gets me is , The smokers that are left ( a good few have given up wimps imo ;P ) have to go outside to smoke... so putting them at greater risk of catching cold, or something else.

hahahahaaha....<breathes>...aaaahahaha

oh the irony of a smoker complaining about catching a cold!!.. given the choice would you rather catch a cold? or risk your best mate getting cancer because your too selfish to go outside? (assuming your bestmate is a nonsmoker)

 

[Vireb]

hahahahaaha....<breathes>...aaaahahaha

oh the irony of a smoker complaining about catching a cold!!.. given the choice would you rather catch a cold? or risk your best mate getting cancer because your too selfish to go outside? (assuming your bestmate is a nonsmoker)

you know, you risk "getting" cancer from drinking saccarin(speling) based drinks ?(pepsi is rot of all evil)
you also risk "getting" cancer from huge various amount of things, i highlight "getting" as a recent study showed that at birth they can check dna and certain parts of dna can show whether you will or will not get cancer ,you need to have some certain genetic make up for cancer, certain people can smoke , drink, strap a nuclear reactor to there forehead and they will not get it , others however may lead a healthiest life and suffer immensly. interesting study i thought especialy with genetic cloning etc, coud test tube a baby that could not ever get cancer etc (although i think cloning humans is a vbad thing personally)

 

[Marc]

I think its a good idea and im a smoker. Smoking should only be allowed in the privacy of your home imo.

and lol Gamb, you cant be serious can you? thats gotta be a piss take

 

[Danya]

but what gets me is , The smokers that are left ( a good few have given up wimps imo ;P ) have to go outside to smoke... so putting them at greater risk of catching cold, or something else.

Catching colds is not related to being in a cold environment. If anything you're more likely to catch a cold inside the pub.

 

[Vireb]

Catching colds is not related to being in a cold environment. If anything you're more likely to catch a cold inside the pub.

yep common cold is a virus.....................

 

[Elewyth(TLSOA)]

you know, you risk "getting" cancer from drinking saccarin(speling) based drinks ?(pepsi is rot of all evil)
you also risk "getting" cancer from huge various amount of things, i highlight "getting" as a recent study showed that at birth they can check dna and certain parts of dna can show whether you will or will not get cancer ,you need to have some certain genetic make up for cancer, certain people can smoke , drink, strap a nuclear reactor to there forehead and they will not get it , others however may lead a healthiest life and suffer immensly. interesting study i thought especialy with genetic cloning etc, coud test tube a baby that could not ever get cancer etc (although i think cloning humans is a vbad thing personally)

its also FACT that smoking or being exposed to 2nd hand smoke DRAMATICALLY increases your risk of getting cancer... all in all id settle for the genetic risks thank you very much.

BAN SMOKING OUTSIDE!!!!1111ONEONENOE all smokers are evil and are less producitve workers as research has shown anyway.

 

[Vindicator]

I'm Glad nobody here is in a position to effect Change on Any level. You All just rant on about how right and excellent your point is and then bash the opponents or simply dis-qualify other people's point based on your opinion of how Stupid or Irratating some they do is. Telling Somebody to Fuck off some place else is also completely Wrong and selfishly ignorant.

To be Fair you should really compromise to include everybody's opinion and there freedom or Choice. What is getting the Smokers Rilled up is the fact there Freedom to smoke any where is being removed without a Choice being presented to them, now i know some smart azz will come along and say " But they have the choice to go outsite", but if you think I was talking about a location to smoke then stop reading now as this is wasted on you. The other end of the spectrum is the Anti-smokers, some are passive < pun intended>, others are sympathetic to the smokers and then there's the angry extreme anti-smokers. these Guys are all mad in some shape or form that they are having other ppl's Choice Forced upon them, smokers smoking and with no consideration for them in this case.

Now that we've recognised all the people involved, whats A fair thing to do for all ?

Banning Smoking in the Workplace is Fair, As it protects workers from effects out of there Control and dosent force anybody else's Choice on upon them. This unfortunatly leads to bars and clubs. It's a Pity for all smokers because this is really where it's enjoyed the most but to be fair it is quite selfish to smoke around people who choose not to.

What is Fair to Still give smokers a Choice ? Well I knew the answer to that I would probably be in government or being payed ridiculous amounts of money by cig companys !

What Would be fair but would be incredibly hard to implement, setup and Maintain would be to place a temporary Ban on a all Work places, of which this ban can only be removed based on the completion of rigous testing of the Facility Requesting the Ban be lifted. A pub in this case would Request the Ban be removed from its premises and Once they have been surveyed for having excellent air ventilation for both customers and staff while also checking general health assements associated with smoking they would have the ban lifted after they were approved by a Board set up just for this cause, this board should be set up and payed for using the Tax of Cigs, Raise the Tax if you need more Cash for it then. Which would probably inadvertently lower the amount of smokers also.

For now All A Smoker can do is to go out side to smoke when they get the urge, what should be put in place is more Beer gardens. Shielded from rain of course but not enough to trap Smoke in with those great big Heaters. I live in Dublin so I have first had experience of what its like and in pubs with out door beer gardens its great and usually always full too, with lots of people there who you know are in the same boat as your self you generally end up all having a laugh with each other. Also going outside for a smoke is a great way to meet women I may add and you already know she wont moan about your smoking 2 xD. < Although Im sure they'd find something soon enough :0>

Oh also I really think smoking in Night Clubs should be allowed, on the basis that the pub has excellent Air conditioning systems and no lounge Staff. Reason for this is, well to be honest. Night Clubs usually smell of Smoke or Drink when your in them, once smoking was gone the smell of Piss / Puke and Sweat was sickening really. I stopped going to night clubs soon after actually so I would much rather the smell of smoke and a lil smoke for the lungs than the other :x. < And no marc its not just the sitty night clubs we have in Dub that you english are so fond of stinking up and boozing in >

PS: Yes I am a Smoker but im trying to be reasonably to all, Can you all say the same ?

 

[Job]

The original jist of my thread was to point out the hypocrisy of banning smoking when so many other things we do hurt each other.

If I drive a car I'm putting pedestrians at risk when they cross the road, not a slight risk but a very real and potentially lethal risk.

More people are hurt by the things we don't ban because the effects of smoking are obvious , it's annoying , in you face, your clothes stink, eyes water, but far more people are killed injured, maimed by drunken yobs.
Someone drinking next to doesn't give the same unpleasant experience as smoking does, even though statistically their drunken state is far more dangerous to you than smoking.

We always complain about what we can see, but ignore all the hidden dangers.

It's like people complaining about cellphone masts, it's cos they can see them, the 1/2 million watt TV tower 5 miles away is putting far more electromagnetic radiation through you than the 20watt cell tower , but we don't see people campaigning against them.
Don't you see, it's cigarettes today, drink next, then your car, then the way you dress, then what you think then BIG BROTHER!!!!!!!!

 

[Weylander]

Why do you post stuff which has been posted 10 times before in the thread? Read the thread to see replies sick of repeating myself.

I'm sick of the same feckin argument. I'm goin for another smoke

 

[Vindicator]

It's like people complaining about cellphone masts, it's cos they can see them, the 1/2 million watt TV tower 5 miles away is putting far more electromagnetic radiation through you than the 20watt cell tower , but we don't see people campaigning against them.
Don't you see, it's cigarettes today, drink next, then your car, then the way you dress, then what you think then BIG BROTHER!!!!!!!!

hehe I think you going a little far although I do take your post with a pinch of salt and you probably just fancied ripping the piss . Thing is, I may see that and no doubt others will but then there's always ppl who fail to see that you jest ^^. Either through a mixture of it being a text message on an internet forum or there not used to different English Satires so to speak .

I understand your intentions of creating this thread but it is obvious now that it has gone unnoticed or more accuratly ignored so that other old arguements or Veins of thought can be discussed. The Matter at hand is, How Can it be fair to persucute 1 person's Freedom or Choice without compromising on somebody else's Choice, which actually contradicts the choice of others by its very nature.

When people calm down and reason it out trying to consider everybodys Stance then it is pretty Clear to see that it is not Fair to Discrimnate against Smokers but It is also equally unfair to Force Smoke onto people either at work or out for a quiet Pint. The ensueing health risk and possible dieases that can vester in you that are caused by this smoke is simply a by-product of breathing in the unwated Smoke in the First place, this is a Side effect that until recently we were not even aware. Even if you remove the Effects Passive smoking can have in the long run for so many people, which most of the Pro-smokers tend to ignore, it is Still grossly unfair to smoke around people who dont like it.

 

[Melachi]

I cant be assed reading whole post as I just saw it now and its huge. Anyway as a smoke myself living in Ireland where we have had the ban for almost a year now I can honestly say it's great.

Seriously, you dont come home from the pub reaking from smoke, theres allways a good laugh outside the pub with everyone smoking. Nothing to worry about really, you wont even notice it after 2 weeks.

 

[Iceforge]

Well, it is unfair to the nonsmokers that they have to inhale secondhand smoke, but then, a complete ban seems unfair in my eyes as well.

If they made some research on the area, they could make alot of statics, like how high a the % of the income in bars comes from smokers, then for a revert calculation and give benifits to bars who becomes non-smoking pubs.

Now, to make myself clear, I will put up an example:

to pubs, both have 100 customers, of which 27% (27 in each pub) is smokers.

1 pub stayes normal, smoking allowed, other change to non-smoking bar.

the 27 smokers from pub 2 go to pub 1

127 customers pub 1
73 customers pub 2

Now, some of the non-smokers in pub 1 will fell like going back to pub 1, let say 17

110 customers pub 1
90 customers pub 2

All the customers use exatly 20 quids

2200 quids pub 1
1800 quids pub 2

The % of income from smokers was = 27%

So 1800 quid is 73%, so.. ((1800/73)*100)-1800 = 665 quid compensation from the state for being a non-smoker pub

Total income

2200 quids pub 1
2465 quids pub 2

Before the change, both had 2000 quid income (100 x 20)

Well, now you are going to ask how the money should be raised?

Well, we agree smoking aint a good habit? Increase the taxzation on cigerattes then...

Alternative could be to increase tax on booze too, as they will have larger income, often used tactic, give people with one hand and take it back with the other

 

[Vindicator]

Your Just makimg up Numbers and rounding other numbers to Suit your equations while also judging that a Pub always have 100 ppl in it and they always spend 20 Quid. Im sorry but errr I know it's an example but its not even a remotely Possible Example also the Government arent exactly going to work out statistics of how many people frequent every pub in England while also working out how much each person who probably doesnt go ever nite spends and then work out some Rate at which to pay a non-smoking pub for becoming Just that.

It's unfeasible and Uneconomic in relation to Cost of Setting up, Researching, Maintaining and implementing. A Blanket Ban Is the most effective and Fair, If a pub wishes to become a Smoking Classed pub they should have to get a licence or basically have the Ban Removed from the premises. All your Doing is adding another Job onto the Health and Safety inspector or possibly Creating a new inspector based on Demand / Useage of Time, payed for by Tax on the Substance in question anyway .

 

[Neffneff]

Just wanted to ad my 2 cents. I am a smoker, 23 years old and have been smoking since i was 15ish. im sick of it, it smells and tastes revolting and is killing me slowly or maybe even faster than i realise. im unemployed and because my wife smokes too most of my money vanishes on it (about 40 quid a week easy..and that's even buying tabacco+rizzlas....cant afford real cigarettes, not that i'd want to..they kill yer even faster) as far as i am concerned anything to make what is realisticlly a very dangerous and hazardous past time easier to give up..or at LEAST easier for children and teenagers to avoid taking up in the first place is an ideal situation.

I saw a few people mention over taxing tabacco even more to get the desired effect. what exactly will that do? if i could stop smoking just because it costs too much, i would have done that already...all it would accomplish is poor people being even poorer.

smoking is pretty much the most effective way of killing yourself before time bar jumping in front of cars, and as you may know people..even the government dont condone such things.

Bring on the smoking ban..give us 20-30 years then outlaw it ffs. stop us dumb humans from killing ourselves and wasting perfectly good money.

 

[Eroa]

scottish smoking ban=You can smoke while shagging a sheep cause you might damage its fur with the cigarett?

 

[Rookiescot]

BAN SMOKING OUTSIDE!!!!1111ONEONENOE all smokers are evil and are less producitve workers as research has shown anyway.

Actually thats bollocks.
Survey after survey has shown smokers a FAR more productive if given recognised smoke breaks. They have a work load they need to complete before they go for a smoke so they go faster so they can get their smoke quicker.
Makes you non smokers look like a load of tired lazy gits 2bh.

I would also like to point out that number of deaths from cancer is now at an all time high yet the number of smokers is at an all time low.

I would also like to point out that the vast majority of people dying from cancer are due to cancers which are not caused by tobacco smoking.

So ... all in all... when you self righteous gits have your way and smoking is banned in its entirety (which is the way its heading) .. what you gonna blame all the cancers on next?
Will you blame cars? Which in a 3 mile journey will produce more hydrocarbons and carcinogens than an average smoker will in a lifetime? (lets not even mention diesels shall we?).
Will you blame all the other sources of carcinogens within your average daily exsposure like paint (yup the stuff you put on your house walls) or deodorants (yup the stuff you spray onto your body) or any of the other million odd chemicals you meet in a day.
Anyone out there wearing leather boots for example?
Do you eat organic food ? Because yes ..... organic food contains carcinogens.
Where as chemical manufacturers have to jump through hoops to prove their product is safe an organic farmer can spray what he likes on crops so long as its naturally occuring. Hell he could spray arsnic on his plants and still keep his "organic" food label. How much copper sulphate you wanna eat in a day? Just buy organic.
My point is ... smoking kills MINIMAL levels of the population. The vast plethora of other chemicals and compounds you come into contact in a day are far more dangerous than secondary inhalation.
Did I mention Chernobyl?

 

[Morchaoron]

I dont care who smokes or not, i just dont do it myself because i only see disadvantages (that means the addiction too yes)