Smoking

Re:Smoking

Result!!!
When you wanna go to the pub, go upstairs in that wonky place, you can get your nicotine fix and yet not feel bad about it

Re:Smoking

There should be a balance.

We all know that smoking is bad for you and non-smokers shouldn't have to breathe cigarette smoke, but smoking is currently legal and provides many millions in tax!

Scott.

Re:Smoking

True, but then why do non-smokers have to suffer for the smokers?

Smokers don't suffer by non-smokers sitting there and not smoking, he he!

Every person I know, bar one, hates the fact they smoke, wants to quit and fully supports the smoking ban as they think it will help them quit as their downfall is always the pub.

I always find the smoking debate quite interesting! I know nicotine is an addiction etc, but it always intrigues me how people started smoking in the first place and continue to do so - there is nothing good about it, it tastes disgusting!

I strongly support the no smoking ban - I hate breathing it in, stinking of it and I have been burned by some careless people several times!

There will be the smokers who don't want the ban, but as I said before, the smokers I know want it aswell!

Re:Smoking

Yeah I can understand how it will affect businesses, but if it were me personally I would still be happy with the ban as I wouldn't be working in a smoky environment every day!

To be honest, I think it should be fair and there should be a shut-off room/somewhere outside where smokers can nip in for a quick fag. I know it's not the same as sitting and having one with your drink, but at least it still gives the opportunity to get the nicotine fix and would keep people at the pub! :-)

To be honest, people I have spoken to said they would still go to the pub - they go to the pub to socialise and catch up, maybe have a few drinks, not just to smoke.

Edit: Also, people were worried about pubs losing business when they clamped down on binge drinking and "happy hour" type promotions - all the places I know are still rammed every weekend!

Re:Smoking

Good point - but every cigarette you smoke is bad for you and those who breathe in the smoke.

The difference is alcohol is ok in moderation - a few glasses of wine won't hurt you, in fact red wine has something in it which helps towards cancer prevention I believe - but unfortunately there are people who will drink a lot and not do themselves any favours and cause trouble when drunk.

Saying that, of course I'm no angel - I've tried smoking (had about 2 and hated it!), I used to go out and get drunk at least 2-3 nights a week every week a few years ago and now I still go out occasionally and get tipsy.

Re:Smoking

blobbyh wrote:

If you want to ban a really evil thing then ban alcohol!

I couldnt agree more, I have personal family experience of alcohol, it is a substance that causes a lot more social problems than cigarette smoking

Re:Smoking

Yes, I agree phunky, pubs are often social places but it's still ironic and absurd that people are treating them over-politely almost like they're health farms or that your well-being will improve if you frequent them.

Can you imagine how much cash the revenue would lose if we suddenly all stopped smoking, drinking and driving our cars? Do you think the government would give us incentives to make us return to our former bad habits to generate cash for their wars, oops, I mean schools?

Still, I suppose once these massive Labour backed casinos are finally in place, then at least we can all commiserate by gambling our money away instead of smoking and drinking it.

Robert

Re:Smoking

I would place alcohol and drugs in the same category but probably not cigarettes.

The social consequences of the first two can both be devestating and although smoking is a bad habit, it's not really quite in the same league. People don't generally beat each other to death or break into other people's houses after a night on the fags.

A few people get shot by firearms so we quite rightly ban them. Many people are either beaten to death or savagely beaten by pissed up yobs, so we increase the available drinking hours per day. Go figure.

Robert

Re:Smoking

I happen to agree with the THEORY behind 24 hr drinking, i.e; the idea that if you can drink when you want there is no need for the 'fill yourself up' mentality that exists in this country.

However, what the problem is as far as I see, is that that is what our country is used to, unlike the continentals who have the right idea. They dont feel the need to get their ten pints in before the bell goes.

I dont think that the current generation is going to change their drinking habits, but if we could educate the generations of the future not to have the greedy habits, maybe things will change for the better, and 24 hour drinking will be applauded in its new context.

Re:Smoking

GJP104 wrote:

The difference is that other legal recreational drugs: alcohol and caffeine especially, are not harmful in small amounts.

Agreed, but it does miss the point that alcohol in general is more socially dangerous than cigarettes ever could be. And one of the major lessons of prohibition is that cigarettes are far easier to legislate against than alcohol. If I go out for a heavy night, I'm in more danger from the lad who's had ten pints than from the one who's had ten ciggies. That's inescapable.

While many people do only drink in moderation, there are always those who will abuse it. And while I hate guns, I acknowledge that there are many who do like them for sport or support the right to bear arms, and the same argument could arguably be applied to this too.

Robert

Re:Smoking

Amazing - I still have never come across a conversation / debate about smoking before which has NOT turned into a wager on obesity and drugs... classic.