There is nothing worse than coming home from a bar or club after an evening out and finding that your clothes smell disgusting because they have been saturated with stench of smoke. I'm not the only one who is fed up of this, and I'm not some born again non-smoker, I just wish that I had a choice whether or not I came home smelling like a dirty ashtray.

Another thing that I really hate is walking down the street behind someone smoking a cigarette. Every time they exhale out comes that cloud of stale smoke and bang, you walk straight into it and aside from crossing over to the other side of the street there is very little you can do about it. It is not a pleasant experience and it is one I could live quite happily without.

I know there are a lot of people in this country that smoke and I'll be willing to bet that some that are reading this are fed up with people who don't smoke always harping on about their 'bad habit' and telling them what to do. The simple fact is though that smokers are affecting the health of non-smokers as well as their own. People die each year just because they have breathed other people’s smoke and that is something we really should be taking seriously. In my opinion an outright ban on smoking in public places is the only way forward.

Well, when it comes to bars and what-not, I'm of the opinion that if the person who owns the place wants to allow smokers, he/she should (preferably in designated smoking areas). If the owner doesn't like smoking, then he/she can have a no smoking policy. That seems simple enough to me.

As for smoking in the street, that's more of a courtesy issue. I don't smoke in crowds and I hate seeing people do it. It's quite a disservice to the non-smokers. There's a limit, though. If I'm smoking on a bench a few feet from a group of little kids, I'm the a****le. However, if I'm thirty feet away and someone asks me to put it out, then he/she is the a****le.

Also, when it comes to health, if you live in a city, chances are your lungs are getting polluted in the first place. If you think you got your lung cancer from inhaling a few puffs of another's smoke when you live in a highly polluted area, than you're sorely mistaken.

As a smoker who would really like to be able to wave a magic wand and not be a smoker anymore, here are my thoughts...

I too don't like the smell on my clothes when I've spent the evening in a smoky pub - it's actually a lot more powerful that the smell on your clothes if you've been smoking yourself outdoors. At home, and me the missus go outside to smoke, even when it's bitingly cold, because we don't want everything in our home to smell of smoke.

As to banning, unless the government was going to illegalise tobacco, there an be no ban on smoking. And banning tobacco is pretty damned unlikely, mainly due to the massive amount of tax revenue it generates for the country.

So we're looking at restrictions being put in place on where you can smoke. I'm all for making all restaurants non-smoking. I'd happily nip outside for a smoke. As for pubs, though, it's a bit trickier. For a lot of people, smoking and pubs go together like, well, beer and fags. I think that there should be choice - a broad mixture of smoking and non-smoking pubs - there's a market for both. If I was going to be ludicrous about it, I would suggest that if there were to be non-smoking pubs, in order to preserve equality, there would be compulsory-smoking pubs, where you're thrown out if you've not got a ciggy lit at all times.

The problem with the government's current plans is that by restricting smoking to only pubs that don't serve 'prepared food' (and there's currently no definition of what is and what isn't considered 'prepared' at the moment), the only pubs that would remain smoking pubs are likely to be rougher pubs frequented by working class folk in the main. The reason for this is that most pubs appealing to the middle classes serve food, thereby making themselves non-smoking venues. So the middle classes will be discouraged from smoking, while the working classes have no such discouragement. Which is likely to widen the health gap between classes. Not necessarily a good thing.

As to smoking in public entirely, I think that we need to approach this in a sensible way. Some people want to smoke. Some people don't want smoking near them. We need to accomodate both groups of people. Smoking outside, while not perfect, is about as good as we can hope to get.

This would have no effect though, as any sensible landlord would allow smoking to continue in his establishment, otherwise, he's cutting out a portion of his customers. It's just not workable.


The issue isn't so much about a few lungfuls of second hand smoke while waiting to cross the street - it's about sustained exposure - for barmaids and waitresses for instance.

Oh, and watch the swearing Ri, you ought to know better by now.

I pretty much with Jonman on this.

I'm a smoker. To an extent, I actually enjoy smoking. Smoking and drinking - hurrah. If someone asks me not to smoke near them, I'm fine with that, but having the government completely take that choice away from me... Well, that grates a little.

To ban smoking outdoors, I find a little ridiculous, to be honest. The smoke disperses in a matter of seconds, and if we're going to get picky about chemicals in the air, we might as well ban cars in public places too.

I'm 100% for a ban of smoking in restuarants. I just think it's rude to smoke when someone's eating.

As for pubs... Well, the problem is, pubs already have the choice between being smoking or non-smoking. I've never seen a non-smoking pub, and that, to me, says something. To have this legislation forced upon them seems a little silly, if not a little wrong. As a smoker, it feels as though I'm being ostracised - "Smokers are bad people and must be punished". Well, y'know, we're slowly killing ourselves - isn't that punishment enough?

And I, personally, wouldn't be so fond of going out the pub if I couldn't smoke there, especially in the winter. I don't know... Perhaps pubs could have sections, like in a restuarant? The only problem is that with things like that is that the smoking section will be run down, with dark lights and bad facilities, 'cause, y'know, smokers are bad people and need to be punished.

/end rant.

You say that pubs already have the choice, but you've never seen a non-smoking one. What does that tell you? That the publicans are resistant to non-smoking pubs. And also...

1 : even if you sit in the no-smoking area all night, your clothes still reek at the end of the night.

2 : by extension, you're still being subjected to a substantial amount of smoke

3 :

I'm with Jonman and FU on this one too.

There are quite a few non smoking pubs where I am. In fact the one that a frequent twice a week for a drink is non - smoking. Doesn't bother me at all.

As I've said on another thread about this issue, I'm quite happy for pubs and restuarants to be non smoking assuming they provide a covered area outside for smokers to go.

I don't know about you guys, but I live in Massachusetts where the weather always sucks. We've had lots of anti-smoking legislation here. You can't even smoke 20 ft. from a public building (ie a building serving the public) in some places. I think that there should be sections, or at least an inside place for us smokers to go and not freeze our arses off, or drown in rain, or get swept away in the wind, or all three (I'm telling you, the weather here is awful) And I'm always really nice about it when people don't want me smoking near them, even in my own car if someone is a non-smoker, I'll ask them if they'd prefer me not to smoke. I just want a place where I can be warm and smoke a cigarette when I go out, it doesn't have to be near everyone and it can be a complete hole if you really want to punish the smoker, just please let it be warm?

I'm a non-smoker, who thinks the idea of a smoking ban is stupid.

I'm pretty much of the idea that, once I get home from the pub, I take off my clothes, and then put them in the wash... Hence, no problem.

Then start a pub of your own... you seem to have a fair market out there... you won't see me in there however, as I have friends who smoke, and I'm not about to inconvenience them because of my laundry.

In British Columbia I believe they banned smoking from anywhere children are likely to be found. So no restaurant, public building, playground, day care etc. will allow smoking. I'm not sure what happened in the pubs to tell the truth. They are trying to bring about similar legislation in Alberta without as much sucess. Hospitals and government buildings do have a smoking ban. If you wind up in the hospital, and ask for it, they will provide you a nicotene patch for the duration of your stay. If you get along VERY well with a nurse then she may wheel you down and outside for a cigarette. The men and ladies of the nursing staff are overworked though so you'll have to be quite charming. In theory you're to stop smoking an hour before a nurse comes to your home to care for you, and not smoke while she's there, but that doesn't usually happen. Man's home = castle style of thing.

I don't actually smoke. I'll happily provide a friend an ashtray to smoke outside but don't fancy scrubbing the yellow nicotene off the walls inside. It's amazing how gross that stuff is and how easily it gets on everything.

I didn't vote on the poll as I lean towards time and place for smoking.

There is a pub in Nottingham (I think) that has 2 or 3 floors and the ground floor is non smoking and the others are whatever goes. Where space allows I think this is the best idea as it gives non smoking parties the chance to avoid smoke filled rooms and those who want to smoke can, only with the incovenience of stairs.
Pubs and Resteraunts that have a smoking area at the front of them, as you come in, are in my opinion, stupid because the non smokers have to walk through the smoking area to get to the "clean" air at the back, how much effort would it take to move the signs around so it was the other way around?
Smoking in public, as much as I hate it, shouldn't be banned, it's stupid. If people really feel the need to light up in the middle of a busy street then so be it, although it's a silly thing to do (I know loads of people who have been burnt by people walking along crowded streets, fag in hand) there is no sensible way to prevent it. At the college I go to they have a "bus shelter" type thing that is enclosed except for a few 'chimneys' which is the designated "smoking shed"... I can just see them popping up on every high street in Britain

I would like to point out that it is my right to destroy my body as I so choose. It isn't my right, however, to be guaranteed clean clothes when I go out.

I'm still of the opinion that it is up to the owner of the establishment. It's not his/her responsibility to cater to the tastes of the surrounding area (unless he wants to improve his/her business, but that's his/her call). If you don't like a place because of the smoke, no one's forcing you to go there so don't go. It's the same with work. Once again, no one's forcing you to work there and you know the risks if you work around second hand smoke (it says so on the damn box!). I've thought that way since long before I became a smoker and will continue to think so, with or without smoking.

Took the words straight out of my mouth, Rightous.

Is see the whole notion of banning smoking in "public" places like privately owned pubs and restaurants as immoral. Its as if I were to go to a club and, because of the extremely high volume of the music, complain to my local politician and pressure him to pass a law that places a limit on how loud the music can be. After all, loud music is bad for your hearing. =\

I'm a smoker in California and we have some pretty strict laws here as well. As time passes on it seems like there are less and less places for me to go where I can smoke.

We can't smoke in restaraunts, which is fine by me because frankly the food tastes better that way.

We can't smoke in bars which at first was an inconvience but to bring people back to bars they have either made a room that seems like it is inside but still classifies as being an outside area for the smokers to go to or have patios for smoking which have heaters on them for during the winter time. It's not a problem for me to step outside for a minute to smoke as long as there is someone watching my drink, but in these places I don't have to worry about that because I can bring my drink with me and relax on a heated patio/room.

When it comes to just the general outside we can't smoke anywhere within 30 feet of building entrances so that people have a chance to avoid our smoke if they are coming out of the building. This too is not too much of an imposition unless it is raining and the building is too small for me to walk away from.

The problem that I have when I'm smoking outside is the people who find the need to walk past me and cough even though they saw me in pleanty of time to take an alterior route to avoid the smoke.

When it comes to cars in Cali you can't legally flick your cig out the window, let alone the ash without taking a chance of getting a littering ticket. This too kind of sucks because it's really rather hard to put out a cig and drive, but I know it reduces fire risk.

I think I'm rambling now. I don't think smoking should be outlawed full stop, but I do think accomidations to those who don't smoke is a good thing for the most part as long as smokers aren't totally banned to the darkest, wettest, most horrible spots to smoke.

I think some people who smoke just get fed up with the things said and done to them because they smoke and that's why they aren't as courteous in public when it comes to smoking. I know sometimes I get so fed up with people telling me I shouldn't or walking by me even though they have pleanty of time to walk around me to make a statement about my smoking bothering them, that sometimes I just don't care and will light up in a crowd because I'm sick of it. For the most part though I try to be nice about it and blow my smoke away from those around me and move out of crowds when I do my smoking.

Maybe if smokers and non-smokers were all curteous to eachother it wouldn't be as much of an issue.

I completely agree with LoLo there, that was some great commentary as well as Righteous and Tuco. I think the whole thing is about personal freedom. Car smoke causes cancer and all the stuff smoking does, what would you do it the government all of a sudden said that a group of bicycle riders didn't like driving and you weren't allowed to drive anymore? Or a group of vegetarians hates the smell of beef cooking and it makes them ill, so no more gooking on the grill or steakhouses. There are always going to be people on two sides of an issue about these freedoms, those that like it and those that don't. I think it is more important to think about the freedoms of everyone than the personal wants of an individual or part of a divided group. Compromise is the key with this issue.

True. But if you were to go out of an evening, and all the while you were out, people hurled stinkbombs at you, you'd be pretty narked off when you got home, right?

It totally is your right to destroy your body as you so choose. It is NOT your right to inflict the side-effects on others around you.

Just playing devil's advocate here.

J-man, hurling stinkbombs with the complete attempt to stink up a place is a lot different than lighting us. I'm curteous. Believe me. I'm the only smoker in my house; I've had to learned to be curteous. But it reaches a point. If I'm at a bar, I'm goint to smoke. I may smoke around other smokers (there's a limited number of ash trays at Jackrabbits) and I won't smoke on the floor by the stage (I've seen guys do it! they're in a crowd holding a cigarette over their heads and act like you're the one with the problem when ashes fall on your head!) Even then, as I've said before, it's unethical to say that since their cigs stink, you have a right to tell them they can't. Like I said, no one's forcing you to go there. And to let you cats know, there are bars around that don't allow smoking or at least have like a smoking area.

Here's a semi-random, semi-relevent story: At the Chick-fil-A grand opening, Spiffy, I, my friend Brooks, his brother Rob and a bunch of our friends (many of whom smoke) were all gathered together enjoying ourselves when one of the Chick-fil-A people came by with a bucket of sand. She said, "I'm gonna put this out somewhere so all of the smokers can kind of congregate together." Interestingly enough, we were all of the smokers and we were already congregating and didn't smoke anywhere else, so she but the bucket of sand down among us and we had at it. I found out later that all of the people who complained were at least thirty feet away from us, if not all the way accross the parking lot where they couldn't smell us. They just didn't like our presence.

I have no washing machine at home. So I've either got to have these clothes stinking out my room, until I do a wash at the launderette, or go and do a wash immediately for an extra fiver minimum. & I haven't got another room to leave them in cos I live in a room in a shared house.

Granted - it was very overexaggerated metaphor, but the principle remains. Some folks find the smell repulsive. Would be you be pissy if the bloke at the next table in the bar kept dropping the most obnoxious farts?


And no-one's forcing you to smoke next to them, either. But them sitting minding their own business and having a drink doesn't impact on you. You smoking next to them DOES impact on them. What's the ethics of that?

Yeah, but I'd just move.


Once again, it goes back to the smoking policy of said bar. If smoking's allowed, people will smoke, otherwise there would be no policy. Once again, call me a stubborn hardass, but if you don't like the place that allows smoking, don't go there. It's not your place to demand others to curb their smoking; it's the guy who owns it. As for the smoker himself, all right, not everyone's as curteous as you or I. There are rude-ass smokers out there and mayhap someone could say something (I always ask other if it's cool and if someone asks me really nicely like, "Hey, man, could you not smoke 'cause..." especially if he/she were there first, I'd stop or excuse myself). However, as an overall rule of thumb, if a smoker wants to smoke in a smoking-allowed establishment, then let him.

I don't know if you have this stuff over in the UK, but if you get some Febreeze and a fan, it'll take the smell right out. I've had my clothes REEK of some kind of smoke and it takes it right out. There have been nights when I've come home from a club or one of my friends' house smelling like hardcore smoke then, upon realizing I have no shirts for the next morning, set up a fan and hose it down with Febreeze and it's as if nothing happened.

I do that and smoke and occasional take the piss out of people.

I'm the worst person to be sat next to in a pub.

[spam]

Remind me never to go drinking with you when you feel frisky enough to do that. I can only imagine. "It wasn't me! It was the short, fat, tan bloke!"
[/spam]

Hell yeah! You look like a much more likely candidate for that behaviour then me.

Butter wouldn't melt in my mouth.


'Tis true.

People think that by banning smoking in pubs and bars, revenue for such establishments would suffer, and that is true in the short term. I know for a fact that pubs who have banned smoking (I live near one) have actually seen an increase in takings. Now, I think this probably be true for most pubs. It would attract more families to pubs, and I think smokers ultimately tolerate not being able to light up, so they could have a social drink for example. After all, thats what pubs do. Sell alcohol.

Oh, and on the topic of non smoking areas, they just don't work. Unless you're positioned far enough away from the smoking area, then the smoke inevitably comes wafting over. Smoking rooms are the answer.

Personally I'd be more for a ban on alchohol then smoking (but still against)... as I'm more likely to get hurt by a guy clutching a half drunk bottle of whiskey then a half smoked fag.

I'm down with that, DI. In general I'm more sketched out on drinking than smoking (this coming from a smoker/non-drinker).

What frightens me the most in regards to an activity being banned, or legislated against in any way to
affect a societal group (no matter how varied) is the word 'SHOULD.' I admit, I am afraid of the word
completely. It makes me run and not want to be there, at all. The word makes me queezy because, to
me, it is based on an assumption that the world OUGHT to be something other than it is because of a
pre-conceived notion that one's viewpoint is the correct viewpoint and one OUGHT to be enforcing
it upon others.

In the social situation, I agree with what was said earlier about it being a courtesy issue. It's the old trick
of creating an environment which is generally hospitable, open, and accomodating for others. How does
one wish to present oneself to others? As one who chugs smokey-stuff out of nostrils like a fantastic
dragon who's had three-too-many white russians? or as the gentleman / maiden/ mastress who excuses
themself onto the patio to enjoy a quick cig and shiver a bit, adjust the scarf, and peek into the night sky?
It's always a personal decision how one is going to interact with other humanoids in the social circus.

The whole-mentality of top--->down ethics legislation always rubs me the wrong way,,,it seems to
be a local-level decision in any case. If someone wants to smoke in my home, I offer them to use
the front porch where I've put a comfy chair, an apple tree, an odd-looking cactus, and there's
also a pomegranate tree. If it's too chilly, they may smoke indoors (and especially during a chess
game) where its imperative not to have to get up at the moment. In the right moment, I may have
a smoke too, although Im not a smoker....

Im just not sure why people feel the need to make blanket-social-policies that affect entire geographical
areas,,,iI guess it's just not enough until it's everywhere. The smoking ban issue is
one of many heads of the same hydra,,,some of the others being the attempt to control the way
others are allowed to interact with their own bodies. uhhh..don't want to say much more there,,,
a slap on the wrist for even reaching the brink of such a terrible chasm of philosophy

(stop now before I start repeating the same thing in seven alternate ways!!!)


and i heard that driving an automobile for one mile emits an equivalent amount of carbon-
monoxide as a person smoking 10 packages of king size commercial filter cigarrettes..

synCsil raises some interesting points.

It's certainly my opinion (and of course, I'm falling into synCil's trap of assuming that my viewpoint is the correct viewpoint) that if someone waved a magic wand and magic'd cigarettes and tobacco out of existance, western society would on the whole be improved. No smoking whatsoever leads to a healthier society (literally - lung cancer rates falling dramatically), a cleaner society (no more butts collecting on the streets), and ultimately (once everyone gets over their withdrawal symptoms) a happier society - no crankiness while you're jonesing for your next smoke.

The fact that well over 50% of smokers want to give up but feel unable to, smacks of something seriously wrong to me. Government legislation such as smoking bans is really democracy at work when you think about it. Surely most non-smokers would be happier in smoke-free environments, and if more than half of smokers want to give up, given them a helping hand through legislation is a good thing, n'est pas?


Sure, that's a workable system in your own home, but there is no such parallel where we talk about public spaces and pubs/bars/restaurants. The owner of a business establishment is going to see banning smoking as something that will harm their business. If as little_bear says that that's not the case, then there's a need for clearer education of business owners about these figures.



It's a case of where do you draw the line. In the UK, the government runs the NHS (National Health Service) from taxes paid by us lot. There's no doubt that smoking related illnesses cost a lot to treat. There's a counterargument that smokers pay more in tax over their smoking lives that they could incurr in helathcare treatment. I'm not sure which side of the argument is stronger. However, the point is that the government is responsible for the NHS. The NHS is underfunded and under-resourced, and has been for years. The government has a vested interest in improving the health of the nation to reduce the load on the NHS.

</essay>

Then surely a ban on alchohol would provide a far greater strain releif (as it would remove the huge peak strain of Friday/Saturday nights) and faster... (remove the alchohol and the drunken fights/glassing/drunk driving stops the same day... smoking is a lot slower to harm you)

pls as you pointed out yourself, on avearge smokers pay more tax via smoking then they cost the heathcare services therefore your reducing the amount of money towards the NHS at a greater rate then your reducing the load, thus making it even further underfunded and under-resourced

also... as regards the 50% of smokers wish to quit (but feel unable to do so) its fairly easy to twist a statistic...

Would you be happier in your job if you recived a higher rate of pay? (I bet that 90% of people are unhappy in their place of work due to low pay from that question)

When composing a questionnaire, you tailor the questions so that the answers can be made to support whatever it is you're after as was made evidently clear to me recently, when I received a questionarre from the local Tories, asking blatently weighted questions. My A-level statistics taught me that statistics can be made to prove anything.

Thankfully I'm not altogether unfit. So if there's heavy traffic & I can't cross the road, I just speed up my walking pace a bit & make some sarky comment, as I pass the the smelly *******.

Funnily enough, if I was the smelly ******* in question, that comment would be the last thing you said before I turned round and smacked you in the mouth.

Can't we have a simply debate without it turning into name calling If you don't like someone smoking outside try asking them nicely NOT to blow smoke at you. I think you'll find that they will be sympathetic. If they aren't THEN you can be sarcastic and rude. I agree with Snugglebum on this one. If someone did that to me I'd give them hell but if they nicely asked me not to I'd move away from that. I shouldn't have to but it's just courtesy isn't it? The other option is to just slow down and move away from them.

Above statement apologized for now I'm back on the road & I can annoy people without saying or doing anything except cycling.

i dont think smoking itself should be banned, but maybe smoking in public places? in NY we have that, and it is really great. i mean im sorry if you smoke, but you can just step outside. its not fair to the other people inside. but it also is by no means fair to the smokers to suddenly make it illegal.