smoking ban

Maybe it is in better nick than many UK seaside resorts, but I had spent the previous 2 weeks in prosperous Ireland, where most property, seaside and elsewhere, is in good shape - and very expensive. By contrast, parts of Douglas were shabby - and all the town centre shops closed at 5:30. Port Erin was desolate - especially as it was half-day closing.

Why not do an Oliver Cromwell and ban everything that someone might get the slightest pleasure from. ;-)

wrote

Slight difference between the two - there are economic benefits from the motorcar and other forms of transport, but I can't think of any with smoking other than the duty from tobacco.

John.

In message , John Turner writes

Isn't there a figure being bandied about that despite the billion or so pounds treating the effects of tobacco, the duty on ciggies still provides another few billion in clear profit for the government.

Douglas OTOH is much nicer. In any sense, I'd have thought shops closing at a sensible hour was a sign of civilisation? In any event, you wouldn't catch me buying a house in Douglas, far too much money!

In message , John Turner writes

There is also the economic benefit (?) that the government doesn't have to pay out the old age pension to those who die as a result of smoking, rather than living a long life.

"James Christie" wrote

That's what I suggested - I think the tax revenue from tobacco is c. GBP11 billion with a cost to the NHS of around GBP8 billion.

Wonder how that compares with the revenue from road transport? Small beer I reckon.

John.

No it isn't - it's not in the UK...

In message , Arthur Figgis writes

Well ye know what I mean... Help ma boab, annat..

Generally, governments prefer to tax, rather than ban, anything that someone may take pleasure in.

MBQ

We all agree that we do not go round killing people or taking adictive drugs and we have laws to punish offenders.

drug that kills the user and anyone nearby. The user burns a cocktail of substances in an uncontrolled manner that if these substances were used in the workplace there would be a serious breach of the COSHH regulations and everyone would complain. This drug has also been used to bump off members of the Royal family just as effectively as an assassin's bullet. Enough said on the effects. It is assumed that club membership of various clubs will dwindle... who knows? One thing is known, that as well as the improvement to health, kicking the habit gives you more disposable income. More than enough to buy that loco you set your heart on! regards, Steve

The message from "John Turner" contains these words:

As a life-time non-smoker I am perfectly able to make my own mind up where I go. If the pub is too smoky I will use another. I do NOT want to force my views on others.

I am totally against the ban - it is merely government taking away freedom from the citizens.

As a resident of Ireland I can only sing the praises of the smoking ban. It is wonderful to sit in a smoke free atmoshere while enjoying the beer but the best thing is the next morning! Picking ones clothes up off the floor and discovering that they don't smell of smoke is a wonderful experience.

Michael

"Michael" wrote

I remember the days (well almost) when Britain led the world. Now we follow Ireland! :-)

John.

In more ways than one!

Here in Oz such bans on smoking in enclosed spaces are touted as much as anything as an OHS requirement. The bar owners don't want their staff suing them because they contracted cancer or other lung diseases as a result of working in an unhealthy work environment.

John

wrote

That is ostensibly the reason behind the ban here in the UK. It's very much a H&S issue for bar staff, but as a regular non-smoking pub user I can't say I will be disappointed when the ban comes into force.

John.

Empirical evidence in many states in the USA, in Australia, and in Ireland for openers, has shown that a smoking ban in public places does not wreak economic ruin on clubs, pubs, taverns, bars, lounges, or what ever name you call them by. Neither does it destroy restaurants, diners, delis, coffee shops . . . .whatever. In fact, since I live in a place where the smoking ban is extremely restrictive and rigidly enforced, I can state without equivocation that there has been absolutely no, I repeat -NO- adverse economic impact on any of the businesses in my area.

I am a non-smoker, a reformed smoker, actually, and I was initially against the ban on smoking as I felt, as some on this board have opined, that it was an instrument that would deprive certain individuals of their rights. Perhaps it does, but there are issues on both sides. When one's rights infringe upon the rights of another, there is an unsolvable conflict. Who is to decide which set of rights shall prevail, or what compromise shall be made? There is probably no compromise that will please both sides, but it's either compromise or strip one side's rights away. Smoking is such an issue. Given: Smokers have a perfect right to smoke. Given: Non-smokers have a perfect right to refrain from smoking.

When a non-smoker refrains from smoking in a public place there is no effect of any sort on the smoker. When a smoker elects to burn his tobacco, it does have a very real effect on the non-smoker. The non-smoker has the right to breathe smoke free air, which is being violated by the smoker. Since there is no reasonable way to segregate smokers and non-smokers such that all have separate-but-equal facilities, some other course of action is necessary.

Consider that since smoking is demonstrably injurious to one's health, it follows that individuals who wish to damage their own health must not be allowed to involuntarily inflict said damage on others. This would be true even if smokers were in the majority, which they are not. Never the less, in order to protect the rights of one group from complete abrogation, the rights of the other must, necessarily, be restricted. So then, smoking has not been made illegal. Anyone who desires to consume tobacco may do so with free abandon whenever they are not in a position to expose others to the smoke in such a way as to make it impossible not to breathe it. To simply say, "If you object to the smoke, go somewhere else." is unacceptable when every "somewhere else" has the same smoke-filled environment.

The smokers in my part of the world objected strenuously to the ban in the beginning, and a few were even cited and fined for their refusal to comply. It has been two years now (mas o menos) since the ban went into effect here and the world is rolling merrily along in a smoke-free environment. The neighborhood coffee shop that I frequent is now a much more pleasant place without all the smoke from tobacco, and my smoking friends have adjusted without any catastrophic effects on their psyche. Another place right down the way has put a small number of tables outside with umbrellas over them, ostensibly for the smokers. When I sit out there, I do not allow myself to be bothered by the smoke. After all, I have to respect the rights of others too, don't I?

That statement is only true if the ban is a state wide ban & even then is debatable for those towns next to a state line where people can cross over & smoke. Here in Alberta we have a very mild no teeth smoking ban for the province but some cities (like Edmonton) have draconian laws which even prevent customers being given service outside. Businesses in these cities have seen a dramatic reduction in clientele who go to the surrounding towns. Bingo halls which fund most of the charitable organisations have seen a 60 - 80% drop in revenue (which funds things like junior diabetes research) as their clients go to the casino on the reservations which are on federal land & have non of these PC "whitey" laws.

Norman