Smoking to be banned in all pubs and clubs
Smoking will be outlawed in all pubs, restaurants, private clubs and most workplaces across Britain by the summer of next year after MPs voted overwhelmingly last night to extend a complete ban to England. Only private homes, care homes, hospitals, prisons and hotel bedrooms will be exempt.
Smokers caught lighting up in banned areas face a £50 fine As MPs voted, the Government announced a huge increase to £2,500 in fines for businesses and authorities that fail to stop people smoking in prohibited areas. The original proposal was for a £200 fine. Spot fines of £200 will be introduced for failing to display no-smoking signs. If the case goes to court, the penalty could rise to £1,000.
Source: Daily Telegraph (15 February 2006)
posted by Simon Clark @ 08:40
17 comments
17 Comments:
About time too. I have more right to go into a pub and not leave smelling like stale tobacco than a smoker has making it so.
Accept the fact that you are pandering to your addicition by fighting a fight not worth winning.
By all means, nip outside for a quick ciggie or puff aweay to your hearts content in the privacy of your own home, but dont force the rest of us to suffer because of your own weakness.
Excellent news! About time!
Anyone bleating about libertys lost are just being selfish as non smokers now have the liberty to enjoy pubs, clubs etc.. without ending up stinking of smoke, feeling ill and damaging their health.
You still have the freedom of choice, just do it outside where you don't inflict you nasty little habit on others.
With any luck the habit will die out in time.
There is only one option left. Does anybody fancy starting a new political party. It would need a snappy name, smoething like The Freedom Party. The manifesto would be really easy, just do away with all the things most people hate:
1) would have to be ID cards (v. unpopular)
2) smoking ban
3) speed cameras
4) inheritance tax
5) MP's pay and allowances
etc etc
You would win by a landslide. Just need 600 or so like minded people and enough party activists and we could kick this useless lot out of Parliament where they have squatted for too long.
Will this absurd anti-smoking law affect the smoking of hookah pipes in Lebanese, North African, Arab and Turkish restaurants? I presume that it would.
Also won't it lead to more people smoking at home in front of their kids? And will it lead to an increase in the number of 'shebeens' or illegal
drinking dens where people will be confronted with far more dangerous
substances than tobacco?
All for very questionable scientific evidence.
I was horrified by the vote last night. How can those politicians possibly believe that they are representing the views of the public? I am fed up with seeing smokers being treated like second-class citizens, workers shivering outside offices, sick people being sent outside in the cold to smoke - in their pyjamas - when they're in hospital (I thought hospitals were places where people were cared for).
What can we do now? I'm all for marching or leaving the country.
I am irritated almost to violence when I'm in a pub and a non-smoker
decides to lecture me about the evils of smoking, ineffectually waving a beer mat at my cigarette smoke with one hand whilst trying to get their fourth pint in two hours to their lips without spilling any with the other. Rank hypocrisy.
Emma.
The Prohibition era during the 1920's in the US was ushered in with talk of "The Iron Law of Prohibition". Very well, the answer is of course to go underground, and let "The Iron Law of Liberty" set things in balance. Welcome to the age of the "SmokeEasy"!
What's tyrannical about smoking bans is that if non-smoking establishments were really desired and seen as a good thing for business and patrons, bar and club owners would've banned smoking in their establishments 20 years ago without being prodded by the Fascists, who rule us all now by decree. Democracy is non-existent.
The other ridiculous assumption is that there's a majority of non-smokers who frequented clubs and pubs! Rubbish! Here in my Fascist-ruled city, NYC, the club/pub/bar scene was always majority smokers, (or easily half) of the customers of any establishment. Businesses and government threw out half of their customers! I don't know how many businesses survive when the do that kind of thing, do you?
I'll tell you what happens when smoking bans are forced upon the unwilling. Places go out of business, and that's a fact. The places that do stay open lose money most of the time and only are frequented because people do need to socialize. But the atmosphere in bars is now controlled, stale, divided and surveillance-oriented where it's no different from the office you work in. Bars/clubs used to be places where people let loose and forgot about their woes and liked breaking rules. People go home much earlier, spend less, tip less.
Let's face it, the economies of Western countries suck right now. Going to bars and clubs and restaurants is a luxury anyway. When folks are struggling to make ends meet and then told on top of that they can't smoke in public places, then the incentive to frequent these establishments is usually greatly diminished. Not only has the government intruded upon private businesses, the bar/club/restaurant owners have failed the people as well. This is why I, and many others I know, have totally cut down, not on cigarettes, but on going out to places who don't want us there anyway.
Down with all the self-righteous Fascist do-gooders. The politicians are weak and corrupted criminals who've found the perfect scapegoat in their Politically Correct fiefdoms and now appear to the non-smoking retards as "saviors" and "protectors" of the common good. Little do people really understand that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The Nazis and Communists promised their peoples a paradise too.....and look where it got them.
Great News! Can't Wait!
Smoking is one of the worst human habits, it not only destroys your own health, but that of others around you. It would be illegal if it didn't generate so much money in tax.
It makes me laugh when people talk about freedoms. Do you complain that people are not legally able to assault you when you irritate them? No. Because it isn't acceptable behaviour, and neither is smoking.
There are so many advantages to this ban that I could type all day, I defy any smoker to list REAL reasons why there should not be a ban.
A couple of advantages:
- Public health and wellbeing
- Kids will not be coaxed into smoking "socially" at the pub
- More people may be motivated to quit
- Bar staff get to work without suffering selfish smokers
I could go on. A disadvantage that has been raised is that the ban will be bad for children! It says that people will smoke at home instead of the pub. The people who would do this obviously don't care about their children's health anyway, they will smoke in front of their children whatever.
An overwhelming majority in the Commons represents the current public attitude towards smokers. This is a great achievement.
Roll on Summer 2007!
I think if you want to smoke that is perfectly fine. But you shouldn't be allowed to do it anywhere near other people - so that you don't harm them and people shouldn't have to pay taxes for your healthcare because you are clearly aware of the risks and have chosen to take them.
I haven't heard one argument for smoking in public places that isn't completely selfish. They all have the i want to be able to do whatever i want and i couldn't care less who i hurt in the process.
You are basically killing other people indirectly and if you don't care about this then basically your opinion should be disreagarded. You can abuse your bodies all you want but it's not fair that other should suffer the consequences.
Businesses may go out of money but i am more concerned about the general publics health than their financial status.
Lets not get carried away with the loss of freedom issue. The partial ban was not a proper choice. My Mates in the pub had decided that if our local became non-smoking we would all start drinking in a smoking pub. That included all the non-smokers who were used to smoky air going with booze, so they wouldn't benefit at all. They didn't have freedom of choice except find new friends.
Okay you Antis who are so pleased that you can now drink "Without Stinking of Tobacco Afterwards"... let's see you replace the smokers you have now displaced - here's your chance to do what you said you would; reclaim our pubs!
But a warning - you need to visit pubs at LEAST 3 times a week, ordering at LEAST 5 drinks every time. Just going once every three months for a half of lager will not do - the pubs will close and it's on your 'smoke free' head.
Since the British Beer & Pub Association went turncoat on a large proportion of their customers in eventually supporting the total smoking ban, I shall as of today being doing exactly the same. Unless I absolutely have to, I will not be stepping inside a pub or club again until the day I die. To hell with the lot of them.
So, now I can't go to a guest house, hotel or rented cottage. Pubs and restaurants are out. I thought members clubs were for the members. Does that mean if I have a few friends in for coffee and a fag, the control officers (how apt) will be there? Oh, brave new world. What about sex trafficking, child abuse,dog mess, etc? Anyone know of an island for sale?
I believe this is excellent news. It means we can now go into pubs without being exposed to second- hand smoke, and enjoy the time spent there. It will save lives and help people give up smoking, with around 600,000 people expected to kick the habit.
The partial ban would never have worked. It would cost a lot of money and be difficult to enforce.
As for the 'patio heater shares', well, they should be banned. Non- smokers do not want to be passive smoking when they get into the pub.
The smoking ban should extend to public places grounds, not just enclosed public places.
Perhaps there should be a levvy on tobacco companies' profits in the UK- the funds go to health foundations (e.g. Cancer Research UK).
The fact that businesses now have to pay £2500 as apposed to the bodge £200 nobody would oblige to (for businesses failing to apply the new law) is brilliant.
Let's hope that the minimum age to buy tobacco will be raised from 16 to 18. This is a seventy year old law that must be changed to adapt to modern day life. Then, 75% of adults smoked. Now it is just 23%.
Also, smoking is more harmful than alcohol, so it should be at least the same minimum age (the minimum alcohol age is also 18). But because of this, it should really go up to 21- adults or non- adults- it does not matter how old you are- the fact is that Smoking Kills- apparently it says so on the packets.
Facts: 80% of the population in favour of raising the age to 18;
55% in favour of raising it to 21. Good News I believe.
There is still an awful lot to do to try and persaude people to give up smoking, as well as persauding people not to start it.
It seriously damages your health, causes a lot of diseases and accounts for the majority of them (e.g. lung cancer).
Also, half of all smokers die as a direct result from the habit.
Says it all really.
Therefore, there really is no point in FOREST at all. It is 96% funded by tobacco companies- need I say anymore? It promotes tobacco, and at last Formula 1 tobacco advertsing has been banned.
In contrast, Action on Smoking and Health is mainly funded from donations, etc. I believe.
You should keep up with modern times and adapt to the majority of people's preferences.
Seventy years on, times and patterns have changed and the laws should change with them.
Morrisons have banned smoking in their cafes, (finally) and BT have recently announced they will do the same on their premises.
The Real Challenge- Increase the Age to Buy Tobacco from 16 to at Least 18.
As for the tabacco companies' levvy- well, it would be benificial, would it not?
Action on Smoking and Health (http://www.ash.org.uk) has got the right ideas.
marc bannister writes:
"Therefore, there really is no point in FOREST at all."
Well, marc, it has provided a forum for you to indulge yourself in a lengthy and sanctimonious diatribe of your virulently anti-smoking views, hasn't it?
Do you think that the saintly people at ASH would allow me the reciprocal privilege of placing my views on their web-site?
No they would not -
- because that would involve freedom of speech and freedom is a word not found in the lexicon of the anti-smoker, is it Mr Bannister?
"Says it all really".
Post a Comment
<< Home