The smoking debate is, to me, too depressing for me to want to go on about it. This Telegraph leader does go on about it approximately as I would if I could force myself, so read that instead.
The Scots, in the Gadarene sense, are leading the way towards a total smoking ban.
Says the Telegraph:
Over-mighty politicians, in Scotland as in the rest of the country, need reminding that they are elected to do the will of the people, and not to cure our bad habits.
The problem with that being: what if that “will of the people” is, precisely, to cure a bad habit? Once again, we observe democracy being equated with niceness and sensibleness, something we regularly complain about here.
With luck, the same story as has occurred with devolution will play out with smoking. The Scots go crazy, it all blows up in their faces, and the English get the chance to learn from Scottish error. I hope so.
David Farrer reports on Scottish devolution disappointments, from which the North of England learned, and on how the Scottish smoking ban is working out.
Changing the subject, but to emphasise what a continuingly good read David’s Freedom and Whisky blog is, here are two political maps of North America, both very diverting in their very diverse ways.
Way to go, Scotland. I live in a place where I’m forced to breathe in toxic smoking fumes everywhere I go. It’s maddening and, literally, sickening.
Who is forcing you and how? Are you being threatened with violence in the way you want to use the violence of state (laws) to make things more to your liking regardless is their wishes?
As the nic might suggest I am native of the Cuba of the north that is devolved Scotland. The proposed smoking ban is merely symptomatic of increasing lurch to the left of politics in Scotland. Leaving aside our very much Old Labour/Lib Dem ruling coalition, the main opposition are the nationalists. Their policy platform aside from independance is one that Michael Foot would have been proud of. Hmmm Nationalist and Socialist…where have I heard that before?
But worse of all the fastest growing party is the Scottish Socialist Party, a neo-Trotsktyite outfit.
If it wasn’t so depressing it would be laughable. How on earth can the home of Adam Smith also be the stage for a revival of one of the most discredited political and economic theories of the last century.
But returning to smoking…I personally loathe the habit and on a practical level will now enjoy going into smoke free bars. However this proposed measure, like any governmental attempt to change compulsive behavior, is doomed to fail. Smoking will only stop when those concerned are forced to deal with the health consequences of their behavior now rather than in the distant future. If health care was privatised then smokers would be faced with having to pay the bill for their future ill-health through higher than average health insurance premiums, rather than have the state pick up the bill later
Yes, smoking can be harmful and is linked to many maladies of which some are terminal.
Banning smoking, in the US, is a crusade instituted by Politically Correct zealots, busy bodies, who think they should be looking after everyone’s health and the people who are overly-irritated by what other people do. Perhaps its different in the UK.
Passive or “second-hand” smoke is used as the argument for a public smoking ban. It doesn’t matter that the extensive studies on the dangers passive smoke were inconclusive, it sounded good.
Cigarette smoke is offensive to many people there is no denying that. Some people are allergic others has physical maladies that are effected by smoke but the majority of those who complain just don’t like it. People used to be polite and ask permission to “light up”. It’s just good manners.
I’m not going to argue with a public ban on smoking as long as these locations are owned by the public (bus stops, government structures etc). Forcing privately owned businesses, such as a bar or restaurant to ban smoking is invasive and should frighten any freedom loving person. Smoking is still legal. To those who are irritated by smoke I would suggest to go somehwere else or politely ask the smoker if he could refrain for a bit. You might be surprised. For the record, I am not a smoker. I simply cherish personal freedom.
dunderheid, I’m a non-smoker but I don’t loathe the habit. I know many people who enjoy smoking whether its a good cigar, a marlboro light or fine pipe tobacco. I loathe serial murderers and terrorists. I loathe an intrusive government who thinks they know whats better for us than we do. I loathe a government that writes laws that further restrict the right to free ownership because its easy to do and popular.
to “anti-smoker”, I’m sorry you are forced to breath in toxic smoke fumes. I am all for your right not to have to breath it as I am for smoker’s rights. Who is forcing you to do this?
It seems like the first world nations are descending into fascism. At least the smoking ban isn’t as bad as Canadian hate speech laws, where you can be thrown in jail for discussing the wrong subject. A preacher in church said something negative about homosexuality, and ended up in jail.
I’ll stick with the US, where some of these laws get thrown out (although I have no idea how crazy the smoking laws may get).
The city of Sydney, Australia, has banned smoking in the entire town, including the street. I find it astonishing that such a country could put up with this sort of nannying bs.
This puritan madness is everywhere.
Johnathan
Sorry, I thought you said:
The city of Sydney, Australia, has banned smoking in the entire town, including the street. I find it astonishing that such a country could put up with this sort of nannying bs.
I must have misunderstood you. No politician could be so arrogant. If I didn’t misunderstand you I’ll be sure to leave as many fag butts (no sniggering, you lot in the US) on the pavement as possible.
Disobediance and contempt are often the best responses.
To avoid any confusion and to head off rumours of my poor geographic awareness, I’ll be in Sydney in Sept 2005 for a wedding.
And a bloody good piss up.
And plenty of fags.
Donna sent in a couple of good posts. But the incontrovertible fact is: as long as the government has a vested interest in your health, it has an excuse for telling you what you can do with your body.
Privatise the health service and the government can no longer claim to be guarding the public purse by banning smoking, fast food, chocolate bars, whatever. As long as the government can say, “Smokers cost the National Health Service 28bn a year … high blood pressure from excessive use of salt costs the National Health Service 2bn a year … obesity in children caused by eating fast food costs the taxpayer 18 bn a year …” people will never be able to beat them.
I don’t get people that defend the smoking ban. Do they sit back and say “we’ll the War on Drugs is going really well, Prohibition was great; lets ban smoking now”?
I don’t get people that defend the smoking ban. Do they sit back and say “we’ll the War on Drugs is going really well, Prohibition was great; lets ban smoking now”?
Richard
They are too preoccupied with their own moral goodness and superiority to ponder such matters. They know best and all must submit to their will. Its for their own good, don’t you see? Unfortunately for them, they don’t realise that such actions increase the chances of themselves being on the end of intolerant behaviour one day.
The final straw for me was when the government decided to use the Parliament Act to outlaw hunting with dogs. That week I had a pub chat with a lefty friend who is in favour of the ban. Its wrong, you see? She was impervious to one simple fact: the famed ‘tolerance’ she and her kind is absent in the action to ban. There is no need to be tolerant, don’t you see? Its wrong. So we shall ban.
Well I now make a point of of offering up intolerant, offending behaviour at the first whiff of such people. The sooner more do it the sooner the tide will turn.
Well, they may have banned smoking tobacco up there, but now they’re smoking buildings. I see a Scottish Labour peer is accused of setting fire to a hotel. Tony will be so cross, when he gets back from reading the eulogy at Kenneth Bigley’s “multi-faith” memorial service. The moron.
I am a non-smoker in Edinburgh and this is my comment on the smoking ban:
Seventy per cent of Scots are non-smokers. We apparently have rights that over-ride those of the smokers because smoking endangers our health as well as theirs. Our right to clean air is sacrosanct.
But smokers are not the only cause of aerial pollution and not the only environmental problem. In comparison with the environmental hazards caused by resource depletion and the possibilities of human conflict that arise from them, smoking is fairly insignificant. A comprehensive ban on smoking is fiddling while Rome burns. There is a global crisis in environmental terms: it may not affect Scotland very much yet except in the flood plains, but it is a matter of global concern and demands international attention. When people start seeking shelter from the rising seas, are we going to ask them to stub out? A smoking ban in enclosed public places (which are actually not public places at all, when we are considering pubs and licensed premises) is a dangerous distraction, turning people’s minds away from the bigger conflicts of interest that affect all of us, to matters of relative triviality.
Smoking is lawful, and public places are exactly where people should be able to carry out lawful activities that are unsuitable for home consumption, If smoking is a danger to the general public it is also a danger to families, especially in the confines of small flats and rooms with limited possibility of escape to a garden.
Smoking is also a social activity. Social life is where we can confront realities other than the ones affecting our own friends and family, if we are lucky enough to have them. The more we can tolerate in the public sphere, the more we learn about each other, the more we can support each other and not have to suffer our problems and agonies behind closed doors. If 70 per cent of us cannot allow a few tables to smokers, in a country with as much space and fresh air as Scotland, that seems quite anti-social in itself. I was witness a few days ago to a pub brawl started by some young men who had been pestering other customers for cigarettes. Broken glass, blood, police … but in the end it was better that it happened in public than in the confines of somebody’s home. Not tolerating tobacco in public imposes a blanket restriction on thousands of people: a restriction on a lawful activity. Fuses are going to blow: more in public over the smoking issue, and more in private because people who need to smoke are inhibited from participating in public life.
As a non-smoker I wonder about the social climate this is going to introduce. Even though politicians have some sort of responsibility for public health they also have a responsibility to represent communities and constituents. People’s self-confidence within their communities is going to be very much undermined, and this might extend outward to confidence in relation to their custody rights or employment law. I feel this is enormous damage to inflict on a country as young (in terms of its parliament) as Scotland. I am not suggesting that smokers have more rights to consideration than the rest of us but they most certainly do not have fewer rights.
‘Community’ is a buzz-word. I used to feel embarrassed that I wanted to drink regularly in the same places, at the same gigs, week after week, until I realised that it was almost like church-going. Apart from drinking, there was music and a ‘congregation’. It was something that supported me, to which I felt a commitment and where I developed friendships. Many of the people who run these places do it from the same social instincts that attract many of the regulars, apart from the obvious need to earn a living. In future they will have to do it without being able to welcome the smokers comfortably because the basic act of offering an ashtray will carry a heavy price tag. Wherever we are concerned about loss of community, imposing a comprehensive ban will amplify such losses, because people’s enthusiasm to get together in public places will be very much dampened.
It is hard to imagine social life without the smoking. I appreciate that churches do not allow smoking and in any case I have no particular belief in a deity, however we are all supposed to be equal within the sight of God and the law. The smoking ban will do strange things to this concept of equality before the law because smokers – and their hosts – can be fined for doing something that is not illegal. For the sake of ‘clean air’ we will be pushing the smoking issue ‘off the streets’, into the realms of illegality and unacceptability, and I will not be able to go out again without the feeling that the pub will not be able to tolerate all comers because it is afraid to. I would be frightened if I had the ownership or franchise to a pub.
• “I am totally against the no smoking ban is Scotland. But it does not matter how much we protest about human rights, this ban is going to happen. Our voices are being and going to be ignored. I read with interest about “fighting the ban, tooth and nail” and other articles, but I feel our fights and opinions will fall on deaf ears and no matter what we do, the awful ban will and is going to happen in March 2006.
Smokers, should have the same freedom of choice as non-smokers. My heart goes out to the old and infirm, whos only pleasure is their local pub, for a pint and a ciggie/cigar with friends. These poor souls will be forced onto the streets in all weathers, for their smoke, causing illness and perhaps death in some cases. Young adults will face having their drinks “spiked” when they have to leave their drinks unattended to go outside for a smoke, which will lead to more cases of date rape and perhaps death. This will be due to not allowing patrons to take their drink outside while they have their smoke. People with certain medical conditions will be affected, when they are forced out to smoke in all weather conditions. More home smoking and increased consumption of alcohol, where children will be exposed to more smoke and drunk adults will become inevitable when smokers are forced out of pubs and clubs and into the home to legally enjoy their smoke.
I am a smoker, one of the few pleasures, that I enjoy with a glass of wine in the pub (smoking area). I am happy to eat in a non smoking area or restaurant, in order to enjoy my food without cigarette smoke. I have no problem with this. But as it stands just now, I then have the option to go to a smoking area or establishment after I have finished my meal to enjoy a cigarette and a drink. In March 2006, it will be a black day for me and Scotland when the ban comes into force. Myself, I’ll not be back in a pub/club where I’m forced outside to smoke (all of them), choosing instead to stay in and have a drink and a smoke instead, totally ruining my pub/club experience and social life. For Scotland, many (non-food) pubs, social clubs etc, will lose trade and be forced to close, with the loss of countless jobs. Have been to Southern Ireland (passed through only) my friends pointed out to me first hand the devastation caused by their smoking ban. One street looked like a ghost town with countless bars and pubs all boarded up.
I didn’t vote Labour or Jack (ignorant git) Mcconell, but what good has it done me??? None, as a smoker, I’m going to be treated like scum and with contempt with no human rights to smoke a LEGAL subatance in a pub/club.
I’d also like to point out that I can smoke 20 cigarettes and still be fit to drive and am never under the influence of nicotine causing me to fight, swear and cause trouble inside and outside of pubs/clubs.
I would also like to point out that a total ban on smoking will NOT be happening in England. As per usual, test the water in Scotland first.
In England, as I’m led to believe, only a ban on all enclosed public places which have or serve food, which I am in favour of. However non food pubs and clubs will have a choice whether to ventilate and allow smoking or ban it. Fair play, down south will still be able to cater for both smokers and non smokers.
So please, English smokers, spare a thought for us lepers, north of the border, you won’t have the total ban in ALL enclosed public spaces, only those selling food.
A non smoker cruelly said to me……..if you go outside for a smoke, leave your drink (not allowed to take it with you here)……….then you deserve to get it spiked !!! I would not say anything so nasty, even to my worst enemy.
Obesity causes the health service just as much, if not more than smoking………..So, I vote to ban junk food, chocolate, chips etc etc…….This WILL be next. As for Alcohol, ban the lot, or at leat patrons only be allowed the daily recommended allowence. Then we’ll see how the hate-smoking brigade deal with this.
“Smokers, should have the same freedom of choice as non-smokers.”
What choice do non-smokers have when every bar that they walk into are smoke filled. How do they have a choice ??? You are suggesting that it is through choice that non smokers endure this on a night out. I am afraid that you are being somewhat narrow minded. As much as smokers have rights, non smokers also have rights, and if it takes the goverment to intervene then so be it. Sure Pubs have smoking sections, unfortunately smoke rises and spreads so unless smoking areas are enclosed in a glass cubicles, then these areas are pointless. I have been to Southern Ireland, and the ban has had a dramtic change, all for the better. I could not believe how Refreshing it was to enjoy, food and a drink with the taste and smell of smoke. I say bring it on, its about time the majority won for a change.
To be fair, I don’t think I am being narrow minded whatsoever. What I am saying is that there should indeed be non-smoking AND smoking establishments, so that EVERYONE has a choice of where they wish to spend a night out.
No-one has stopped to think that with the complete smoking ban, more and more smokers will choose to stay at home, thus children will be exposed to more cigarette smoke and adults under the influence of alcohol.
As for the complete ban, ask people who are now jobless and have lost their business in Ireland and New York, due to the smoking ban. Try telling my bar owner friend that she’ll be much better off, when she is forced to call last orders for the last time. She says she will be forced to close as 80% of her customers are smokers and business will suffer greatly leading to job losses and eventually closure of the non-food pub. This is not being dramatic, this is FACT.
Oh and another thing, James. I don’t know where you live but here we have (at the moment) both smoking & non-smoking establishments, so I’m sure that wherever you are, there is no-one forcing you to be around smokers. You can simply frequent a non-smoking establishment instead. Even in England, pubs/clubs that serve food will all be non smoking soon. So your choice will be endless.
The smokers choice (In Scotland) will be zero. It’s time the anti-smoking brigade got off their high horses. Everyone should have freedom of choice.
And another point, if say, after March 26th, I am caught with a ciggie in a pub ( A LEGAL SUBSTANCE ) I get fined £2000 but………….If I’m caught with hash ( AN ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE ) I get a slap on the wrist. There’s something very wrong somewhere.
And James, if you drive a car, which I’m sure you do, your exhaust fumes are causing far worse pollution than ciggarettes and are a danger to public health.
I think the claim that the government is attempting to bring back prohibition — this time for cigarettes — is a complete fabrication and utter nonsense.
I think smoking is the single greatest preventable cause of illness and premature death in the world.
Obesity, Alcohol & Drugs are just as much killers as smoking tobacco.
Why not ban junk food?? Why not make only the recommended daily allowence of alcohol be permitted??
I’d be happy with these bans, but would the non-smokers???