Posted By Liam Mc Conalogue
Steve,

Here in Ireland the smoking ban has gone down very well with both the smokers and the non-smokers.
The smokers have seen a major reduction in the number of ciggies that they are going through here on a night out- therefore beneficial to the health as well as to the pocket.
Even when you want a smoke- all the smokers congregate outside together and there is always a good bit craic/romance associated with it- so you never know you may like it!!

And the non-smokers inside do not have to endure the second hand smoke health effects.

So here's to you giving up the ciggies Steve.


Best of Irish to you mate,

Liam

Posted By Sean Fraser
No David, you haven't lost the plot but you might have the proportionality the wrong way round.

You are right to point out that as current stats show, around 6 people are killed in construction every month. This means approximately 72 people will have had their lives ended prematurely in a 12 month period. Lives that need not have been lost.

But according to ASH, 114 000 people die every year as a result of smoking.

We can see the results of immediate harm through injuries, but ill health is something we have neglected for too long and it affects far more people than injury incidents ever will. And often ill health is far more disabling than the consequences of injuries, especially respiratory problems.

We need to tackle ALL sources of injury and ill health, not play them off against each other. But if we want to talk about proportionality, then it looks like we may just have it the right way round for a change.

Of course, there are those who will now argue the case for causality and how there is no firm evidence that smoking actually causes harm as "my grandfather smoked 60 a day since he was 12 years old and died peacefully in his sleep at 102", whereas falling 15m and landing on your head can confidently predict a lethal outcome. But when it comes to anecdotes, I have one where a stewardess allegedly fell 15000ft from a plane and hit the side of a snow covered mountain at just the right angle to slide down it, walking away with only minor bruising. On that anectdotal evidence it is obviously OK to jump out of airplanes without parachutes as it isn't guaranteed to kill you.

It is just a shame that the various governments don't just ban the weed altogether. After all, unlike alcohol, there are NO medical benefits to it, only detriments. And those who defend the weed by whittering on about jobs and tax will find themselves in good company with those who defend the right of a country to produce landmines that are used to maim and destroy lives elsewhere. The arguments are the same.

Posted By Ken Taylor
Smokers are generally drug addicts, David - but a government that uses this to raise substantial taxes is likely to be somewhat cautious about banning it. The old diversion argument that there are more important things for them to do is merely a smoke screen. They waste enough time and money on many other things of less importance. Anyway, whilst I have spent my career doing something to prevent death and injury at work, I rather think that smoking (primary and secondary) has been responsible for far more death and disease. This, of course, is not a reason for dealing with smoking rather than health and safety at work but a strong case for attending to both.

Does the Scottish decision support the case for an English parliament?

Posted By fats van den raad
I honestly do not think that there is any other subject that can turn people into sanctimonius, patronising, pat-myself-on-the-back preachers than the anti-smoking lobby.
All of a sudden erstwhile respected colleagues become "drug addicts" or "anti-social" And normally these people will argue in the same breath about the benefits and virtues of alcohol. Well I have never heard of any person that has knocked the living daylights out of a spouse because he has had one ciggarette too many.

Yeah, smoking is unhealthy and most smokers most probably want to stop and they should be encouraged to do so, but the holier-than-thou attitude of majority of the anti-smoking lobby really is not helpfull in the least. Rather, it is completely counter productive.

And no, I don't, I've packed up years ago.

Posted By Alan Haynes
Back to Steve's question on 'which side of the Berwick Bridge he stubs his ciggie out'? -

He won't have to worry about that as GNER will be banning smoking on all its trains [in Scotland and England] as its too difficult to try to stop people smoking when the train crosses the border.

Scotrail will do the same with it's sleeper service from Euston.

Posted By Ken Taylor
We're not all sanctimonious, alcoholic wife-beaters, Fats - just concerned about health as well as safety.

Posted By Andy Petrie
What's the official definition of an enclossed public space. What about a private club, is that a public space?

Another interesting one will be tv sets, or are all scottish tv programmes going to have to stop people smoking?

It's a question I am sure will keep the Lawyers happy for some time

Posted By Ron Hunter
If I may suggest, the thrust of some previous postings is that alcohol abuse costs this country a damn sight more in terms of social tragedy, death, anti-social behaviour, etc. than smoking ever did, but our elected representatives at the Holyrood Hacienda don't have the guts to take on the powerful UK lobby presented by that industry and propose any sensible approach to that particular evil.
No, I'm not (tee-total)and no I don't (smoke) but I used to - gave up a year ago.

Posted By Liam Mc Conalogue
Andy,

You pose a good question there about classification of an enclosed place. Over here in Ireland there is a gap currenly in the law which allows anyone who is in a hotel/ guest house etc. to smoke in their room unless the establishment has a smoke ban in rooms also - which I have to say not many do.
This is supposed to be a law that protects workers- what about cleaners who enter smoke filled rooms?
The law over here actually goes as far as anything to do with the workplace i.e. work vans- although I have to say that it doesn't seem to be working in these areas.
Another issue is if for example, a plumber calls to your house and you happen to be smoking nearby s/he is fully entitled to request that you don't smoke in your own house/their work environment whilst they carry out their work.

Can't wait to hear from the smoking brigade on this one!!!

As an ex smoker myself, but not a holier than though, I can see that it will ruffle a few feathers but lets face it guys we all benefit in some way.

Posted By colin
Firstly I agree that smoking is bad for your health and others around you, I'm an off/on smoker, depends on the day, but new laws, regulations could or should be made against other sources of ill health too.
When you're in the pub you wont see a smoker whos had one ciggy too many causing a fight because someone looked at him in the wrong way, you wont get the smoker knocking someone down in his car on the way home from the pub because he smoked one for the road, you dont get the smoker beating up his wife, a stranger or anyone else while under the influence of a Benson and Hedges cigerette, so why not ban alcohol, it pickles your kidneys, causes upteen medical coditions and has the potential to harm others by the actions of the drinker.

Lets make cigerettes £10 a pkt and lager £10 a pint and £10 a short ?

Posted By Andy Petrie
From the Evening Standard, looks like in the England at least clubs should be ok


Clubs to escape ban on smoking
By Isabel Oakeshott Political Correspondent, Evening Standard
12 November 2004
Smoking will be allowed in private clubs under new proposals to restrict the habit.

A White Paper, to be published next week, is expected to stop well short of a total ban.

It is understood that Health Secretary John Reid has bowed to pressure to allow smoking in some pubs and restaurants which meet strict conditions and obtain a licence - while private clubs will not require a licence at all.

Posted By Mark B
Why whenever smoking is mentioned do people try to counter balance the argument with alcohol, or vice versa.

regards,

Mark.

Posted By Sean Fraser
Licensing - another example of typical government fudge by "New" labour? Perhaps not.

While the debate on smoking continues to be emotive and somewhat polarised, perhaps a licensing arrangement is an acceptable compromise as long as it is applied effectively. It should be presumed that a workplace (and pubs, restaurants and clubs ARE workplaces) is smoke free unless it has a clearly displayed license (not the "clearly") and smoking on unlicensed presmises is hit hard by punitive fines. Conditions for licenses would stipulate adequate and appropriate ventilation that should be objectively measurable, not subjective judgements. And provision of work clothing, regular clothes washing services and on site hygiene facilities complete with soap/shampoo should be available free at point of use. All costs that will no doubt be passed on to the customer, adding yet another financial incentive not to continue smoking.

That way, those who are willingly reducing their life expectancy and those who are uncaring enough of their own potential risk of harm through secondary exposure can have somewhere to legally indulge in their mutual pleasures or to consciously work in a harmful environment and those of us who don't want to be exposed to the possible harmful substances and confirmed unpleasant and clinging odours can enjoy our fresh air without being made to feel like fascist kill-joys.

But then again, if the mobile phone law is anything to go by, the government will find some way to make a mockery of the whole subject and will present yet another piece of unenforceable and hence useless piece of irrelevancy.

Plus ca change

Posted By Martyn Hendrie
Without wishing to restrict the freedom of those who already smoke to "enjoy" their habit. I feel that the effort should be applied to preventing new (in particular the young) from starting in the first place.

Had people know the damage tobacco can do when it was first introduced would it have been banned?

Why not restrict tobacco sales to those who already smoke by a licencing system for both smoker and tobacconist. Eventually the tobacco industry would have develop less damaging businesses or die off.

Posted By Jonathan Breeze
Sean said:

"...eventual elimination of the weed altogether."

Do you mean a total ban here or a ban in public places (of work)?

I would consider myself a non-smoker and am no great fan of passive smoking in any form and would therefore probably favour a ban in public places of work.

But there is no greater pleasure than sitting outside a tent after a long day hiking the trail and smoking a fine cigar.

(I have done this twice in my life with a Romeo Y Julietta & H Upmann respectively)

Please don't propose a total elimination, or even hint at it Sean!

Posted By Laurie
I rather think that enforcement will be by the relevant licensee, since they will be liable to lose their licence for allowing persistent breaches!

Incidentally, hpw many of those expressing an opinion on this forum expressed that same opinion to the Executive during the consultation period?

Laurie

Posted By Sean Fraser
Laurie,

I took the opportunity to respond to the consultation adn expressed my view that as long as smoking remains legal, then it would be a better approach to have smoking enclosures (with separate bars, not open areas for staff to walk through) so people had the choice. Just ventilating one open area would not be sufficient.

We are in an area of civil liberties that is very complicated - allowing one person to harm themselves while seeking to protect the health of others around them who chose not to.

Wish I'd thought of the licensing idea at the time though!

Posted By David A Jones
Surely the issue here is whether smoking in enclosed public places causes harm to others.

I would suggest that it does - passive smoking may not be as harmful as smoking the cigarettes yourself but it can and dioes cause harm. Therefore, in my view such a ban is warranted.

In respect of the comments made on drinking, it is not the act of drinking on it's own that causes the harm mentioned - drunk driving / wife beating / etc. - but a subsequent act such as drviing a car whilst inacpable through drink. This is why it is justifiable to ban drink driving. Likewise it is illegal to wife beat.

Posted By David A Jones
Sean, I was not suggesting whether alcohol was or was not beneficial to the consumer, merely that drinking alcohol does not in its self cause harm to third parties in the vicinity, whereas smoking does through the effects of passive smoking.

Posted By Katie Hoyland
guys
i think we have lost the thread here. Face facts smoking is socially acceptable, lets get out of the dark ages please, the tobbacco companies have spent millions on advertising over the years and I personally have switched brands 3 times in as many years so it must be effective. Smoking has only recently been accepted as being 'cool' so lets please not ruin all the good work with a ban, it would be bad for all of us if smoking once again became a back street habit of the working classes only.

Katie