England goes SMOKE FREE tomorrow!

by nicolaou 51 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  SnakesInTheTower

  http://www.smokefreeillinois.org/

  ILLINOIS (US) has a bill sitting on the governor's desk that will ban smoking statewide Jan 1 2008. He has until July 30 to sign it. Casinos are hollering loudest and there is an amendment in another bill to exempt them. Likely the governor will past the smoking ban bill, unlikely the exemption will pass.

  (personally, I think he needs to sign it...then get on with passing a state budget! IDIOTS...what have they been doing the entire legislative session?)

  SnakesInTheTower (of the "never smoked, never will" Sheep Class)
• 

  AlphaOmega

  I just find it irritating that those damn stickers have to go up EVERYWHERE - even places where smoking has never been allowed - it's an on-the-spot fine for failing to have one on every entrance I'm thinking of putting this one up in my shop. Should cover everything:

  Sad Emo, I'm with you on that one ! That covers my murder and stealing all in one go.

  The signs are driving me nuts and it's not even D-Day yet ! What with these signs and the stupid Health & Safety signs, it has gone mad !
• 

  dedpoet

  Although I'm personally not against this ban, I can't help but
  wonder what effect it will have on the economy.

  I heard a radio report last week where it said that, since the
  ban came into effect in Scotland, more than 800 pubs have
  closed, with a subsequent loss of over 3,500 jobs. No doubt
  some of those people would have supported the ban, but I
  wonder how they feel about it now? Would they rather work
  in an environment where smoking is allowed, or be out of
  work? I know which I'd prefer.

  Maybe it won't happen here - only time will tell, but I know a
  few pub landlords in Derby who are very concerned about the
  possible effect this ban will have on trade, and judging by the
  figures from Scotland they have every reason to be worried.

  I can appreciate why most non-smokers are in favour of a law
  that will give them the right to enjoy a meal or a drink in a smoke-
  free environment, I'll probably quite enjoy that myself. I do find it
  difficult, however, to give my total support to a law that has the
  potential to force businesses to close and create more unemployment.

  dedpoet
• 

  BluesBrother

  I am please to see it come in. We have even talked of going for a pub meal if it is not smokey . I went to a gig the other week and the premises had already started to ban it. It was good not to come home reeking of smoke.

  re the signs. There are even multiple signs on the wife's Kingdom Hall door ! (apparently it is the law)

  I do have some sympathy for smokers and in some ways the effects of the Act are unreasonable IMHO

  The smoking booth outside the office has been reduced to a shelter with only one wall, to comply with regs. that it not be an enclosed space. So smokers get wet as well as cold.

  Is it really necessary to stop a van driver smoking alone in his cab?

  But overall it is great!!!
• 

  MeneMene

  "a cult that tells people not to smoke is being oppressive, but a government that does the same thing is not?"
  
  To me the difference is that if the government catches you smoking they don't kick you out of the country and require everyone including your family to shun you the rest of your life or until they believe you have quit smoking and are sufficiently repentant.
• 

  Dansk

  I can appreciate why most non-smokers are in favour of a law
  that will give them the right to enjoy a meal or a drink in a smoke-
  free environment, I'll probably quite enjoy that myself. I do find it
  difficult, however, to give my total support to a law that has the
  potential to force businesses to close and create more unemployment.

  Hi Trev,

  They "may" be unemployed (I doubt it will be many, if any) but at least they'd be healthy and not stink!

  I've seen first-hand what lung cancer is like (I worked in a post-mortem room for 4 years) and it isn't pretty. One patient had his lung removed and was warned he must give up smoking or he'll die. He didn't and ended up on the pm table.

  Knowing what I know, having seen what I've seen, I'd ban smoking altogether. It's a blight on society and robs women of their husbands, husband's of their wives and sons and daughters of their parents. Roy Castle is believed to have contracted lung cancer through passive smoking, caused by all the smoke-filled clubs he visited when playing trumpet with a band.

  The ban is beneficial, believe me!

  Love to Linda!!

  Ian
• 

  5go

  Smokers will have to learn to respect other people rather than just blow out smoke obliviously.

  I hate to point this out but if some smokers would of had some manners about smoking, like putting it out when asked. They might of avoided these bans. But because of some pricks, again the majority suffers.
• 

  5go

  Is it really necessary to stop a van driver smoking alone in his cab?

  I live in texas and that senario has made many people homeless from grass fires yet another rude thing that will bite smokers soon.
• 

  dedpoet

  The ban is beneficial, believe me!

  You are probably right there, Ian. I'm not against the ban myself,
  but you may have a hard time convincing a pub owner who loses
  his livelihood as a result of the ban of its' benefits.

  Some pubs around here have been preparing for the ban in the
  hope that they aren't too badly affected in the summer at least.
  There are some odd looking structures at the back of some
  licensed premises, none with more than two sides so as to comply
  qith the law. Other rhat have no outside area to speak of are said
  to be considering other ways to get around the ban. I heard that one
  is considering allowing people to go upstairs to smoke in his spare
  bedroom, though I don't know if that is true.

  I can see the health benefits of the ban, but I still can't give my
  complete support to a policy that may put people out of work. As
  for banning smoking altogether, I feel that that would create a
  situation similar to the years of prohibition of alcohol in the USA,
  only with smoking rather than drinking, and a ban on the sale
  of tobacco products would bring about a huge increase in
  smuggling. I think the government have gone as far as they
  are prepared to go as for as smoking laws are concerned for
  now.

  Trev
• 

  daniel-p

  Knowing what I know, having seen what I've seen, I'd ban smoking altogether. It's a blight on society and robs women of their husbands, husband's of their wives and sons and daughters of their parents. Roy Castle is believed to have contracted lung cancer through passive smoking, caused by all the smoke-filled clubs he visited when playing trumpet with a band.

  No government will ever be able to control how people treat themselves. Banning smoking wouldn't solve a darn thing - in fact, it would constrict supply, which in turn would merely mean the manufacturers would make more money. In fact, since the big factories would likely be moved offshore, it would create an entirely new black market with a huge vertical structure, with more dealers at the bottom. And that's just what we need, right? Criminals making money by giving people what they want. It's rediculous. Government cannot keep two parties from engaging in a mutually-optimal outcome. In other words, if I really want a ciggarette (either because I'm addicted or not), and someone else has them, it's to both our "benefit" if we transact. Government interference would only make that transaction more lucrative for the seller.

  Case in point: since the "war on drugs," drug availability has soared to virtually every corner of the country - the price of many drugs has even lowered because of that ubiquitous supply. [And this is where I rant on a more personal level]: Demanding that the government interfere into the actions of human behaviour is absurd. We cannot expect any government to make us more responsible citizens, either by treating others with respect or ourselves with respect. Only personal values can do that - instilled from our parents, religion, education, etc.

  Of course, this topic is entirely seperate from eliminating the opportunity for negative externalities in a closed, quasi-public environment (i.e. a smoke-fille restaurant). Although there are plenty of arguments on both sides of the matter, I tend to lean toward the prohibition of it within these spaces.