Rich Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 I'm all for a ban. I hate smoking, nasty habit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 How about if there was a blanket ban, and pubs, etc were able to apply for a smoking licence after say 6 months from the start of the ban? Would that give them a chance to make it work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomme Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 From : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3235148.stm Doctors urge public smoking ban ======================= Doctors say passive smoking kills 1,000 adults a year The Royal College of Physicians and 17 other medical colleges have called for a ban on smoking in public places. In a letter to The Times, they warned there was now compelling evidence about the dangers of passive smoking. They argued the system of voluntary self-regulation in bars and restaurants had failed, and called for legislation. The tough stance reflects a growing international concern about the harmful effects of passive smoking, which doctors say kills 1,000 adults a year. The Irish Republic and Norway are on course to ban smoking in public places in the New Year. Doctors' leaders says Britain's voluntary route, where bars and restaurants are encouraged to introduce no-smoking policies, is simply not enough. They argue that passive smoking not only causes 1,000 deaths in adults each year, but is also responsible for asthma, lung infections and ear problems in children. Professor Carol Black of the Royal College of Physicians told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that evidence from the World Health Organisation, the UK Committee on Carcinogenicity and the government's own Committee on Science and Health all showed the need to introduce a public smoking ban. "In 1998, the government said there was no doubt smoking kills and suggested progress could be achieved by working with [the tobacco] industry rather than to enforce a public ban. That progress has not been fast," she said. Professor Black said only 36 pubs in the country had enforced their own smoking bans. She added voluntary bans had not worked well, but an enforced public smoking ban could save about 160,000 lives per year. Health Minister Melanie Johnson agreed the rate of progress over voluntary bans had not been good, but denied there was a need for a public ban. "Smoke-free places are the ideal, but the evidence is that public opinion remains divided," she said. "There is also cost and a difficulty involved in enforcing a no smoking ban." She added there was a lot of room for the hospitality industry to enforce their own smoking bans, adding they had so far been slow to respond to demand." Meanwhile, the Mayor of London is consulting on what Londoners think about where people should be able to smoke, and other cities such as Sheffield, Birmingham and Brighton are considering bringing in more restrictions. In the summer, restaurant chain Pizza Hut claimed to be the UK's first nationwide restaurant chain to introduce a total smoking ban. ============== End of quoted Article =============== "She added voluntary bans had not worked well, but an enforced public smoking ban could save about 160,000 lives per year." - that's a lot of lives! I have mixed feelings about this. I smoked for about 20 years and have only recently given it up (just over 6 months now). As most of my friends still smoke if there were smoking and non-smoking pubs I'd end up going to the smoking one as that's where my mates would go. As a compromise I'd suggest encouraging better/more efficient vertallation systems which would extract the smoke more readily and don't leave it lingering in the air. Nomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Dan Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 Originally posted by Dick Dastardly Awaiting the backlash from all the smokers now Ahem... cough... ok then!! I think if you're worried about pollution there are much worse things!!! It's been said before so I won't harp on about it. I think there should be designated smoking areas in public instead - then you really would have the choice of where to go... How does a cigarette outside pollute anyway??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBouncer Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 I would much rather Fireworks be banned from public sale. However, I would settle for a public smoking ban... for now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 Originally posted by Agent Dan Ahem... cough... ok then!! I think if you're worried about pollution there are much worse things!!! It's been said before so I won't harp on about it. I think there should be designated smoking areas in public instead - then you really would have the choice of where to go... How does a cigarette outside pollute anyway??? Ok, It was a little ambiguous when I stated that I agreed that smoking should be banned in public places. This was a bit of a broad statement to say the least. What I really meant was that I agree that smoking should be banned from pubs and restaurants etc, but as for outside then that's taking it too far. Maybe the way forward is to compromise and create a smoking zone in a separate room in such establishments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilaw Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 I think a separate smoking area is a good idea and to be honest most pubs have them. The Wetherspoons group has a no-smoking area which is good but small. I think they should subtley change it to a smoking area so the non-smoking bit is bigger..... Some restaurants have had smoking areas for years, but not all...Pizza Express being a good example...Exapnding on this and enforcing it as mandatory for all public places can only be a good thing, as it will eventually lead to smaller and smaller smoking areas in pubs/rastaurants, which assists in phasing out the whole smoking thing. For instance; you cant get into your fav curry house cos all the smoking tables have gone what would you be inclined to do?......go somewhere else, not on your life if its the local, you just wouldnt smoke for a few hours then before you know it....Bingo! more and more people acclimatise to not smoking in restaurants and so dont..... I used to smoke and if people want, or rather NEED to smoke, then its a nice touch to give them a specific area in which to do so, remember all you never smoked types, its more a NEED than a want, its an addiction remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidla Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 Don't see how this is related to Sheffield, so moving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomme Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 Originally posted by Sidla Don't see how this is related to Sheffield, so moving. Fair enough but you may have overlooked this from the article I quoted : " Meanwhile, the Mayor of London is consulting on what Londoners think about where people should be able to smoke, and other cities such as Sheffield, Birmingham and Brighton are considering bringing in more restrictions. " Nomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidla Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 Ah right. Well it's a bit of both then, so doesn't really make a massive difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.