6
All fine and dandy until the neighbours start complaining that the regulars are now smoking outside their houses which happen to be just outside the pub exclusion zone.
They already do that anyway around me. The beer garden is on the other side of the road from the pub (Which is apparently allowable because it's not an adopted road?).
Anyway sometimes people somehow manage to get lost crossing the 3m road and end up outside people's houses sitting on the walls and stuff. I do mind the drinking but I object to them smoking and then me having to smell it.
As an expat who’s recently visited back, I’m astounded at how UK smokers behave. Not even on a night out either; the chef on break flicking the finished end into the street puddle, folks lighting up right outside shop entrances, or the general lack of awareness towards smoking around children. Socially learned behavior that never gets the same tutting you might a speeding car or queue jumper.
I took a trip abroad years ago and was bewildered to see a guy light up and then pull out a foil-type pouch too. Not only did the butt go into that pouch for later disposal, but all his ash did too. I’ve heard Japan is much the same way, even Americans are far better culturally about sequestering themselves before smoking.
There is the famous Yes, Minister argument about smokers being a net postitive for the NHS given that they are likely to die younger of smoking related diseases instead of requiring expensive care for more complex diseases later in life.
A study in Finland found that each smoker contributed a net positive of 133,000 euros to their health system by dying younger (on average). Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23233699/
I don't think people in the UK care about this though. People seem to be consistently in favour of banning anything that they don't personally partake in. This is despite the fact that smoking rates are at their lowest levels ever and still falling.
Labour are looking for a policy which is cheap for them to implement but has some popular support so they can basically say, "look at us; we're governing!"
People seem to be consistently in favour of banning anything that they don't personally partake in.
If that's your takeaway then you're an idiot. People can smoke all they like, 50 packs a day if you want. Go for it.
But not near me. In your own house.
Yes in your own house, but not in your garden or with your windows open, because that's too close to me!
You sound ridiculous.
but not in your garden or with your windows open, because that's too close to me
Where are you getting this from? There's a big difference between in a beer garden full of people and in your own garden.
load more comments
(1 replies)
From the same study you linked:
However, if each lost quality adjusted life year is considered to be worth €22 200, the net effect is reversed to be €70 200 (€71.600 when adjusted with propensity score) per individual in favour of non-smoking.
Then there are the risks to other people from second hand smoke: https://www.nhsinform.scot/healthy-living/stopping-smoking/reasons-to-stop/dangers-of-second-hand-smoke/
Ridiculous everyone should just make do and put up with my addiction,what am I supposed to do smoke at home?!
RIP Pub workers having to put up with the "rebels" doing their upmost to take the piss I worked through the indoor ban went pretty well but there were a couple of those I am so smart I beat the system types.
I never realised how much people want to be controlled by the government when I was younger.
This is fucked.
"But the government wants to ban something I don't like! That's good. They should stop others doing things I don't like!"
That's the purpose of the government.
If most of the people want something to be banned, it should be banned. The government works for the people.
Of course, the definition of "most" varies depending on the issue, it's not always 50% (looking at you, Brexit).
Smokers pollute the air in a huge area around them. For the "benefit" of one person they are annoying up to dozens around them.
Every non-smoker looking to date that I know agrees that they would never date a smoker, that's for a reason, non-smokers cannot tolerate the smoke. It's awful.
Now do vapes. I find that disgustingly sweet vapour harder to tolerate cigarette smoke. But I get pleasure of people blowing yhat crap in the air in the supermarket.
Vapes are already banned indoors in most places, basically everywhere smoking is banned. The issue with vapes is a lack of enforcement.
Frankly, I think vapes should be allowed in certain areas indoors, provided they are segregated from others. Vapes are drastically less unhealthy than smoking, to the point where being outside in the cold is probably a greater health risk.
You say that. But as we are talking risks to others it catches me in a way that about 50% of the time it triggers an asthma episode.
Don't k ow about you but I kind of like unrestricted breathing
Edit forgot to add in this stage of the vape life cycle cigarettes were advertised with health benefits. While I don't doubt it's better than smoking the jury is still out on long term effects
https://www.history.com/news/cigarette-ads-doctors-smoking-endorsement
I'm all for more study into the long term effects, and don't think that vaping is completely harmless or that it necessarily has positive effects. However nothing is truly harmless, and many people are considered well within their rights to do things that have the potential to cause harm to themselves - or even others. Driving, for example, carries a significant risk, and even cycling could create a situation where you crash into another person and injur them.
I just think that allowing vaping rooms indoors would be a better solution for everyone. People who vape get to keep warm, while people who want to breathe unrestricted air could find themselves better off because the vapers are indoors and out their way.
Ahh I think you mean like the old idea of smoking break rooms, which sure everyone in there is by choice and accepts any risk.
I dont think your analogy of driving a car fits as driving has utility it reminds me of my yank friends arguing we should allow guns or ban knives because to do otherwise is hypocritical or something
Ahh I think you mean like the old idea of smoking break rooms
Yes pretty much. This was discussed and rejected in the UK when the smoking bans came in, however other places in Europe implemented indoor smoking just fine. As vaping is a lesser harm than smoking, and in particular vapors don't linger like smoke does, it should be easier to implement. But UK politicians wants to maintain a hardline ban in spite of any rational reasoning.
I dont think your analogy of driving a car fits
It was just the first thing that came to mind, which is why I threw in cycling as well. Cycling is often done for recreation rather than utility, but does still carry risk to others nearby. Cars also pollute, though, which is a similar harm to smoking, yet people are against outright banning combustion vehicles. It generally boils down to "I do it, and I shouldn't be banned, but I don't do that other thing so that should be banned."
For the record I don't even smoke, in fact tobacco smoke makes me feel sick. But I don't think people should be outright prohibited, not when a reasonable compromise can be reached.
The way the UK government has handled the whole smoking thing is a joke either fuckinhg ban it or don't. The way they are doing it while helping in some ways makes it better in others it makes it worse as you have pointed out.
I just want to get my shopping without worrying about random asthma attacks
Yes, blame the government for wanting to protect people’s health.
Absolutely trust the smokers who are clearly capable of making the correct descision instead.
There an element of personal freedom which people find important.
When you smoke its not just your own health you ruin. It's the same selfish thinking antivaxers have.
That's not a terrible analogy, but doesn't resounding support a ban. It's virtually unimaginable (and I suspect more or less legally impossible) that vaccination would be obligatory.
Vaccination in the past has been obligatory, eg for polio.
So has lobotomy for certain mental health patients. What's your point?
It's not really a ban it's just a protection for other people's personal freedoms, I for one would love to get freedom to not smoke in an outside cafe, yet others are choosing for me now.
I mean... Just go to a cafe that doesn't allow smoking at all? Are there none around?
There’s personal freedom, and then there’s just being bloody ridiculous.
Give it up. You’ll save money, smell nicer, be able to taste better and be healthier.
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/quit-smoking/nhs-stop-smoking-services-help-you-quit/
I don't smoke mate.
It wasn’t necessarily directed at you. Maybe it might help someone.
It’s 2024. Why the fuck is anyone still smoking anyway? Ban it
I don't really care if they ban it or not I just want them to ban it in public. People want to smoke in private that's their prerogative and they really couldn't care one way or the other.
But it actually has to be in private, not just sitting on your doorstep in a dressing gown at 9:30am on a Tuesday with everyone walking past you on the street. That might just be around me though.
Absolutely stupid.
1987 smoking banned in London public transport following the deaths of 31 people in a fire
2005 banned in nationwide public transport
2008 banned in enclosed public spaces
2018 banned in prisons
I'm curious do you think they're all stupid or just this one? Isn't this one just an extension of "please don't smoke directly in front of the hospital doors" for other public places?
What about the proposed plans to raise the smoking age year on year every year?
Banning smoking in prisons was insane. It was pioneered by "failing" Chris Greyling and essentially created a whole new category of contraband. I was watching a Business Insider doc on youtube about this and a former prisoner was saying that since this policy came into place, a pack of cigarettes is now valued at hundreds of pounds when traded between prisoners.
An enclosed space is very different to outside. That's why you don't run your car indoors.
Should we ban pubs from having car parks? Since the exhaust fumes are quite toxic.
Lots of pubs don't have car parks though so what's your point?
Just so you understand, the reason that smoking outside should be banned is not because smoking is bad (although obviously objectively it is and you shouldn't do it) but smoking near me is bad, and I am occasionally outside at the same time as you are outside. If you want to go smoke in the middle of a field, be my guest. Your life choices should not affect me.
Should we ban [cars]
I mean, disregarding the feasibility, political polularity and media optics of it, for the continuation of earths ecosystem... probably yeah
Are you a little bit slow? You don't see the difference between indoor and outdoor?
Absolutely brilliant.
Smoking is a choice and you're choosing to make it someone else's problem by smoking at pubs
By definition a substance use disorder is not a choice.
The choice is blowing smoke in public places, not craving nocotine
load more comments
(2 replies)
Is it? Second hand smoking still fucks you up, and it's not like being outside completely fixes that.
Car pollution fucks you up, too, probably more so. And before you say "people need cars to get places", nicotine (and caffeine) fuelled the industrial revolution - nicotine makes your brain work faster, which can make people more productive.
Yeah and that's why we have congestion charges and emissions zones and catalytic converters and environmental regulations on cars, to reduce the pollution that people are breathing in.
FYI I'm not in favour of ever banning smoking completely. The freedom to damage yourself is just as important as the freedom to not be damaged by someone else.
Absolutely authoritarian.
Education campaigns are far more effective with far less pushback than draconian bans. Let people choose for themselves.
I remember constant campaigns in the past trying to convince the public of the ills of smoking, and it (slowly) appeared to be working. Then vaping came along, and instead of continuing the education campaigns, the health departments tactics seemed to change to "take up vaping, it's better than smoking".
And now, it may just be anecdotal, but smoking appears to me at least, to be on the rise again. I wonder why?
Sounds like the same argument against banning smoking in pubs, which is probably the single greatest health intervention in the last fifty years and now supported by basically everyone.
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is completely okay and the people who are calling this bad are coping and should quit stinking up public places with their disgusting shit.
Just as long as they include bloody vapors as well. If you're not using vapes to quit then you don't get to blow raspberry smoke in my face.
I don't mind vaping nearly as much but I'd say that sounds fair
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
6 points (100.0% liked)
UK Politics
3023 readers
129 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS