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.
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?
Should we ban pubs from having car parks? Since the exhaust fumes are quite toxic.
No, but we should ban the sale of new ICE cars (and in so doing begin a complete phase out) for those reasons and because they’re damaging to the wider environment.
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.
Everyone who chooses to drive in a city centre has a directionally similar impact (potentially bigger magnitude because vehicle traffic is pretty lethal). I don’t think anyone disagrees with the principal, they just have different thresholds for personal freedom vs impact on those around you.
I think it’s hard not to see a culture/class aspect to this when wood burners continue to be used without much limitation.
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.
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.
Inside is very different to outside where smoke doesnt accumulate. You can instantly smell someone had a ciggarette inside even hours later, outside you cant tell (once the person has left) even a few seconds later.
Its incredibly subjective that smoke dissipates far faster outside where there is significant airflow than inside closed rooms?
Yes your clothes might smell if you’ve been smoking outside, but if you walk away from the spot there isn’t any smoke hanging around for other people to breathe in. That is the difference when it comes to health effects from second hand smoke.
I’ve got bad news for you, smoker…we can tell. You fuckin STINK no matter where you smoke. Your breath, your clothes, your hair…yuck. Everyone knows you took that cigarette break.
A) other than a few joints in my 20s I’ve never smoked, dont be an arse and make assumptions about people you dont know.
B) I really dont care that smokers often stink, I dont live with any. My point was that their cancer causing fumes dont linger outside for me to breathe in so I dont care that they are doing it to themselves. The opposite is true inside where they are affecting me, so I’m glad that’s banned.
“Yes, police service please. Somebody was stressed at work and decided to take a break to calm down and in doing so inadvertently made my jumper smelly. Can you arrest them please? They’re still here. They’re behind the bar serving pints to everyone, you can’t miss them, their t-shirt is so pongy, poooooeeeyyyyy. I’ll see you in 5 minutes.”
I worked in a pub for a few years, do you know how difficult it is to get the plod to show up? Even if there’s two blokes kicking the shit out of each other it can be a task to get them to respond to the call.
Making it ILLEGAL to smoke outside is ridiculous. Those who say otherwise are far happier with government overreach and authority than they’d otherwise admit.
Edit: to add, remember when we were told sitting outside kept us safe from covid, an airborne virus, because of the constant airflow? Funny how that doesn’t apply to smoking.
The comparison to COVID is interesting. If people can smell the smoke, they’re literally breathing in the air that the smoker is breathing out, and one can definitely smell smoke from the next table over. Maybe that’s part of why lockdown didn’t work as well as we hoped.
Also, if you can smell it, it’s doing harm. Second and third hand smoke on your clothing is still real in outdoor spaces, and people should have the freedom to avoid that harm.
In your experience, do bartenders tend to take their smoke breaks in the outdoor seating area with the patrons? If not then your post is moot - the ban isn’t for employees taking a smoke break out back.
This reminds me of the pushback against mandatory seat belt use in the US. It’s absolutely in the public’s best interest to ban public smoking and arguing that people should make their own decisions is ridiculous. Make smoking inconvenient for smokers and allow people in pubs and bars to enjoy smoke free air.
People IN pubs and bars already enjoy smoke free air. The discussion is about outside beer gardens. Where the wind is. There’s also nothing stopping pubs having their own rules against smoking in their beer gardens already. Why must the law be used to criminalise those who smoke?
I’m not a smoker by the way. I’m pro-smoke reduction even, as stated by my point about education, but I’m anti-authoritarian and anti every faucet of human life being criminalised.
They are recommending vaping in exchange for smoking. Come on you’re not even trying to good faith argument at this point, you’re just putting forward nonsense that isn’t true and then backing it up by deliberately misunderstanding basic facts.
As in, not quitting ingesting nicotine. Still inhaling foreign substances into the lungs. Vaping is still shit for you.
In the early 2000s the message was “smoking is bad, here is why, this is what it will do to you, please don’t do it”. That message was sinking in to the general public. Smoking was plummeting.
Then austerity came along around the same time as vaping and it became far more convenient to just ask smokers to vape instead of mass education campaigns.
Now the simple answer is just banning it.
It’s not a solution. It normalises government overreach into day to day life, it others people and makes them targets for discrimination, and doesn’t convince people of the ills of smoking.
It’s a dumb idea that polarises people and doesn’t fix the root issue.
Yeah bloody government, making laws, making people’s lives better, how dare they.
I liked it back in the old days when 4-year-olds worked down the pit and no one back an eyelid, and then died quietly of tuberculosis. Snowflakes these days…
Absolutely stupid.
Is it? Second hand smoking still fucks you up, and it’s not like being outside completely fixes that.
unless they are literally blowing it into your face there really isnt much health risk
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.
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?
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.
I mean, disregarding the feasibility, political polularity and media optics of it, for the continuation of earths ecosystem… probably yeah
No, but we should ban the sale of new ICE cars (and in so doing begin a complete phase out) for those reasons and because they’re damaging to the wider environment.
Oh, look we are.
I don’t run my car indoors because generally it doesn’t fit through the door.
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.
Everyone who chooses to drive in a city centre has a directionally similar impact (potentially bigger magnitude because vehicle traffic is pretty lethal). I don’t think anyone disagrees with the principal, they just have different thresholds for personal freedom vs impact on those around you.
I think it’s hard not to see a culture/class aspect to this when wood burners continue to be used without much limitation.
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.
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
It’s mentally addictive not physically addictive so no that’s not a defense
Hate to break it to you but smoking is definitely physically addictive
What, smoking? I agree.
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.
Inside is very different to outside where smoke doesnt accumulate. You can instantly smell someone had a ciggarette inside even hours later, outside you cant tell (once the person has left) even a few seconds later.
That’s incredibly subjective, and not true for many. A lot of people can tell if you’ve been smoking outside
Its incredibly subjective that smoke dissipates far faster outside where there is significant airflow than inside closed rooms?
Yes your clothes might smell if you’ve been smoking outside, but if you walk away from the spot there isn’t any smoke hanging around for other people to breathe in. That is the difference when it comes to health effects from second hand smoke.
Sorry, I was referring to your comment, I’m not sure what you read
I’ve got bad news for you, smoker…we can tell. You fuckin STINK no matter where you smoke. Your breath, your clothes, your hair…yuck. Everyone knows you took that cigarette break.
A) other than a few joints in my 20s I’ve never smoked, dont be an arse and make assumptions about people you dont know.
B) I really dont care that smokers often stink, I dont live with any. My point was that their cancer causing fumes dont linger outside for me to breathe in so I dont care that they are doing it to themselves. The opposite is true inside where they are affecting me, so I’m glad that’s banned.
Well you specifically mentioned the smell which is what I was referring to
I mentioned the smell merely as a way of showing that smoke fumes linger inside in a way they dont outside.
Oh no! Smells! Call the police.
“Yes, police service please. Somebody was stressed at work and decided to take a break to calm down and in doing so inadvertently made my jumper smelly. Can you arrest them please? They’re still here. They’re behind the bar serving pints to everyone, you can’t miss them, their t-shirt is so pongy, poooooeeeyyyyy. I’ll see you in 5 minutes.”
I worked in a pub for a few years, do you know how difficult it is to get the plod to show up? Even if there’s two blokes kicking the shit out of each other it can be a task to get them to respond to the call.
Making it ILLEGAL to smoke outside is ridiculous. Those who say otherwise are far happier with government overreach and authority than they’d otherwise admit.
Edit: to add, remember when we were told sitting outside kept us safe from covid, an airborne virus, because of the constant airflow? Funny how that doesn’t apply to smoking.
The comparison to COVID is interesting. If people can smell the smoke, they’re literally breathing in the air that the smoker is breathing out, and one can definitely smell smoke from the next table over. Maybe that’s part of why lockdown didn’t work as well as we hoped.
Also, if you can smell it, it’s doing harm. Second and third hand smoke on your clothing is still real in outdoor spaces, and people should have the freedom to avoid that harm.
In your experience, do bartenders tend to take their smoke breaks in the outdoor seating area with the patrons? If not then your post is moot - the ban isn’t for employees taking a smoke break out back.
Can you read?
Care to point out what I missed? I saw nothing in the article indicating that it would ban smoking outdoors in general
This reminds me of the pushback against mandatory seat belt use in the US. It’s absolutely in the public’s best interest to ban public smoking and arguing that people should make their own decisions is ridiculous. Make smoking inconvenient for smokers and allow people in pubs and bars to enjoy smoke free air.
People IN pubs and bars already enjoy smoke free air. The discussion is about outside beer gardens. Where the wind is. There’s also nothing stopping pubs having their own rules against smoking in their beer gardens already. Why must the law be used to criminalise those who smoke?
I’m not a smoker by the way. I’m pro-smoke reduction even, as stated by my point about education, but I’m anti-authoritarian and anti every faucet of human life being criminalised.
Yeah because smoking was banned, and not because the smokers had any decency or concern for everyone else. They quite happily blew smoke to your face.
Health departments are recommending vaping, are they? Are you just making things up?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-could-be-prescribed-on-the-nhs-in-world-first
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/quit-smoking/using-e-cigarettes-to-stop-smoking/
https://www.nhs.uk/better-health/quit-smoking/vaping-to-quit-smoking/vaping-myths-and-the-facts/
That took about 3 seconds of Googling
They are recommending vaping in exchange for smoking. Come on you’re not even trying to good faith argument at this point, you’re just putting forward nonsense that isn’t true and then backing it up by deliberately misunderstanding basic facts.
As in, not quitting ingesting nicotine. Still inhaling foreign substances into the lungs. Vaping is still shit for you.
In the early 2000s the message was “smoking is bad, here is why, this is what it will do to you, please don’t do it”. That message was sinking in to the general public. Smoking was plummeting.
Then austerity came along around the same time as vaping and it became far more convenient to just ask smokers to vape instead of mass education campaigns.
Now the simple answer is just banning it.
It’s not a solution. It normalises government overreach into day to day life, it others people and makes them targets for discrimination, and doesn’t convince people of the ills of smoking.
It’s a dumb idea that polarises people and doesn’t fix the root issue.
Who’s not arguing in good faith now?
Fair dos. Better off just banning it. Would do me a world of good not to have the temptation.
Yeah bloody government, making laws, making people’s lives better, how dare they.
I liked it back in the old days when 4-year-olds worked down the pit and no one back an eyelid, and then died quietly of tuberculosis. Snowflakes these days…