Smoking Ban.

[Morghoven]

allowed, but slated I see. Hardly aggressive though, just a stand point.

Your opinion may not be aggressive, but your manner of expressing it is. Plenty of people in this thread have argued the anti-smoking case strongly but without feeling the need to turn it into a direct confrontation. May I remind you that smoking itself is not illegal or immoral. You cannot say that one should show the habit NO respect without also saying that one should show those people who smoke NO respect.

Why aren't smokers made responsible for these things? You are now saying the public as a whole are responsible for providing ashtrays and smoking bins, and I presume the emptying of them regularly as well.

Sorry, but so far the only argument I see from smokers is that everyone owes them somewhere to carry on their habit, with all the utilities.

It is down to the smoker to carry on their habit without interfering with any other, not all others being there to accommodate.........

that isn't being aggressive, that is being reasonable.

There is no argument to smoke other than it is a habit. Kick it!!

So we who are going about our legal business should not expect the government (to whom we pay an awful lot of tax) to provide us with very basic amenities to properly do so. But every church and public park in my town has had forced upon them by the local council hideous large sharps bins so that those who congregate to take illegal substances are properly catered for and looked after.

There is no argument to take heroin other than it is a habit. What's more, it's ILLEGAL. It also has proven links to many other illegal activities such as assault, robbery and so on. Yet the public as a whole provide facilities for that, often against the will of those having the facilities forced upon them. But smoking, which is LEGAL, should apparently not be provided with any facilities at all; the inescapable conclusion is that smoking is worse than heroin.

Now Mr. Walton, would you care to justify that?

 

[davidwalton]

Your opinion may not be aggressive, but your manner of expressing it is. Plenty of people in this thread have argued the anti-smoking case strongly but without feeling the need to turn it into a direct confrontation. May I remind you that smoking itself is not illegal or immoral. You cannot say that one should show the habit NO respect without also saying that one should show those people who smoke NO respect.



So we who are going about our legal business should not expect the government (to whom we pay an awful lot of tax) to provide us with very basic amenities to properly do so. But every church and public park in my town has had forced upon them by the local council hideous large sharps bins so that those who congregate to take illegal substances are properly catered for and looked after.

There is no argument to take heroin other than it is a habit. What's more, it's ILLEGAL. It also has proven links to many other illegal activities such as assault, robbery and so on. Yet the public as a whole provide facilities for that, often against the will of those having the facilities forced upon them. But smoking, which is LEGAL, should apparently not be provided with any facilities at all; the inescapable conclusion is that smoking is worse than heroin.

Now Mr. Walton, would you care to justify that?

I don't need to justify it, the 2 things are different. In some areas there are drug issues, and obviously they are acted upon as required.

You do not pay any tax to be given a place to smoke. You pay no tax to be given an ashtray. If smokers are going to show themselves as irresponsible as other drug takers, perhaps smoking should be banned completely and anyone caught just fined. The proceeds being used to provide special areas for smokers which can be closely monitored.

As for giving smoking habit any respect, I believed smoking to be a horrible habit when I smoked, and believe the same now. I repeat, smoking deserves no respect. However, I have not said the same applies to you or any other individual, just your habit.

If you want to carry on with your habit, that is up to you. However, do not involve any other in it. There are also many other things that are as bad or worse than smoking. None of them have anything to do with smoking.

 

[Morghoven]

You do not pay any tax to be given a place to smoke. You pay no tax to be given an ashtray. If smokers are going to show themselves as irresponsible as other drug takers, perhaps smoking should be banned completely and anyone caught just fined. The proceeds being used to provide special areas for smokers which can be closely monitored.

But we do pay tax on tobacco products. And what we are doing is legal. Is heroin taxed? Coccaine? Ecstasy? Yet users of those illegal drugs have facilities provided for them - not merely to help them to quit, but to enable them to continue breaking the law. I do not see why it is so bad that we should have a metal ash-tray/bin provided for us. How are we "showing ourselves as irresponsible as other drug takers"? At least we are within the law.

 

[davidwalton]

But we do pay tax on tobacco products. And what we are doing is legal. Is heroin taxed? Coccaine? Ecstasy? Yet users of those illegal drugs have facilities provided for them - not merely to help them to quit, but to enable them to continue breaking the law. I do not see why it is so bad that we should have a metal ash-tray/bin provided for us. How are we "showing ourselves as irresponsible as other drug takers"? At least we are within the law.

It is not legal to litter for anyone. All are responsible for ensuring they put rubbish in bins provided or take it home and do so there.

Why should everyone pay for an ashtray for you? I don't pay for your ashtrays in your home, and I don't expect to have to do so for those in public areas. I also don't expect to have to pay for someone to clean those ashtrays.

If you took up Archery, it would be YOUR responsibility to find somewhere to carry out that hobby, to provide EVERYTHING that is required, and to show it was done so safely.

If you choose to smoke, you should be responsible for finding somewhere to carry out your habit, provide EVERYTHING required, and show it has zero impact on others.

Just because until now smokers have been able to do exactly what they want, does not give them the right to carry on in the same way. It does not give smokers any special place free of cost. If you want it, pay for it.

The additional tax you pay on fags is to help cover the additional medical costs associated with smoking. If you want it to cover places for you to smoke as well, you need to pay more....a lot more.

Yes, smoking is legal in private and the open air. They didn't go far enough did they

BTW- If you re-read what I wrote, I said "If smokers are going to show themselves as irresponsible as other drug takers". Notice the IF.

At the end of the day smokers are going to have to deal with it. The other option is to stop smoking. I have no sympathy for those wishing to continue smoking. The way I see it, smoking has no purpose except to hook people in to smoking more. There is nothing going for it, so why try to make any sort of case for it?

 

[Griffin]

. There is nothing going for it, so why try to make any sort of case for it?

i guess you could argue when will it end...
not just smoking but drinking too
like putting limits on how much you can drink or whatever

 

[Morghoven]

It is not legal to litter for anyone. All are responsible for ensuring they put rubbish in bins provided or take it home and do so there.

Why should everyone pay for an ashtray for you? I don't pay for your ashtrays in your home, and I don't expect to have to do so for those in public areas. I also don't expect to have to pay for someone to clean those ashtrays.

The additional tax you pay on fags is to help cover the additional medical costs associated with smoking. If you want it to cover places for you to smoke as well, you need to pay more....a lot more.

But everyone pays for public litter bins, even those who don't use them. You're right, it isn't legal to litter, and that's my point. Give us somewhere to put the cigarette butts, and we'll put 'em there.

And the tax on tobacco isn't just about covering the health costs, otherwise it would be less than half. It's naive to think otherwise - just the same as road tax doesn't all get spent on roads. Any government is just going to raise as much tax revenue as it possibly can, and the easiest targets have always been cigarettes, alcohol and motor vehicles.

Yes, smoking is legal in private and the open air. They didn't go far enough did they

You may say so. Others disagree. (And by the way, it is illegal in private member's clubs. That's PRIVATE member's clubs. Not in any way a public space.)

The way I see it, smoking has no purpose except to hook people in to smoking more.

Well, and the fact that I (along with plenty of millions of others) actually quite enjoy it. If doing something for pure enjoyment counts as 'no purpose' in your eyes, then I pity you. I really do. In fact, let's ban everything we do for enjoyment. Brass banding an illegal activity, anyone?

 

[Bryan_sop]

But every church and public park in my town has had forced upon them by the local council hideous large sharps bins so that those who congregate to take illegal substances are properly catered for and looked after.

I think this is a very different matter. The way I see it, those sharps bins aren't there to cater for the Junkies, but to protect the general public from needles that would otherwise be disposed of improperly and risk someone inadvertantly being infected with diseases by *****ing themselves on them

 

[Rapier]

Litter bins are already there for litter. Perhaps the extra exercise required for smokers to walk a few yards to use them, is a bit too much for their diseased lungs to manage?

 

[davidwalton]

i guess you could argue when will it end...
not just smoking but drinking too
like putting limits on how much you can drink or whatever

When you drink it has zero impact on others, unlike smoking. Unless you get drunk that is

 

[SuperMosh]

The additional tax you pay on fags is to help cover the additional medical costs associated with smoking. If you want it to cover places for you to smoke as well, you need to pay more....a lot more.

Rubbish. The additional tax is levied by the Government on an addictive substance which they know will be paid no matter how high it rises. To assume (I presume) that fags are taxed highly to support the needs of smokers' health is very naive.

 

[davidwalton]

But everyone pays for public litter bins, even those who don't use them. You're right, it isn't legal to litter, and that's my point. Give us somewhere to put the cigarette butts, and we'll put 'em there.

That is your responsibility. It is your habit, not mine.

And the tax on tobacco isn't just about covering the health costs, otherwise it would be less than half. It's naive to think otherwise - just the same as road tax doesn't all get spent on roads. Any government is just going to raise as much tax revenue as it possibly can, and the easiest targets have always been cigarettes, alcohol and motor vehicles.

How much do you honestly think it cost to cover cancer treatment. The government may not pass on all the tax to the NHS, but the cost is still extremely high.

You may say so. Others disagree. (And by the way, it is illegal in private member's clubs. That's PRIVATE member's clubs. Not in any way a public space.)

Yes, you could own a pub and call that private as well. Doesn't change the fact that the public will have some access......and what about the workers, are you going to employ just smokers because that would be discrimination.

Well, and the fact that I (along with plenty of millions of others) actually quite enjoy it. If doing something for pure enjoyment counts as 'no purpose' in your eyes, then I pity you. I really do. In fact, let's ban everything we do for enjoyment. Brass banding an illegal activity, anyone?

Having smoked for over 30 years, I fully understand about being a smoker. Unless you CAN stop, you smoke because you have to. You can pretend otherwise if you want.

If you wish to smoke, carry on. I am not stopping you. However, do not include others in your habit. This, smokers have no right to do.

 

[davidwalton]

Rubbish. The additional tax is levied by the Government on an addictive substance which they know will be paid no matter how high it rises. To assume (I presume) that fags are taxed highly to support the needs of smokers' health is very naive.

Never presume or ASS/U/ME.

The government will tax anything it can, and as high as it can get away with yes. The cost of health related issues caused through smoking are still there though and have to be paid for. As a result, I do support higher taxes on fags.

To me, it means something else isn't going to be taxed as high as it could....possibly.

 

[Rach_Horn]

Yet we are forced to go outside if we want to light up. Ludicrous is what I call it, what is going to happen in winter when it is freezing outside? just typical of all none smokers, you won't care will you?

You're right ...we wont care!!...it is your choice to smoke ... and the law is if you want to do it now you go outside , simple!

If you dislike the cold so much how about trying to give up....

 

[Daniel Sheard]

Colds are a contagious virus.. not contracted from standing in the 'cold'

Guess what. I knew that. I wasn't the one complaining.

 

[Griffin]

Guess what. I knew that. I wasn't the one complaining.

why'd ya write it then?

 

[Daniel Sheard]

why'd ya write it then?

Look again.

 

[PeterBale]

Litter bins are already there for litter. Perhaps the extra exercise required for smokers to walk a few yards to use them, is a bit too much for their diseased lungs to manage?

I think there are major safety concerns in smokers disposing of their dogends etc in normal waste bins. Even the specialised receptacles have been known to smoulder if cigarette packets - and especially the wrappers - have been put in there, and this would be an even greater problem with an open bin with all kinds of paper etc that could ignite.

 

[nook1938]

After reading the comments, I have thought of a way for someone to make some money, as I say I have thought of solving a problem, but I can not carry it any further because I can make anything in wood, but wood, would be impracticable to use.

The solution to fag ends everywhere would be for someone to produce a container for, say 10 fag ends, you stub out and drop the fag end into the container, problem about fag ends everywhere and dropping a lighted fag end into a litter bin and setting it alight, would be a thing of the past.

Now if someone could produce a container, which is air-tight and small/light enough to be carried in you pocket or handbag, any person could buy one, it would even come in handy for disposing of your chewing gum.

Just a thought.

 

[DannyCollin]

I can't wait for the proposed DRINKING IN PUBLIC ban to start.

 

[Will the Sec]

Now if someone could produce a container, which is air-tight and small/light enough to be carried in you pocket or handbag, any person could buy one, it would even come in handy for disposing of your chewing gum.

Just a thought.

It's already out there, Nook, old chap.

It's called the "Stubbie" and has been made available to Civil Servants in Whitehall even before the ban, as Westminster Council were (unjustifiably) blaming STI staff for all the fag butts in the area.

There's this one as well.