It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


UK bans smoking in public places

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 02:14 PM
Is this the nanny state gone to far or does the government have our best interests at heart:
MPs have voted by huge margins to ban smoking from all pubs and private members' clubs in England.

External Source
Ministers offered a free vote amid fears of a Labour backbench rebellion against government plans to exempt clubs and pubs not serving food.

I am personally a smoker and welcome the ban, as it will be an impetus to quit!
Though it does raises questions about my civil liberties? Am i entitled to poison myself, even though the consequences for others around me are just as severe?
Ultimatley no. It impinges on other peoples civil liberties for me to give them second hand smoke.

It is a devisive and tricky issue, one I tackled in an ATS debate against Mooseof terror, back in the day:
ATS Debate: Tobacco prohobition

Any thoughts?

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 03:10 PM
It's daft. Who thought that a little white stick could create so much fuss. Yes I know it's a health issue, but this really is the actions of a growing nanny state. I risk my health every day by leaving the house and breathing in traffic fumes, I don't see the combustion engine being banned.

Patrica Hewitt went though so many U-turns deciding this I was begining to wonder whether she knew what she wanted or not.

What next? Chocolate? Beer? ATS?

Edit: BTW, I'm not a smoker

[edit on 14/2/2006 by FactoryLad]

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 03:14 PM
Smoking in restaurants and pubs has been banned for years where I am (Vancouver) as a worker safety issue. I'm a smoker and it doesn't bother me a bit.

I can go outside or sit on the patio or go into the ventilated smoking room if I really want a ciggy. The servers in the restaurants shouldn't have to breathe in my smoke (and 50 other people's smoke) for their entire shift. As an extra bonus, I now smoke less while out drinking.

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 03:48 PM
I cannot believe this. I thought It was only where food is served? Somebody PLEASE tell me that is the case. PLEASE?

This is the nanny state gone insane. If you don't like non food serving pubs with smokey atmospheres, here's a little idea: DON'T GO IN!!!!!!

What is gonna be next? Shooting on site with people who use too much hairspray? How about banning cars? They pollute the place a lot more that goddamn cigarettes. as Bill Hick put it:


These do gooding bastards really do my nut in. Biometric ID's next, Fingerprint scanners on the doors of clubs, how long before the neo gestapo stop you in the street and ask to see your papers. I hate this country, I gotta get out.

[edit on 14/2/06 by Implosion]

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 03:52 PM
The same laws have been passed here in Southern California.

Whats amusing is the city councils that passed these laws are far to the left in their beliefs.....the same people who cry out against rigid laws that supress the "people" go out and vote in a new law in that looks like Facism to me.

They will scream out for Transgender rights and the rights to go naked in public or to marry your Dog, but dare to light up a Marlboro Cigarette in public and your public enemy #1.

God, how far we have fallen.


posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 01:01 AM
I'm a smoker and I welcome the ban.

I don't mind my own smoke but have never liked breathing in other peoples!.

We all know that smoking is bad for us and we can choose whether to smoke or not - but we shouldnt inflict our habit on other people.

From what I can see total bans in public places have worked out okay everwhere else they have come into force

.We will soon get used to it.

posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 01:05 PM
In restaurants it makes more sense. But, I don't like the idea of no smoking in pubs. It's my choice to smoke, my choice to go there. I want that choice!

Besides, I went to a non-smoking pub in London a few months back, (I can't remember the name, but its quite near Bank if you're interested), and it smelt like toilets. It was disinfectent-y and it wasn't nice. The smell of an English pub with the smoke just suits it.

posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 03:01 PM
I like smoking. I don't like getting kicked out for smoking. I find it unfair. Don't smoke, but go for the 24 hour drinking! That'll see you through!

posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 07:29 AM
IMO it's all about personal liberty.

Sadly it seems that some of those 'pro-smoking' don't want to acknowledge the personal liberty of not being subjected to other people's smoke.

There is also a rather silly blinkered perception that this is something being driven by 'lefty's' or 'socialists' or 'fascists' etc etc; it isn't.

People have no 'right'' to freely expose others to the poisons they are prepared to risk themsleves.
Smoking is one of many poisons out there, it's true, but that is no reason to stop ridding us of it (or the rest later).

There are a wide range of factors driving this, by far the largest is simply the one that has seen the numbers of those smoking reduce substantially amongst the population.

Those believing that this new law means the end of the British pub (cos for some reason smokers won't be able to either go without or go into a garden or just nip outside when there, like they do everywhere else where smoking is not permitted) should consider the trade a smoke-free environment may well attract.

Those believing that this might end up spelling out the end of the British pub would also do well to see the reality of what is happening right now.
Pub trade is down and noticeably declining already, people are drinking at home more and more.
The real question is, why are pubs increasingly less attractive to people today?

Some might complain that the smoking laws will do nothing to help this situation and that might well be true, marginally, but that is IMO kind of 'helping matters by rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic' type thinking.

Secondly commercial considerations and factors, namely employers liability insurance (exposing employees to a smokey environment is becoming a major no-no) and their accidental fire insurance (reduce the risk of fire and maybe proper insurance becomes affordable).

No point taking the easy option and trying to blame it all on 'pc - ism' when commerce is well in there on this one too.

posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 10:06 AM
I get what your saying smirky. But did they really have to get rid of the smoking room in my college? :/ Only smokers went there, and have coffee with their cigarette. We didn't expose any non-smokers to our habit. Is it legislation that banned smoking in public places, including smoking rooms? I hate the cold.
I guess I'll go back on my fruit passtille diet, and kick them again.

posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 04:20 AM

Originally posted by MacDonagh
But did they really have to get rid of the smoking room in my college? :/ Only smokers went there, and have coffee with their cigarette.

- That part I must admit I did find unusual.
Personally I expected the 'partial ban' to be the route chosen, at least to begin with.

As an ex-smoker myself I have no desire to see smokers 'victimised' over any of this but on the other hand I think a lot of the comment about this has been so completely OTT; when things settle down and the implications become clear ways, loopholes and exceptions will be found, they always are.

We didn't expose any non-smokers to our habit.

- It might be argued that you did though.
Cleaners going in to tidy up the place and passing colleagues as the doors were opened, maybe.

There is also a (IMO very valid) argument that by facilitating smoking 'we' are encouraging following generations to take up the habit and why should 'we', as a society, wish to do that?

I am quite happy that my government has taken steps that should end up making it far less likely that so many of our kids will start smoking.
It is long overdue - especially the moves to break the revoltingly calculated 'appeal to youth' that is, IMO, the association between tabacco and sports.

Is it legislation that banned smoking in public places, including smoking rooms?

- I think so.
But, like I said, many places long ago banned smoking on commercial considerations and that was nothing to do with the government.

I guess I'll go back on my fruit passtille diet, and kick them again.

- You know it makes sense.

posted on May, 29 2006 @ 08:15 AM
Im a smoker!
i agree that EVERYONE should have a choice!!!
and there should ALLWAYS be room for each choice..

When i was growing up on the trains on the underground the last two carriges were for smoking....simple if you didnt want to smoke or dont like smoke you didnt get on there, the same went for the London buses, where the upstairs was for smokers?

When the government ban the sale of tobbaco (hopefully it dont but its getting there) and all the do-gooders have to pay £10.00 for a pint of milk who are they gonna blame?
The goverment realise such a hugh income from the Duty on tobbaco billions per year, they would have to re-coup this some way, it would have to be put as taxes on consumerable items such as goods that people need everyday, and not luxury items that people tend to purchase once or twice a year...think about it?

On a packet of 20 cigarettes at the cost of £5.15 of that over £4.19 is duty alone add the VAT and the shopkeeper will get about 18p profit per pack.
why does the shopkeeper still sell them to make a small profit on a large outlay, i here you ask?
coz its an everyday item that us smokers go and purchase in large quantities and while we are in there we probably pick up a pint of milk, a paper, and a few odd bits on the way to work..

Dont make us stand out in the rain smoking ...give us a room where ONLY SMOKERS WILL GO!!

Non- smokers Should NOT be infected with the poison i inhale, but dont allow yourselves to think that ''lets stop smoking altogether and ban it now , then everything will be alright''
Coz it wont!!!!!!!!!
the gov will get its money from somehere, and dont think they will recoup those billions on not treating patients of 'smoking related diseases'' coz thaint aint gonna give them half the money they get from the Duty on cigs!!!

BUT anyway thats my rant i know it isnt good for me but i smoke!!!!
i am willing to accept any arguement from a non-smoker that also DOSENT DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:


posted on May, 29 2006 @ 03:23 PM
1. If I own a public house it is my civil liberty to choose whether people smoke in it or not. Would I be breaking the law if I boarded it up? No. But I would if I let people smoke in it? Ok then.
2. The ban makes no reference to how good your smoke extracting machines-conditions could be. There be a billionth of a percent of smoke in the air and it would still be illegal to smoke inside a public place. Therefore the question is answered: This is not about protecting non-smokers, this law really is about helping to force smokers give up. Therefore it really is the Nanny State gone mad-authoritarian.
3. If the government really cared about the health of smokers they would start by banning all the chemical c*** that it is added to tobacco by the tobacco manufactures. Unfortunately this would mean all brands were about the same. This would mean the donations to our political parties by the tobacco manufactures would have lost their use and hence their worth.
4. Probably the single biggest reason why the government hates smoking is not because they don't extract enough tax revenue of it (its about twice as much as they spend on tobacco related illness through the NHS).
The real reason is that their really is a link between tobacco and harder drugs. Want to do pot? What do you do? You probably smoke it. Same goes for Opium which leads to heroin addiction, and many of the other drugs
Drugs are bad for the states health not just because they harm peoples health (and if its mental then economic productivity too), but they also put people in social groups which can often end getting slightly or even very political in their own often very anti establishment way.

Drugs themselves do not cause crime. It's their price that causes the crime, and their price is high because they are highly illegal. For example apparently pot can be produced for the same cost as tea (actually grows in the same sort of climate too so not too much of a surprise).

P.S Did you know the Nazis where the first people to ban smoking on trains? Nothing authoritarian about that is there? After all; it’s all for the public good; and “the needs of the state outweigh the needs of the individual” (something that’s often printed on Nazi coins). Has anyone given Does Tony Blair Nazi coins by any chance?

new topics

top topics


log in