Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Full ban on smoking?

As you may have heard the Lancet, one of the big doctors magazines has run an editorial suggesting that a full ban on smoking is a good idea. As in making it illegal.

All the responses I heard to this, from the news and from the health secretary himself said that this was an extreme answer. But is it only an extreme response because smoking is socialy acceptable?

When you look at it from a medical stand point is this really such a crazy idea, smoking is the most addictive drug on the market, I'm pretty sure it kills more of it users than any other and is damaging to those around the user as well.

But then obivously the social fall out from a change in the law such as this would be big. What do you do with the smokers that are around who then would be criminalised? And what do you do with the black market that is bound to be created.

I am in favor of relaxing the drug laws, but well this idea does present an interesting question. However my view on this may well be coloured by the fact that I dont smoke and dont really like smoking.

What are your views?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
«13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't think that the British government should take the Norwegian, Irish and Californian approach to smoking and ban it in restaurants, bars and cafes. Smoking has become traditional in many pubs and bars, however, I would very much like to see the idea of smoking and non-smoking areas applied to every bar and pub, as it exists in most resteraunts. Those pubs, such as the Wheterspoons chain, which already have seperate areas should enforce them more than they currently do. Even in pubs which do have seperate areas, you have people disobeying the rules.

    I don't really smoke myself except for socially occasionally (because I know that I'm going to get asked that question).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But why should people who work in these places, many of whom cant get other work have to breathe in others smoke?

    I know the dangers of passive smoking are somewhat unclear, but, well it cant be great for you can it, I think that much is bloody obvious.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by bongbudda
    But why should people who work in these places, many of whom cant get other work have to breathe in others smoke?

    I know the dangers of passive smoking are somewhat unclear, but, well it cant be great for you can it, I think that much is bloody obvious.
    Even though I am a smoker I totally agree with this. Why should others be forced to breathe in our dirty habit? I hate the fact I smoke and im always trying to give up, maybe it would help if I couldnt do it in public. Who knows?!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But part of the attraction of a pub for smokers is the smoking. You know, go down the pub have a few pints, talk to your mates, have a few cigarettes with your pint. Pints go down better with cigarattes. (My probably one-sided opinion :( )
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If smoking is made illegal I suspect the number of users would go up, not down. Hell, I might even take the habit myself out of principle.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by giantno1
    But part of the attraction of a pub for smokers is the smoking. You know, go down the pub have a few pints, talk to your mates, have a few cigarettes with your pint. Pints go down better with cigarattes. (My probably one-sided opinion :( )
    Yes it is, its a major part! I loce nothing more than a pint of Stella, a cig and a chinwag with my mates but it still doesnt make it right or fair that non smokers should have to put up with it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not really saying its a great idea, because as some of you might know I have somewhat "pathetic liberal" ideas about drug reform. But, well it is a serious problem and it certainly should be addressed.

    I'm not sure that a public ban is a great idea, I'd say that trying harder to get kids not to take up the habit would be more effective in reducing the over all numbers of smokers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd like to have it banned in like pubs/bars/restuarants etc. Just because it seems every time I go out anywhere I put on all clean clothes, wash my hair and spend time getting ready, only to go out and be stinking of fags within a few minutes. My coat always seems to have the smell of cigarettes ingrained in it as well even though I don't smoke myself, and I don't see why I should have to stink of it and breathe the stuff in just because someone else chooses to.

    I would definitely like to see more no smoking areas in pubs and stuff as well because cigarette smoke also makes my nose go really blocked up and it isn't a pleasant experience having to sit around blowing your nose all night.

    My boyfriend smokes and he knows I don't like it and in the long run if we were to stay together and have children and stuff I'd want him to give up, but for the moment it is his decision as long as he doesn't do it round me too much.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Full ban on smoking?
    Originally posted by bongbudda
    But is it only an extreme response because smoking is socialy acceptable?

    No but the fact that smokers contribute £9.3bn in taxes to the treasury and yet smoking related illness only costs the NHS £1bn may have something to do with it. ;)
    When you look at it from a medical stand point is this really such a crazy idea

    From a medical standpoint it makes perfect sense. That said if this was outlawed on health grounds then we would also have to look at unhealthy foodstuffs too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Re: Full ban on smoking?
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    No but the fact that smokers contribute £9.3bn in taxes to the treasury and yet smoking related illness only costs the NHS £1bn may have something to do with it. ;)


    I have mentioned before that this argument does not make any sense.

    It assumes that if people were not spending money on fags they would be hiding it under the bed or more generally doing something with it that is not taxed and is of no use to the economy, this is very unlikely........
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But, if they were spending it on, food for example the government wouldnt see as much of it through tax. This extra spending would push up companies profits and corperation tax is no-where near as high as that on cigs.

    However, I guess thats not where it would stop though is it, the companies would then re-invest in themselves and the cycle would continue. In the short-term though the government would loose out.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be honest, I can see the logic but to say that cigarettes are more addictive than many Class A drugs is stupid. If you disagree, maybe you should read More, Again, Now by Elizabeth Wurtzel.

    I personally dont think banning smoking in public is right- if you go in a pub you know what to expect. Making it so pubs have to have separate smoking and non-smoking rooms would be a good idea, but banning it outright is stupid. Smoking has been banned in pubs and restaurants in New York, and bar takings have decreased 40% since they did- as one bar owner said, his workers can now breathe clean air, but they dont have a job anymore.

    Smoking in offices should be banned though, because you cannot choose to not work there. Bar-tendering you can, I suppose.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you don't like people smoking in pubs then don't go in, it really is that simple.

    Restraunts are different, although I think most people have enough respect not to smoke until everyone has finished eating.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Chemically nicotine is one of the most powerfully addictive drugs in the world.

    But that is somewhat beside the point, comparing one drug against another doesnt really mean a great deal in these sorts of things. Smoking is very addictive and very bad for you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by bongbudda
    Chemically nicotine is one of the most powerfully addictive drugs in the world.

    Actually, research does tend to show that the actual nicotine is not especially powerfully addictive, most addictions to nictonie are actually psychological. The nicotine leaves the bloodstream very quickly, and is only in a very small dose, and most of the "cravings" are habitual- after a meal, first thing in the morning, with a pint, that sort of thing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Re: Re: Full ban on smoking?
    Originally posted by Toadborg
    I have mentioned before that this argument does not make any sense.

    It assumes that if people were not spending money on fags they would be hiding it under the bed or more generally doing something with it that is not taxed and is of no use to the economy, this is very unlikely........

    How many other aspects of life are taxed a high as tobacco?

    And you are right, they would spend their money elsewhere - I would suspect that a large amount would go to the blackmarket...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Of course, when you dont ask people what they want and just impose bans on them from above, this happens.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kermit

    Smoking in offices should be banned though, because you cannot choose to not work there. Bar-tendering you can, I suppose.

    That doesn't make sense really.

    IF both places are smokey then why does the worker in one have more rights than the other?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Full ban on smoking?
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    How many other aspects of life are taxed a high as tobacco?


    Few but i was simply making the pint that those figures do not tell the whole story, the loss to the govt would be far less than you implied..........
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    my heart says ban it completely - it kills more people than any other drug.

    my head says you can't take away peples choice like that.

    I have stopped smoking for over a month and since reading Allen Carrs book I know I will never smoke again but I don't want to take away peoples choice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    in 1987 :


    CAUSE OF DEATH NUMBER OF DEATHS GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE


    DRUGS 221 £9,780,771
    ALCOHOL 3,145 £553,756
    SMOKING 99,432 £216,200


    this meant that in 1987 the government was prepared to spend £44,000 to save the life of a heroin addict. £176 on an alcoholic and just £2.20 on a smoker.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Government earned £9,616 million in revenue from tobacco in 2000: £7,760 million in tobacco duty and £1,856 million in VAT. Smoking costs the National Health Service approximately £1.5 billion a year for treating diseases caused by smoking. This includes the cost of hospital admissions, GP consultations and prescriptions. The state also pays for sickness/invalidity benefits, widows’ pensions and other social security benefits for dependants.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am not entirely sure of the intrinsic value of choice.

    Is a choice still a valuable thing if one of the options (e.g. smoking) is utterly stupid and not a choice that anyone would temselves want to make or that anyone would want people they love to make?

    If you were standing at a road waiting to cross and a man next you started to walk across the road, almost certainly to be hit and injured by a vehicle and you pulled him back and asked him what he was doing, and he retorted that it was none of your business, he could do as he pleased, would you try and stop him or would you let him walk into the road?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kermit
    To be honest, I can see the logic but to say that cigarettes are more addictive than many Class A drugs is stupid.

    Its true actually.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree with you - from a personal point of view I detest smoking and I can't understand why anyone would do it ...however, I smoked from the age of 25 until the age of 33 (Stopping just over a month ago) and even though I knew how crap it was, and how I had been taken in by the biggest confidence trick ever, it is something that each individual smoker has to realise for themselves and banning it wont save people it will just drive them underground.

    More should be done to help people realise the worthlessness of what they are doing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kermit
    Actually, research does tend to show that the actual nicotine is not especially powerfully addictive, most addictions to nictonie are actually psychological. The nicotine leaves the bloodstream very quickly, and is only in a very small dose, and most of the "cravings" are habitual- after a meal, first thing in the morning, with a pint, that sort of thing.

    Depends which research you believe really. But don't underestimate psychological cravings, they can be harder to beat than physical ones sometimes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bnby; Drive them underground? Hmmm, yes, some would, but how many people who smoke less than 20 a day would give up because it was just too hard to find time/location to smoke? A lot I would say.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The sooner we get rid of the social aspect of smoking, the sooner it will be considered 'uncool' (as if it isn't considered uncool already).

    Definately ban smoking in all public places including pubs and clubs. There is absolutely no doubt that this should happen.

    The media can also do a better job of keeping smoking out of their programmes and films, and by completely banning advertising.

    As for banning cigarettes altogether, I wouldn't complain if it does happen, but realistically, I don't think it should.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    If smoking is made illegal I suspect the number of users would go up, not down. Hell, I might even take the habit myself out of principle.

    Yes we know Mr.Karl Marx reincarnated.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by giantno1
    Yes we know Mr.Karl Marx reincarnated.

    :rolleyes:
Sign In or Register to comment.