Repeal and change the Smoking Ban
Suggested by WHag and tagged antismoker tagging, cancer, cannabis, choice, civil liberties, cognitive dissonance, compromise, coughing, disease, draconian, drug, drugs, ending discrimination, enjoyment, freedom, friendly, generousity, happy, health, liberty, lift ban, middle way, nanny state, national benefactors, open, pragmatic, pubs, regulations, secondary smoke, secondarysmokehype, smoking, smoking ban, smokingbanfailure, tolerant, toleration. 4 Comments.
The big idea
Repeal the current blanket Smoking Ban that damages local pubs, as well as being a breach of fundamental human rights such as the Property Rights (of the proprietor) and the Right to Choose.
In its place could be a law stating that smoking indoors should be sectioned off in such a way that smoke does not enter into the non-smoking area, and that ventilation should be in place to make sure a certain ratio of air to smoke exists.
Why does this matter?
Smoking is unhealthy, we all know that, but it is not the role of Government to control the choices we make that primarily harm ourselves. If you own a pub or restaurant it is a breach of your Property Rights, and everybody’s Civil Liberties, that the Government forces you to disallow smoking.
The insistence of Government to make choices for us takes away personal responsibility in a way that is very concerning. A free society ultimately must mean the freedom to make the wrong choices. Should we ban unhealthy food as well, or compel people to walk more?
It is reasonable that smokers contribute more to the health budget, which they do already through the high taxes on cigarettes, but it is unreasonable to keep in place a blanket ban on smoking in places where grown-up people go of their own volition.
Many people who are not smokers (like myself) enjoy the occasional cigar or quality pipe tobacco. This traditional treat is not more unheatly than eating fat or sugar, or drinking alcohol, and the blanket ban in place today also all but destroys this enjoyable activity, as well as the more damaging cigarett-smoking.
The smoking ban should be ammended if not repealed. The insane idea of going outside an empty pub to have a smoke is ridiculous. We have to go out in all weathers inhailing trafic fumes and being aproached by local no marks who continualy scrounge cigarettes of you, a refusal often offends and results in a torrent of abuse and in some cases phisical violence. Let the publican decide if he wants to allow smoking and those who object can find a pub that does not allow it, freedom of choice is my right and it has been taken away from me the only person to have died from passive smoking (if there is such a thing in my experience they all complain) was Roy Castle who was already predisposed geneticly to cancer in my opinion regardless of if he smoked or not and would have probably died of cancer anyway or from brass poisoning from his trumpet.
Excellent idea. Smoking kills. We cannot afford pensions as it is so let’s reduce the cost by reducing life expectancy. Proportionally, it will be the thick, and consequently poor, who will smoke themselves to death. Consequently, we need to recognise at the outset that such a measure will increase the differential in life expectancy between rich and poor. I don’t have a problem with that but I hate people whining about it. Should the state have the right to protect us from ourselves? A definite NO to that, unless it will do others harm.
Good idea,I’m a non-smoker but I preferred the way pubs used to be before the ban.have smoking areas, I would probably be there too to enjoy a more relaxed and less uptight people..
There has been much misinformation about secondhand smoke being harmful. The lobbyists and anti-smoking interest groups are what caused these bans using a great deal of government money. Let business owners decide if they want their establishments to be smoking or non and stop harassing the citizens who wish to smoke. Repeal the bans! The sooner the better!