PDA

View Full Version : *DEBATE* Should public smoking be banned? Winner = Klock



Jin
12-12-2005, 11:51 PM
Should Public Smoking Be Banned?


It has been a hot topic of 2005 that as to whether public smoking should or should not be banned in the Uk.

With much more scientific research going into the effects of passive smoking (breathing in others cigarrette smoke) there has been a long term investigation as to whether ban smoking from certain public places eg; pubs, or the whole general public.

"Evidence shows in Helena, Montana where there has been a ban in effect since 30th March for six months have shown that heart attacks have reduced by almost half and as a result of this non smoking environment it has encouraged smokers to smoke less or quit altogether."
Research - New Scientist Magazine

The streets are predicted to become supposedly cleaner especially in common areas such as high streets and town centres where ciggarette butts on the floor are a common sighting.

A poll in May 2005 stated

The poll of more than 1,500 people by market analysts Mintel found 52% support for a ban, including two-thirds of non-smokers.

However, one of the main concerns of the general public and certain officials is suitible punishments as to people who break the rules of the ban and also who is to enforce it. Also will smokers feel that they are being unfairly treated as they chose to take part of a lawful activity.

Trials have already taken place in New York, Northern Ireland and Norway with promising results, so this leaves the question,

Should smoking in public be banned in England?

Rules
Please do not comment with "yeah it should" or "No it shouldnt" please make relevent points and point of views aswell as evidence to back up your post. Please do not treat this thread as a way of means to announce whether you or someone you know, smokes or not. It is implied by the term "smoking" we refer to the smoking of tobacco.

ssricky
12-12-2005, 11:55 PM
no it shouldnt i think there should be designated areas where people can smoke. smoking is somewhat of a lifestyle choice if you choose to smoke its you personal decisions to settle this matter it shouldnt be completely banned because there isnt really a reason it should be its a person choice. if smoking was banned it would cause an uproar in the streets due to the fact over 50% of the world smokes so yea btw jin i beat ur tetris score on Us forum ;)

Dave
13-12-2005, 12:05 AM
I think smoking should be banned altogether! But obviously thats not going to be possible.

As for banning it in public places, I think deffinately, yes. But this may cause alot of problems. People are going to break these rules, which means crime is going to go up. Leading to other crimes etc.

Well I think anyway. But i do thnk that it should be banned in public places

Joeymac
13-12-2005, 12:09 AM
It should because have you ever stood beside a smoker? they homp. plus it's not good when about 100 people are smoking and you are breathing it in. Everyone is breatheing in second hand smoke which is more harmful that smoking itself.

beth
13-12-2005, 12:29 AM
I don't believe in should be banned in public places.
Although, obviously, there are health risks attached with passive smoking I believe we have free will and the people who decide to smoke should be able to smoke where they want.

Jin
13-12-2005, 12:33 AM
no it shouldnt i think there should be designated areas where people can smoke. smoking is somewhat of a lifestyle choice if you choose to smoke its you personal decisions to settle this matter it shouldnt be completely banned because there isnt really a reason it should be its a person choice.

But where would these designated areas be? Would they be suites in office blocks with well ventilated rooms for people to smoke in? Who would put the cost forward for these rooms?


As for banning it in public places, I think deffinately, yes. But this may cause alot of problems. People are going to break these rules, which means crime is going to go up. Leading to other crimes etc.

I do not see the crime rates actually increasing or people breaking the ban rules commiting other offences, most people may consider themselves to be able to get away with having the odd cigarrette in public and probably laugh at the possible consequences of publically smoking if there was a ban which would highly likely be having your cigarette stubbed out and a verbal warning from a police officer.


Everyone is breatheing in second hand smoke which is more harmful that smoking itself.

I haven't really heard of it being MORE harmful but I have certainly heard of it being almost just as bad.

Of course it still raises the issue that would business' lose out, as a drinker and social smoker, in my personal experience I need a cigarrette if I drink, but if my pub is banning smoking and I can't possibly stand outside and smoke I would probably be more inclined to drink at home or a friends where I may smoke.

The pubs may lose out on business but also may gain business from a different market such as famillies. As such they might decide to create separate segregated area for smokers but what if my friend is a non-smoker and would rather not sit in a room where SEVERAL smokers have gathered. They may have accepted to be around me as I smoke as I am only one person but with other smokers in the room it is a different story.

In my personal opinion I find the solution to be in a timed ban so from lets say morning rush hour (8 til 10) and evening rush hour (3 til 5) no one may smoke in public and as for pubs no one may smoke inside pubs until after 7pm.

Corey777
13-12-2005, 12:37 AM
This is a different story where I live. Marijuana is being legalized in Canada - so banning msoking in public areas won't even be brgouht up here.

However, I am all for banning smoking in public places. Why pollute the lungs of children who have never touched a cigarette in their life? It pollutes yourself and others who don't even have a choice.

Another reason that I am for banning smoking in public areas is that I think that this will have a positive affect on global warming, if this was to be a worldwide decision. One country may not make a noticable difference, but if the law was put into affect worldwide, I am sure that only positive things could come of it.

The life expectancy in all countries would be sure to go up as well.

For those reasons, I am all for banning smoking in public areas.

ssricky
13-12-2005, 12:38 AM
[QUOTE=:Jin:]But where would these designated areas be? Would they be suites in office blocks with well ventilated rooms for people to smoke in? Who would put the cost forward for these rooms?[QUOTE]
But where would these designated areas be? well we are discusing smoking in public so designate areas in alleyways, certain streets like lines painted on teh ground, in areas in certain parks, areas in subway stations, infront, behind buildings, rooftops even :P or patios in bars and restaurants.
Would they be suites in office blocks with well ventilated rooms for people to smoke in? that wud be one place but there cud also be rooms with air filtration devices to purify the air or rooftops of buildings like i said before
Who would put the cost forward for these rooms? well i wud say the tabacos companys due to teh fact if they did pass this law and were given this option to keep smoking leagel i think they wud pay it :P

any other questions former tetris champ ;)

bi!!y
13-12-2005, 12:39 AM
I really dont know if i am pos or neg on this

Posotive points


- non smokers get clean air

-non smokers who work in a smoking place (me in a bar/restraunt) wont wake up with that horrible feeling in thier lungs in the morning- when you are out with your friends in a pub and you are happy drinking having a laugh and some drunk man comes and askes for a lighter and gets in your way - that wont happen any more :D

- the opinnion of smokers is sooo messed up and wrong " we can smoke if we want we pay for it so why should we be told to stop ?" blah blah.. it is so wrong they dont realise they are damaging other peoples health- when people have to go outside to smoke in the rain they might not bother and try to give up (healthier nation)

Negative points

- people will stop smoking and there is soooo many jobs that link to smoking and also the tax profit on tobacco willl go down which means other tax will go up

- they have banned smoking because its bad for peoples health why dont they ban junk food which is equally as bad for you ? simply because tobacco sales have went down e.t.c

- some pubs will suffer people might just rather to stay in and smoke and drink which means small bussinesses will suffer


Its all really going to be sooo intresting what is going to happen when the law falls into place it could go really well

people stopping smoking blah blah then a few months we will see a strugle with jobs on tobacco or maybye the taxes or maybye this has all been taken into plan alreday ?

or people could just get majourly moody there might be more fights and squabbles and fines all over the places for companies refusing to follow this rule

it all really balances out ..

You
13-12-2005, 12:42 AM
Should be banned everywhere, full stop.

Edited by :Jin: [Forum Administration]:

6. If you are going to make a point please back up the point with evidence or statistics.

7. Please do not make any short pointless comments like "It's wrong" or "I agree" etc.

ssricky
13-12-2005, 12:44 AM
Should be banned everywhere, full stop.
reason? ne negitives to what wud happen if this was passeD? please think before you post -.-

Jin
13-12-2005, 12:53 AM
By the way for the record I am not allowed to win any of these debates although I will still put my opinion forward.


This is a different story where I live. Marijuana is being legalized in Canada - so banning msoking in public areas won't even be brgouht up here.

Not at all a valid comment, smoking tobacco is legal yet they are still considering a public ban. Just because cannabis is legalized doesnt mean they wont consider potential bans.

I would be suprised if they chose to allow the public smoking of cannabis as it is a substance that alters normal perception and it is possible to become under the influence of cannabis by passive smoking causing a risk if someone was to drive etc after passively breathing in smoke.

ssricky
13-12-2005, 12:57 AM
By the way for the record I am not allowed to win any of these debates although I will still put my opinion forward.



Not at all a valid comment, smoking tobacco is legal yet they are still considering a public ban. Just because cannabis is legalized doesnt mean they wont consider potential bans.

I would be suprised if they chose to allow the public smoking of cannabis as it is a substance that alters normal perception and it is possible to become under the influence of cannabis by passive smoking causing a risk if someone was to drive etc after passively breathing in smoke.im pretty sure they wud put forth precautions and warning about smoking marijuana and driving it is basic common knowledge if it was legalized there would be rules and laws set down to make it safe even tho others wud do things to make it illegal

Corey777
13-12-2005, 12:58 AM
Not at all a valid comment, smoking tobacco is legal yet they are still considering a public ban. Just because cannabis is legalized doesnt mean they wont consider potential bans.

I would be suprised if they chose to allow the public smoking of cannabis as it is a substance that alters normal perception and it is possible to become under the influence of cannabis by passive smoking causing a risk if someone was to drive etc after passively breathing in smoke.

Just before I say this, my first comment wasn't towards the debate - it was what is happening where I live.

Anyways, why would they consider banning tobacco in public areas when they are legalizing marijuana in public areas? Your comment doesn't make sense at all really.

Your second comment is valid, but unfortunately is being overseen in Canada, as it is in the process of legalization =\

Edit: This has gone a bit off topic. Perhaps this post should be withdrawn from the discussion

Steven
13-12-2005, 01:02 AM
I believe it should.
1) It's killing the people who do it.
2) The second hand smoke is killing people.


Think logically here. If you're doing something that is harming something, that is legal it should be made illegal. Seriously it's like they don't mind killing people.
Second hand smoke is the smokers killing other people, which is murder in my books. So, yes, that is illegal but yet, they don't get imprisoned.


Yes, it should be banned.
Not just in public, but everywhere.

ssricky
13-12-2005, 01:06 AM
I believe it should.
1) It's killing the people who do it.
2) The second hand smoke is killing people.


Think logically here. If you're doing something that is harming something, that is legal it should be made illegal. Seriously it's like they don't mind killing people.
Second hand smoke is the smokers killing other people, which is murder in my books. So, yes, that is illegal but yet, they don't get imprisoned.


Yes, it should be banned.
Not just in public, but everywhere.
umm u do know that smoking in public has been happening since world war 1 and no one has died of second hand smoke in public yet except for a few waitresses :\

Corey777
13-12-2005, 01:07 AM
I believe it should.
1) It's killing the people who do it.
2) The second hand smoke is killing people.


Think logically here. If you're doing something that is harming something, that is legal it should be made illegal. Seriously it's like they don't mind killing people.
Second hand smoke is the smokers killing other people, which is murder in my books. So, yes, that is illegal but yet, they don't get imprisoned.


Yes, it should be banned.
Not just in public, but everywhere.
Banning smoking everywhere is not the solution. Some people need a cigarette at stressful times - or just to get them through the day.

And keep in mind, what about people already addicted? Every smoker will go into withdrawl. What a cranky world that would be for the first few weeks.

And think about the negative affects. Cigarettes are expensive because they are taxed so highly. If those taxes disappeared, this money would be needed and would just end up taxing non-smokers higher than they already are. Whether it be from income tax or sales tax - the government will find a way to get it from the public.

And, banning smoking would lead to more crime. People would be growing tobacco and we would have the same problem as marijuana right now. There would be more conjestion in the court system and quite frankly, we don't need that right now.

BLuweesH
13-12-2005, 01:12 AM
If smoking were to be banned, the government would need to stop manufacturing cigarettes.

I see all these advertisements on smoking and what it does to you, how deadly it can be, and they even write a little detail such as: "SMOKING CAN CAUSE LUNG CANCER". What I don't get is do they bother telling us how bad smoking is, yet wanting to make money from it?

Corey777
13-12-2005, 01:14 AM
If smoking were to be banned, the government would need to stop manufacturing cigarettes.

I see all these advertisements on smoking and what it does to you, how deadly it can be, and they even write a little detail such as: "SMOKING CAN CAUSE LUNG CANCER". What I don't get is do they bother telling us how bad smoking is, yet wanting to make money from it?
Actually, cigarettes are distributed by private tobacco companies. The nasty pictures and text you see on the packages are rules set by the government that are given to tobacco companies. This is to try to discourage smoking obviously.

Laura.
13-12-2005, 01:15 AM
I could come up with a few points on each side of the debate. I'll decide at the end which side I am for and which side I am against.

I will fist start off with Yes, it should be banned in public places then move on to No, it should'nt be banned.


Reasons For.
Smoking in public places might become band, which also includes on the street, in a pub and everywhere else really. There is a risk of passive smoke, and this will increase anyones chances of getting lung cancer from someone elses smoke. We dont't want to die from anyone elses smoke. The only we we can stop this, is by not allowing it in the public places. Maybe they could just ban it from the rush hours (8:30am To 6:30pm). Between these timings you wernt allowed to smoke on the street. As for the other places, I find it stupid. Pubs have fan filters, I should know this because some of my family own pubs; even my dad, and he smokes, it doesn't bother anyone. When I go up and help him, it doesnt bother me. I even go and talk to the locals, it doesnt bother them either. So as for the Pubs and Clubs it should not be banned there. There are some problems this may cause, such as; people getting cranky because they aren'y allowed a cigerette on the street, and at work. Another problem that it might cause is people will still do it. No doubt about it. The litter is getting bad because of the cigerette butt ends, they are all over the place, the only solution is to make it a rule that if you smoke,a nd you stampyour butt ends on to the public floor, you will get fined, a minimum of £20. So far, no one as died from second hand smoke, except from maybe people who work in smoking places e.g a pub and have asma.

I will now move on to the arguments against banning it.

Reasons Against.
Smoking in public places should not be banned. I think this because if they do ban it, then people will still do it. If they ban it, a smokers life will be at risk still because all of the adrenalin and the nicotine will build up in the body, the only way to stop this is by not banning it or allowing it in hardly any public places at certain times. If the government don't mak this a rule, then many people will lose there lives, but its the way life goes, we will all die sometime. But as the saying goes; I'd rather be late in this world, than be early in the next. It hasnt really bothered anyone up to when the Government had suggested this; then the arguments started with whether it should, or not. Most people I have asked have answered with No it shouldnt be banned. If the Government ban smoking then I think more people might start and do it. In school, We ban chewing gum, people still do it to look "cool". What I'm implying is that, if we ban it, more people will do it too look "cool" and "hard" in front of there mates and to impress the opposite/same ***. What about the people that smoke in cars, while there driving. Is the motorway classed as a "public place" because I dont think police would patrol the motorwa and roads, just for people we can't cut a bad habit.

In conclusion I think It Should be banned in some public places such as; the streets and the roads and motor ways, if they count. I also still think it Should Not be banned because people would think they look cooler and harder if they break the law. No doubt about it, people will still do it. If the Government decide to ban it in all public places then its stupid! Especially in the pubs and clubs. The only people that it really bothers, is the people that breathe it out right infront of your face, and you get a coughing fit for the next 20 minutes. If they also decide to ban it, then they should atleast let the smokers smoke somwhere else and have a time gap where they shouldn't smoke and a time gap where they are allowed to smoke. Maybe the times between 8:30am and 6:30pm, which is 30minutes before the rush hour and 30 minutes after the rush hour.

I ma of babbled on a bit, but these are my personal views on something that doesn't really bother me.

Corey777
13-12-2005, 01:22 AM
When I go up and help him, it doesnt bother me. I even go and talk to the locals, it doesnt bother them either. So as for the Pubs and Clubs it should not be banned there.

Sure, it may not bother you or the locals, but think about what it does to your health. Although you may not cough when near a smoker, it does not mean that you are avoiding all of the affects. It is very possible for people to die from second hand smoke, but the smoker still lives? How is that fair?

Laura.
13-12-2005, 01:26 AM
Sure, it may not bother you or the locals, but think about what it does to your health. Although you may not cough when near a smoker, it does not mean that you are avoiding all of the affects. It is very possible for people to die from second hand smoke, but the smoker still lives? How is that fair?

As I said after. Not many people Die from Passive smoking. How many people do you know, that don't smoke and have died from passive smoking? I even asked all my teachers about this issue they said all the same, I asked a non smoker and a smoker. They said what I've just said.

If the non-smokers choose to take a route to work, and they pass many smokers, and they think they are at risk, they the should reconsider there route to work.

BLuweesH
13-12-2005, 01:26 AM
Actually, cigarettes are distributed by private tobacco companies. The nasty pictures and text you see on the packages are rules set by the government that are given to tobacco companies. This is to try to discourage smoking obviously.
Then why is the money made basically going to the government?

ssricky
13-12-2005, 01:30 AM
Then why is the money made basically going to the government?
through taxes placed on cigarettes thats why the price on them is always rising it takes away from everyone elses taxes by raising the price of smokes

Corey777
13-12-2005, 01:31 AM
I wouldn't base the passive smoking death toll on what you've heard. The statisitics are that 3000 people die from lung cancer alone from passive smoking. Passive smoking is also responsible for thousands of new cases of asthma annually.


As I said after. Not many people Die from Passive smoking. How many people do you know, that don't smoke and have died from passive smoking? I even asked all my teachers about this issue they said all the same, I asked a non smoker and a smoker. They said what I've just said.


If the non-smokers choose to take a route to work, and they pass many smokers, and they think they are at risk, they the should reconsider there route to work.

Why should non smokers who are not being harmful to anyones health by smoking be inconvenienced by people who obviously aren't respecting the public's health.

BLuweesH
13-12-2005, 01:33 AM
through taxes placed on cigarettes thats why the price on them is always rising it takes away from everyone elses taxes by raising the price of smokes


That's ridiculous, putting tax on cigarettes! $10 to give yourself cancer, PLUS tax!

I'm glad though that the government don't allow smoking in places such as cafés, and childen playgrounds. I don't really see smokers around too, so I guess those advertisements have been effective, or people have been in debt.

Laura.
13-12-2005, 01:34 AM
I wouldn't base the passive smoking death toll on what you've heard. The statisitics are that 3000 people die from lung cancer alone from passive smoking. Passive smoking is also responsible for thousands of new cases of asthma annually.

Maybe so.

I think there is no end to these debates, thats whats so, on going about them. We can all quote on what someone says then change it right back at them. Lmao

I was just trying to balance up my argument. Im trying to find a debate for my speech in English, and I have to balance it up.

ssricky
13-12-2005, 01:36 AM
That's ridiculous, putting tax on cigarettes! $10 to give yourself cancer, PLUS tax!

I'm glad though that the government don't allow smoking in places such as cafés, and childen playgrounds. I don't really see smokers around too, so I guess those advertisements have been effective, or people have been in debt.
they put that big price on smoking to discourage people from smoking cuz it is costy :$

BLuweesH
13-12-2005, 01:36 AM
Why should non smokers who are not being harmful to anyones health by smoking be inconvenienced by people who obviously aren't respecting the public's health.


That, I agree with. But what can be done about it? Absolutely nothing, unless the smokers shouldn't be smoking in the area of it isn't allowed, you either gotta put up with it, or be elsewhere. That's the unfortunate way.

Laura.
13-12-2005, 01:37 AM
Another point. If you smoke, your house tax and everything to do with housing goes up, a lot.

This is true.

Its the way life is. Put up with it, or change.

Corey777
13-12-2005, 01:39 AM
That, I agree with. But what can be done about it? Absolutely nothing, unless the smokers shouldn't be smoking in the area of it isn't allowed, you either gotta put up with it, or be elsewhere. That's the unfortunate way.
That is the whole point of the debate. What you have just said is proof that smoking tobacco should be banned in public areas. If people want to smoke, fine, just don't bother others while doing it. Go somewhere where other people aren't being annoyed or harmed (your house..) and that way no one will complain.

BLuweesH
13-12-2005, 01:39 AM
Another point. If you smoke, your house tax and everything to do with housing goes up, a lot.

This is true.

Its the way life is. Put up with it, or change.

Where does it say this? I never knew this.


they put that big price on smoking to discourage people from smoking cuz it is costy

Yet the government puts the money to waste.

BLuweesH
13-12-2005, 01:41 AM
That is the whole point of the debate. What you have just said is proof that smoking tobacco should be banned in public areas. If people want to smoke, fine, just don't bother others while doing it. Go somewhere where other people aren't being annoyed or harmed (your house..) and that way no one will complain.


Unless you're smoking alone, there will always be people bothered by it. But most likely they'll say nothing, or they'll just make coughing noises or wave their hand infront of their nose.


Edit - ACK jeez I just noticed I double posted. Sorry >_<

Laura.
13-12-2005, 01:42 AM
Where does it say this? I never knew this.



Yet the government puts the money to waste.

My mum works for the council and has told me. My mates dad smokes and his house is near exactly the same as mine, and they pay more than my mum; which is a non smoker. I have no evidence, thats why I didn't put it in my section.

BLuweesH
13-12-2005, 01:44 AM
My mum works for the council and has told me. My mates dad smokes and his house is near exactly the same as mine, and they pay more than my mum; which is a non smoker. I have no evidence, thats why I didn't put it in my section.


Well. Either the Government really have a cunning way to stop you, or they just want more revenue.

Corey777
13-12-2005, 01:44 AM
Unless you're smoking alone, there will always be people bothered by it. But most likely they'll say nothing, or they'll just make coughing noises or wave their hand infront of their nose.


Edit - ACK jeez I just noticed I double posted. Sorry >_<
If you are the only smoker in your home, most likely you will be smoking alone. The rest of the family won't let the smoker smoke in the house (most likely) as it affects everyone else's health and in my opinion leaves a nasty stale smell. So, they will probably be smoking in the backyard alone, in the privacy of their property.


Well. Either the Government really have a cunning way to stop you, or they just want more revenue.

Sadly, Im thinking the second option is more likely.

Jin
13-12-2005, 01:45 AM
Like corey says tobacco companies are private companies none are governmentally owned.

A lot of people have died from cancer which was the result of passive smoking, just recently the owner of my local had to sell his pub because he developed lung cancer despite being a non-smoker for 30 years. Also its not just adults that get effected its children too.

Technically the term public should mean an area where the general members of the public are there so if I smoked in my car I am not effecting anyone else really.

Also I see no statistical evidence only claims, like I said before 52% out of 1500 people surveyed were for the ban of smoking in public places 1/3 smokers themselves.

I don't think your comment of looking "cool" or "hard" is well justified as to be fair their are many laws people break not to look cool or hard just for their own convinience.

Also the so call "Fashionable Smokers" are generally underaged teens and they by law should not be buying cigarrettes anyway but they still do (although its not illegal for them to smoke them)


If the non-smokers choose to take a route to work, and they pass many smokers, and they think they are at risk, they the should reconsider there route to work.

Erm infringement of human rights? That would be an infringement of my freedom if I had to reconsider my route in a public area due to certain people making me feel uncomfortable. This is why this is such a delicate subject because we need to consider the point of view of the smokers and non-smokers.

I usually have to smoke outside or at the very least dangerously leaning outside my window, so it really isnt effecting others or my housing prices.

The government puts most that money back into the NHS for the people effected by smokers and other anti-smoking organisation. yeesh lighten up on the way they handle money.

Laura.
13-12-2005, 01:46 AM
If you are the only smoker in your home, most likely you will be smoking alone. The rest of the family won't let the smoker smoke in the house (most likely) as it affects everyone else's health and in my opinion leaves a nasty stale smell. So, they will probably be smoking in the backyard alone, in the privacy of their property.


Say I got married to a smoker, I wouldn't care, The only time I'd tell my husband not to smoke is if I became pregnant and when a young child is born. Except from those exceptions, he could smoke in the house. By the way, this is my opinion.

Corey777
13-12-2005, 01:49 AM
Say I got married to a smoker, I wouldn't care, The only time I'd tell my husband not to smoke is if I became pregnant and when a young child is born. Except from those exceptions, he could smoke in the house. By the way, this is my opinion.
That would be your choice, which would be fine. But, smoking in the public is against many people's will as they would rather not have to worry about health issues from passive smoking.

Also, what about when the child is developed. Do you really think that it would be fair on the child, who probably has no real intelligence on smoking to smoke in the house? I don't think so.

Jin
13-12-2005, 01:52 AM
To throw in my final point of tonight,

IF there was a public ban and people were more likely to smoke in their homes, would their be an increase in deaths by fires due to cigarette butts?

Laura.
13-12-2005, 01:53 AM
I don't think your comment of looking "cool" or "hard" is well justified as to be fair their are many laws people break not to look cool or hard just for their own convinience.*

Erm infringement of human rights? That would be an infringement of my freedom if I had to reconsider my route in a public area due to certain people making me feel uncomfortable. This is why this is such a delicate subject because we need to consider the point of view of the smokers and non-smokers.**

**Ill ask around tomorrow at school. I have a male teacher who smokes. Il see what he has to say; if you were thinking that idea?

*What I was saying there was meant to be; Children as young as 10 are smoking to look older and to fit in with the crowd. They also think they will get harder, and hang around with the hard people at school.

This subject is never ending. We could back up every reason, then somebody could just shove another reason, right back at ya.

BLuweesH
13-12-2005, 01:54 AM
To throw in my final point of tonight,

IF there was a public ban and people were more likely to smoke in their homes, would their be an increase in deaths by fires due to cigarette butts?


I doubt it. I'm sure people would take proper responsibility if their smoking. Unless of course they wanted the house to be covered in cigarettes. They'd also be pressing their cigarette on an ashtray or something too.

Corey777
13-12-2005, 01:55 AM
To throw in my final point of tonight,

IF there was a public ban and people were more likely to smoke in their homes, would their be an increase in deaths by fires due to cigarette butts?

Yes, but the difference would be huge. The number of people that would die because of the house fire would most likely be less than the number of people that are currently dying from passive smoking.

BLuweesH
13-12-2005, 01:56 AM
Yes, but the difference would be huge. The number of people that would die because of the house fire would most likely be less than the number of people that are currently dying from passive smoking.


Just how many house fires are caused by smoking though?

Jin
13-12-2005, 01:56 AM
I doubt it. I'm sure people would take proper responsibility if their smoking. Unless of course they wanted the house to be covered in cigarettes. They'd also be pressing their cigarette on an ashtray or something too.

But it still is an everday occurance that some household fires are caused by cigarette stubs I think it was 1 in every 5 fires I will research into it.

Corey777
13-12-2005, 01:59 AM
But it still is an everday occurance that some household fires are caused by cigarette stubs I think it was 1 in every 5 fires I will research into it.
Why not smoke outside?

Laura.
13-12-2005, 02:01 AM
IF there was a public ban and people were more likely to smoke in their homes, would their be an increase in deaths by fires due to cigarette butts?

I personally think so. Think of how many house fires there are in the past few years due to cigerette butts and smoking. If they do not want a risk of a fire, then why dont they consider going outside in the yard?

Ill try and get some statistics.

If people considered going home for a cigarette. then think of how amny journeys they would have a day. Loads. Waste of petrol. And they would be losing more money than they are at the moment from the cigarettes.

BLuweesH
13-12-2005, 02:03 AM
IF there was a public ban and people were more likely to smoke in their homes, would their be an increase in deaths by fires due to cigarette butts?

I personally think so. Think of how many house fires there are in the past few years due to cigerette butts and smoking.

Ill try and get some statistics.

If people considered going home for a cigarette. then think of how amny journeys they would have a day. Loads. Waste of petrol. And they would be losing more money than they are at the moment from the cigarettes.


Then in the end. The government wins.

I thought housefires caused by smoking was rare.

Corey777
13-12-2005, 02:04 AM
If people considered going home for a cigarette. then think of how amny journeys they would have a day. Loads. Waste of petrol. And they would be losing more money than they are at the moment from the cigarettes.

I doubt that people at work would go home for a cigarette. Think of it from a different perspective. People would be more likely discouraged to have a smoke knowing that they would have to go all the way home.

And, money isnt really the issue here - smokers know that they are going to be spending plenty for their precious cigarettes. Its a matter of respecting other people by not smoking in public.

Laura.
13-12-2005, 02:04 AM
Then in the end. The government wins.

I thought housefires caused by smoking was rare.

As Jin said: 1 out of 5 are caused by smoking.

Edit:


I doubt that people at work would go home for a cigarette. Think of it from a different perspective. People would be more likely discouraged to have a smoke knowing that they would have to go all the way home.

And, money isnt really the issue here - smokers know that they are going to be spending plenty for their precious cigarettes. Its a matter of respecting other people by not smoking in public.

But then non-smokers might not care. Loads of people don't care if someone smokes. But im not saying Everyone doesnt care because there are people that do care, and get stressed, which is also bad.

Jin
13-12-2005, 02:06 AM
I highly doubt people would go home to smoke, they would more likely break the law OR find alternative means of their nicotine fix eg, nicotine gum, patches, which all in all means that people are still smoking less.

and because corey, when it is a familly which smokes, no one in the house has a problem with smoking so they do it in the house.

?WhyNot?
13-12-2005, 02:08 AM
This is a different story where I live. Marijuana is being legalized in Canada - so banning msoking in public areas won't even be brgouht up here.

In the province of Quebec (where I live), smoking in public spaces will be completely forbidden on January 2006.

Corey777
13-12-2005, 02:08 AM
and because corey, when it is a familly which smokes, no one in the house has a problem with smoking so they do it in the house.

What are you basing that on? I would say quite the opposite and that people smoke in their backyards more often because a family member has a problem with it.


But then non-smokers might not care. Loads of people don't care if someone smokes. But im not saying Everyone doesnt care because there are people that do care, and get stressed, which is also bad.

Even if people don't care, I am all for cutting down on unnecessary deaths (passive smoking) - so why not ban public smoking and help the people that don't care so that they do not have to suffer the affects of passive smoking.



In the province of Quebec (where I live), smoking in public spaces will be completely forbidden on January 2006.<< Very sorry ;)

Quebec is very independant and separated in many areas from the rest of Canada - so I wouldn't be surprised if it was just there.

BLuweesH
13-12-2005, 02:08 AM
As Jin said: 1 out of 5 are caused by smoking.


Well I understand accidents do happen. But some people must have not common sense at all.

I don't think a ban on smoking seems possible though.

If the government weren't generating enough revenue through the taxes of tobacco selling, I'm sure the Government would be urging the private companies to promote it more, or the price may even be reduced.

If the government is earning more and more each time from nicotine, what's gonna stop them from banning it? After all, they need that money, well not for just for their own selfish purpose, but for roads, schools, hospitals, and so on.

Laura.
13-12-2005, 02:09 AM
I can see people are saying with what I said about before and the Going home to smoke. But some on previously said about going home to smoke.


Well I understand accidents do happen. But some people must have not common sense at all.

I don't think a ban on smoking seems possible though.

If the government weren't generating enough revenue through the taxes of tobacco selling, I'm sure the Government would be urging the private companies to promote it more, or the price may even be reduced.

If the government is earning more and more each time from nicotine, what's gonna stop them from banning it? After all, they need that money, well not for just for their own selfish purpose, but for roads, schools, hospitals, and so on.

That last point is brilliant and correct. While people are recking their lives nad spending their money. They are also helping people.

BLuweesH
13-12-2005, 02:10 AM
In the province of Quebec (where I live), smoking in public spaces will be completely forbidden on January 2006.


I'm sure if this idea was established by each country's government a long time ago, smoking would have decreased by a very large amount now.

However your province's government, is making a wise decision, people will benefit from this.

?WhyNot?
13-12-2005, 02:13 AM
Quebec is very independant and separated in many areas from the rest of Canada - so I wouldn't be surprised if it was just there.

Yep, I know, and that's why we want to be a country. By the way, you bad quoted me, look at your post.

Corey777
13-12-2005, 02:16 AM
That last point is brilliant and correct. While people are recking their lives nad spending their money. They are also helping people.

From how I see it, that is the only good point about smoking. While someone is destroying their respiratory(sp?) system, they may be helping a low income family with welfare. That is why smoking should not be completely banned.

Laura.
13-12-2005, 02:18 AM
You might all be against this BUT:

Dieing is a fact of life. We can't stop it. So why, reck some people's addictions for like one person who is annoyed at say 3 people. Its like saying "I'm addicted to Orange Squash" and I couldn't stop drinking it. Nobody could stop me except me.

The only people who can stop smokers. Is themselves.

BLuweesH
13-12-2005, 02:20 AM
From how I see it, that is the only good point about smoking. While someone is destroying their respiratory(sp?) system, they may be helping a low income family with welfare. That is why smoking should not be completely banned.

My view is that, as long as you're either smoking and not bothering anyone, and that smoking is banned in places such as beaches, schools, children playgrounds, those kind of areas in general. Then I guess everyone is happy. Well, except the smoker in the future. ;)

I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm kind of against smoking, but I don't mind if people smoke, as long as they don't smoke near me or as long as children aren't affected.

Corey777
13-12-2005, 02:21 AM
You might all be against this BUT:

Dieing is a fact of life. We can't stop it. So why, reck some people's addictions for like one person who is annoyed at say 3 people. Its like saying "I'm addicted to Orange Squash" and I couldn't stop drinking it. Nobody could stop me except me.

The only people who can stop smokers. Is themselves.

Dying is a fact of life. We can't stop it. But, we can live it to the fullest and try and live as long as possible. Why cut down 10 years of spending time with family just because someone smokes?

Why ruin someones addiction? Usually people with addiction want help. They dont want to be left alone to deal with their own addiction. They need help, support. So why not make the ban now and try and stop future generations from smoking? Why not try and prevent these problems from repeating and learn from our mistakes for the benefit of our children?



I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm kind of against smoking, but I don't mind if people smoke, as long as they don't smoke near me or as long as children aren't affected.

I think that is what it really boils down to. Everyone is happy and gets to continue what they do without the risks of passive smoking. If the smoker wants to smoke, go ahead, but don't affect others while you pollute yourself.

Laura.
13-12-2005, 02:22 AM
My view is that, as long as you're either smoking and not bothering anyone, and that smoking is banned in places such as beaches, schools, children playgrounds, those kind of areas in general. Then I guess everyone is happy. Well, except the smoker in the future. ;)

I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm kind of against smoking, but I don't mind if people smoke, as long as they don't smoke near me or as long as children aren't affected.

Im the same on that view.

It should be banned where a lot of children go, such as; beaches, schools, children playgrounds as BLuweesH said.

A few years back I went to a safety convention at my local town and they were saying about 4/10 of people we know will smoke.

I was like. Wow.

BLuweesH
13-12-2005, 02:24 AM
Dying is a fact of life. We can't stop it. But, we can live it to the fullest and try and live as long as possible. Why cut down 10 years of spending time with family just because someone smokes?

Why ruin someones addiction? Usually people with addiction want help. They dont want to be left alone to deal with their own addiction. They need help, support. So why not make the ban now and try and stop future generations from smoking? Why not try and prevent these problems from repeating and learn from our mistakes for the benefit of our children?


Well it can be stopped, plus some people need to smoke, maybe as it's a way to relieve it. But as it was said earlier in this thread, the manufacting, trafficking and use of drugs such as marijuana, would increase. Marijuana is illegal in Australia, and Asian countries such as Indonesia and Singapore are serious on drugs.

Recently an Australian citizen was executed in Singapore because of heroin trafficking, now if smoking was banned, or say people needed drugs for whatever reason, wouldn't the amount of death penalties, or deaths in general, increase?

Corey777
13-12-2005, 02:27 AM
Recently an Australian citizen was executed in Singapore because of heroin trafficking, now if smoking was banned, or say people needed drugs for whatever reason, wouldn't the amount of death penalties, or deaths in general, increase?

No, because smoking wouldnt be banned - just in public places. The result of committing the crime of smoking in a public place should result in a fine and multiple offences should lead to a more serious consequence - but nothing close to the death penalty.

Laura.
13-12-2005, 02:28 AM
Recently an Australian citizen was executed in Singapore because of heroin trafficking, now if smoking was banned, or say people needed drugs for whatever reason, wouldn't the amount of death penalties, or deaths in general, increase?

No. We don't have the death penalty in England. The only way someone could get exectuted would be by going to somewhere where it is banned.

Also smoking is not a "big" drug. many people do it. Why would they kill someone for something many people do in life. It would be nar impossible to kill everyone who smokes.

By the way. It wouldnt be banned altogether. Just public Places ;)

BLuweesH
13-12-2005, 02:30 AM
No, because smoking wouldnt be banned - just in public places. The result of committing the crime of smoking in a public place should result in a fine and multiple offences should lead to a more serious consequence - but nothing close to the death penalty.


I see. Well I guess in the end it depends in which country (as each country's government enforces its own laws) on where the crime was committed if it were to be banned at all.

Corey777
13-12-2005, 02:32 AM
I see. Well I guess in the end it depends in which country (as each country's government enforces its own laws) on where the crime was committed if it were to be banned at all.
Thats true, but in this thread, we are talking about the UK.

BLuweesH
13-12-2005, 02:33 AM
Thats true, but in this thread, we are talking about the UK.


True, now this is why I feel left out, as I live in Australia, lol, and it's a bit difficult for me to be able to relate to this more.

Well, good on you Corey and Lozza :) I guess this makes me ready to support a ban on smoking in all public places, I guess the saying of: "mind your own business" would be in handy for smoking, as they would be only be smoke in their own time or area or where others aren't bothered.

Corey777
13-12-2005, 02:35 AM
True, now this is why I feel left out, as I live in Australia, lol, and it's a bit difficult for me to be able to relate to this more.

Well, good on you Corey and Lozza :) I guess this makes me ready to support a ban on smoking in all public places, I guess the saying of: "mind your own business" would be in handy for smoking, as they would be only be smoke in their own time or area or where others aren't bothered.
Heh, Im Canadian xD

Anyways, good debate tonight, off to bed now - school bright and early tomorrow. +rep to you both.

BLuweesH
13-12-2005, 02:37 AM
Heh, Im Canadian xD

Anyways, good debate tonight, off to bed now - school bright and early tomorrow. +rep to you both.

Have a nice sleep and a great day tomorrow then.

I have a feeling I'll enjoy this thread a lot, especially disagreeing and agreeing with ban on smoking, it's nice to hear what people have to say on this.

Laura.
13-12-2005, 02:40 AM
I live in UK ;D And its 02:40. Lol

Im going to bed at 3. +Rep to both of you. Good debate Lol. This will carry on for ages. I have enjoyed it so far. Ill come back to this tomorrow when I come home from school, and see what more people have to say.

Excellent points raised tonight. Thanks to every one has participated in the thread.. So far.

BLuweesH
13-12-2005, 02:47 AM
I live in UK ;D And its 02:40. Lol

Im going to bed at 3. +Rep to both of you. Good debate Lol. This will carry on for ages. I have enjoyed it so far. Ill come back to this tomorrow when I come home from school, and see what more people have to say.

Excellent points raised tonight. Thanks to every one has participated in the thread.. So far.

True.

I would like to see what a smoker has to say, and what their perception be for smokers in general if smoking were banned IN ALL PUBLIC AREAS.

Laura.
13-12-2005, 02:49 AM
True.

I would like to see what a smoker has to say, and what their perception be for smokers in general if smoking were banned IN ALL PUBLIC AREAS.

I could ask my media teacher tomorrow?

He smokes.

BLuweesH
13-12-2005, 02:53 AM
I could ask my media teacher tomorrow?

He smokes.

That's up to you. ;)

I wonder what it would be like if the government just put the ban for a week or something and see how things turn out, andnd what factors would increase and decrease?

Laura.
13-12-2005, 02:59 AM
That's up to you. ;)

I wonder what it would be like if the government just put the ban for a week or something and see how things turn out, andnd what factors would increase and decrease?

Ill ask him. :) Then I'll post what he said. Or I could wait till Saturday and ask my dad. Lmao.

Hmm.. Would A week really do anything though. People would still do it in a weeks time..

Going to bed in like 3 mins because I want to see sexy pointless stares at the end of a Kaiser chiefs video <3

BLuweesH
13-12-2005, 03:04 AM
Ill ask him. :) Then I'll post what he said. Or I could wait till Saturday and ask my dad. Lmao.

Hmm.. Would A week really do anything though. People would still do it in a weeks time..

Going to bed in like 3 mins because I want to see sexy pointless stares at the end of a Kaiser chiefs video <3


Well then ok :) Night then.

I do always believe trials are worth a shot though.

Laura.
13-12-2005, 03:05 AM
Well then ok :) Night then.

I do always believe trials are worth a shot though.

True. Maybe lengthen it.. a fortnight..

Night xxx

Pulchritudinous
13-12-2005, 03:16 AM
I think it should be banned, with a few designated areas per town, with bins etc to stop littering of cigarette butts, and for it to be legal in your own property.
It's not fair to intoxicate people who chose not to smoke, and people who suffer from illnesses, where smoking can worsen their condition, just because people got themselves into a silly addiction.

BLuweesH
13-12-2005, 03:20 AM
I think it should be banned, with a few designated areas per town, with bins etc to stop littering of cigarette butts, and for it to be legal in your own property.
It's not fair to intoxicate people who chose not to smoke, and people who suffer from illnesses, where smoking can worsen their condition, just because people got themselves into a silly addiction.

I wish it were that way too. But unfortunately it can't work that way I guess, you just gotta put up with it or be away from it.

ross
13-12-2005, 07:01 AM
It should be banned.
Coming from me, I have asthma. I go out for a nice meal with parents/mates and I get hit with smoke as soon as I enter. It sticks in the room, I cough all the way through my dinner. It's not nice to intoxicate someone around you just because you have a filthy habbit yourself, it's wrong. Second hand smoking kills too, even if that person is not smoking, it's because it travels.

So I think it should be banned in public places for the health of yourself, and everyone around you. Also, I think people would stop quiet a bit if they knew they couldn't smoke in their favourite pub/bar/club/restraunt. :)

Mit
13-12-2005, 07:18 AM
I hate when people smoke, my dad used to smoke and now he's stopped he says he feels guilty for ever smoking near public places.

Say i had free will to go and put some drug in our water supplies just because some people like it, but its known to cause diseases, would you support that?

ross
13-12-2005, 07:20 AM
I hate when people smoke, my dad used to smoke and now he's stopped he says he feels guilty for ever smoking near public places.

Say i had free will to go and put some drug in our water supplies just because some people like it, but its known to cause diseases, would you support that?
Exactly. You wouldn't support it, only people who need to go to rehab might. But, its stupid. Everyone is entitled to their own life, it's not to be taken by anyone, and espically stupid cigarette smoke, right?

Mit
13-12-2005, 07:23 AM
Right, and people may get put off smoking. Then many things would become better, such as hospitals not having to deal with as many patients, not as many fires caused by smokers, stealing would go down as many people end up stealihntg to pay for their addiction....

ross
13-12-2005, 07:26 AM
Right, and people may get put off smoking. Then many things would become better, such as hospitals not having to deal with as many patients, not as many fires caused by smokers, stealing would go down as many people end up stealihntg to pay for their addiction....
Smoking can make people do alot of things, yes you're right. Hospitals have better patients to see, really - if a smoker comes in with a bad chest, and is coughing blood for example, which is more important someone in the other room dieing of heart failure which is a natural cause or someone coughing up blood, because they've been smoking half of their life. I know it sounds cruel, but it's right? Atm we can't stop natural causes/diseases within the human body, maybe some. But, you can stop smoking full stop. I understand people are addicted but, I believe they can quit with professional help.

Mit
13-12-2005, 07:30 AM
I think banning it is a better way of putting people off then putting more taxes on cigarette companies, as then people are still able to get cigaretts. If people can't afford them then it leads to stealing, but if you make smoking a hassle then people would be put off.

Baving
13-12-2005, 07:35 AM
I think that public smoking should be banned, as the vast majority of people do not smoke and I don't think that these people should suffer from the small majoirty that do smoke. It is estimated that only a 1/4 at the uk's population smokes.

How would you like it is you went out for dinner or an evenning meal and you sat next to a table where people were smoking, just think all of the smoke would get into your food and all around you when you are trying to eat. Let alone go into your lungs and could cause you serious damage or even lung cancer.

But maybe there could be certain things like smoking zones that they have at airports (well most!), where the people that want to smoke are designated to a little room on the other side of the venue away from everyone else.

ross
13-12-2005, 07:35 AM
I think banning it is a better way of putting people off then putting more taxes on cigarette companies, as then people are still able to get cigaretts. If people can't afford them then it leads to stealing, but if you make smoking a hassle then people would be put off.
But, how are they gonna ban it. They can't just go "It's banned." that'll cause chaos. I think it'll take a few months, maybe years for it to be fully banned. But, it should just be banned.. full stop.


I think that public smoking should be banned, as the vast majority of people do not smoke and I don't think that these people should suffer from the small majoirty that do smoke. It is estimated that only a 1/4 at the uk's population smokes.

How would you like it is you went out for dinner or an evenning meal and you sat next to a table where people were smoking, just think all of the smoke would get into your food and all around you when you are trying to eat. Let alone go into your lungs and could cause you serious damage or even lung cancer.

But maybe there could be certain things like smoking zones that they have at airports (well most!), where the people that want to smoke are designated to a little room on the other side of the venue away from everyone else.
I wouldn't like it, I don't think a smoker would? And as for the smoking zones, I agree but where will they be? Airports.. yes, that works I've not seen problems yet? Smoking zones, a smoking club perhaps where they can go for help and smoke, to try and stop or even think of the dangers they're causing.

Mit
13-12-2005, 07:45 AM
Sorry i shouldnt have said banned, i meant ban it in public areas... Then smokers still have their freedom to smoke.

ross
13-12-2005, 07:49 AM
Sorry i shouldnt have said banned, i meant ban it in public areas... Then smokers still have their freedom to smoke.
Why? Smoking causes alot of damage, people who smoke are planning their own funeral.. you could say that, they're smoking for nothing? Because it's addictive. I'm addicted to the computer alot, but I like to go out with my mates. That's easy for me to do, I know it's not as easy cas that with smoking. And I know people make a good effort to stop..

camera
13-12-2005, 09:07 AM
Why? Smoking causes alot of damage, people who smoke are planning their own funeral.. you could say that, they're smoking for nothing? Because it's addictive. I'm addicted to the computer alot, but I like to go out with my mates. That's easy for me to do, I know it's not as easy cas that with smoking. And I know people make a good effort to stop..
Exactly!

Wolfie
13-12-2005, 09:11 AM
yeah it should, i mean look at the lives it has ruined people get cancer or die or any lung infections. How has it helped them-it hasn't.How Much does it cost?
Well if you buy a £4 packet a day that comes to about £120 a month. Which is only helping them die.

In Conclusion:
BAN SMOKING

Jordan3
13-12-2005, 10:40 AM
I think there should be special places for smoking, like only smoker's pubs, but I don't think smoker's should just get their way because they pay for the government's cr-ppy new bus lanes and whatever.

HellyBelly
13-12-2005, 10:43 AM
I think they should ban it in SOME public places. Like shopping centers, ALL resteraunts and pubs ect.

Ban it in inside public spaces, but I think outside is ok becuase your in the fresh air.

Wolfie
13-12-2005, 10:45 AM
The Only Place They Should Be Allowed To Smoke Is A Back Alley

Jin
13-12-2005, 11:26 AM
If the government weren't generating enough revenue through the taxes of tobacco selling, I'm sure the Government would be urging the private companies to promote it more, or the price may even be reduced.


Then why have they banned the advertisements of cigarrettes if their intrest was in the revenue gathered from the saled of cigarrettes?

The governement puts the taxes on the cigarrettes to help with funding the projects that are smoking relates, eg; NHS hospitals, Cancer Research, Anti-Smoking charities / campaigns. These are given to the establishments in a form of governmental grants.

Corey you miss-undersood me I said that if the WHOLE family smokes then they would all do it in the house. = higher risk of fire.

As for hospitals I am sure they can not refuse treatment to someone who is ill or dieing due to their own fault. As that is what you are implying Klock.

If you think how many people are smokers and what would happen if England enforced a full ban on smoking, the chaos that would probably happen.

We would see riots, fights, robbery, looting and would smokers be more inclined to go try harder substances to smoke as some people smoke to relieve stress.

However it is still unfair on the non-smoking public as they would be breathing other peoples cigarrette smoke damaging their health. So is the solution to publicly ban smoking during certain times of the day and completly ban it where children may be present. Eg, pizza hut, shops, school grounds

-Soph-
13-12-2005, 02:25 PM
I think that it should be banned in public places,
Its horrible standing next to someone who is smoking, and having to breath it in, As second hand smoke in long-term can be deadly and possibly give you health problems later on in life, When I went on hoilday to america, I noticed that you werent allowed to smoke near public places, and I thought it was much fresher and a nicer atmosphere there, So im all for it ;]

JT-Fan
13-12-2005, 03:34 PM
Personally I look at this topic in a different way. Smoking may be wrong and harmful, but it is an addiction. Once you have one puff you almost instantly become addicted. People smoke for many different reasons. I know several people who started smokine to relieve stress.
Look at it this way. Alcohol is also bad for health. Do we see alcohol being banned in public? No. We see pubs being open for 24 hours. Does that mean just because someone chose to stick tobacco and smoke it they should be "isolated" and not alloud to smoke in public.
Why should it be banned, I mean yes it is not good to smoke for health reasons. But the people who smoke in public are past the stage of smoking to be "social" it has turned into an addiction.
Addictions are hard to stop. So why should what someone does be banned in public? I listen to music..should that be banned in public?

pechie100
13-12-2005, 03:46 PM
yeh
it will stop passive smoking

Rosie
13-12-2005, 04:12 PM
No people should get to smoke where they want.They are just going to keep smoking.

RLY-CRAIG?
13-12-2005, 04:18 PM
no it shouldnt i think there should be designated areas where people can smoke. smoking is somewhat of a lifestyle choice if you choose to smoke its you personal decisions to settle this matter it shouldnt be completely banned because there isnt really a reason it should be its a person choice. if smoking was banned it would cause an uproar in the streets due to the fact over 50% of the world smokes so yea btw jin i beat ur tetris score on Us forum ;)

Agreed

Saurav
13-12-2005, 04:23 PM
I dont really think it should be banned

Firstly, the goverment wont ban it because of the profit they make
2ndly, its the smokers decision if they want to smoke. It says on the cig packets SMOKING KILLS, so if they want to ignore the warning they can. I am pretty sure if they ban smoking a lot of people will go on strike etc

JT-Fan
13-12-2005, 04:29 PM
I dont really think it should be banned

Firstly, the goverment wont ban it because of the profit they make
2ndly, its the smokers decision if they want to smoke. It says on the cig packets SMOKING KILLS, so if they want to ignore the warning they can. I am pretty sure if they ban smoking a lot of people will go on strike etc



But even though smoking kills, it addicts you. So smokers end up KNOWING it kills, but being so addicted that they do not listen. It;s hard to give up.

Saurav
13-12-2005, 04:31 PM
But even though smoking kills, it addicts you. So smokers end up KNOWING it kills, but being so addicted that they do not listen. It;s hard to give up.

why start if you know its addictive and it will kill you

JT-Fan
13-12-2005, 04:32 PM
why start if you know its addictive and it will kill you

Because smokign can relieve stresses. And some people start to smoke so that their stresses can go away for a short while.

Saurav
13-12-2005, 04:35 PM
Because smokign can relieve stresses. And some people start to smoke so that their stresses can go away for a short while.

hmmm true
i dunno
this topic is really complicated in a way
if they ban it, a lot of people will kind of go mad and A LOT of factories will close which will lead to goverment loosing money and people loosing their jobs

Jin
13-12-2005, 04:36 PM
Firstly, the goverment wont ban it because of the profit they make

So why would they bring up the topic for consideration, it wasnt the general public that decided it should be done it was the government in the first place, in which the public liked the idea of it.

If its an addiction they wont lose out on cigarette sales by much, and also think that for every smoker, the government needs to pay MORE to the NHS to deal with the illness' related to smoking and to street cleaning teams to clean the butt ridden streets.

So stopping people smoking or publicly smoking is really in their favour.


Alcohol is also bad for health. Do we see alcohol being banned in public? No. We see pubs being open for 24 hours. Does that mean just because someone chose to stick tobacco and smoke it they should be "isolated" and not alloud to smoke in public.
Why should it be banned, I mean yes it is not good to smoke for health reasons.

Number 1, its illegal to drink on the streets
Number 2, For me to have a beer or whisky in a public place doesnt harm anyone unless I started an alcohol related crime. Which is illegal anyway as I harmed someone.

But smoking is something that I could do in the public and harm someone internally YET not be arrested for it nor even be frowned upon (by many people)


if they ban it, a lot of people will kind of go mad and A LOT of factories will close which will lead to goverment loosing money and people loosing their jobs

Yes some people may be mad, but why would factories close and people lose their jobs? They are not banning smoking in general just in public areas. Why would the government lose money? other than the tax money from the people who decided to quit as the result of the ban but that would save them money elsewhere.

Saurav
13-12-2005, 04:38 PM
So why would they bring up the topic for consideration, it wasnt the general public that decided it should be done it was the government in the first place, in which the public liked the idea of it.

If its an addiction they wont lose out on cigarette sales by much, and also think that for every smoker, the government needs to pay MORE to the NHS to deal with the illness' related to smoking and to street cleaning teams to clean the butt ridden streets.

So stopping people smoking or publicly smoking is really in their favour.


never actually thought of the NHS cost lol
but they will have to pay the people who loose their jobs if smoking is banned (i think :s)


Yes some people may be mad, but why would factories close and people lose their jobs? They are not banning smoking in general just in public areas. Why would the government lose money? other than the tax money from the people who decided to quit as the result of the ban but that would save them money elsewhere.

didnt read the public areas part :p read the thread title and skimmed the text :(
Whats the point in banning it just in the public areas?
If they want to ban it, I think they should ban it in general not just public areas

Laura.
13-12-2005, 04:44 PM
yeh
it will stop passive smoking

No it wouldn't. Nothing can stop passive smoking. The only way it can stop is if the government ban smoking for good. Which they will not do, too many arguements will break out. Also there would be more deaths due to the amount of people who have been smoking for years, since they have been teenagers. My granddad has been smoking for over 60 years. If he gave up suddenly, he would die because of all the nicotine build up, and no way of releasing it.

Mit
13-12-2005, 04:52 PM
Personally I look at this topic in a different way. Smoking may be wrong and harmful, but it is an addiction. Once you have one puff you almost instantly become addicted. People smoke for many different reasons. I know several people who started smokine to relieve stress.

Actually you only start smoking if you really want to, it doesn't taste nice until you get used to the nicotine, so that means you are regularly smoking. Many non smokers have tried smoking but found it horrible and never had it again, it isnt an instant addiction. plus you cannot compare this to alcohol as alcohol doesnt affect people around them and doctors recommend a glass of wine a day...

Also i think smoking in your home with your family is selfish as you are killing those around you when they have not choosen to inhale your poisoness fumes...

ross
13-12-2005, 04:55 PM
Everyone knows that smoking can cause cancer when you get older. right? But what most don't know is that it also has bad effects on your body right now? A cigarette contains about 4000 chemicals, many of which are poisonous.

Nicotine: a deadly poison
Arsenic: used in rat poison
Methane: a component of rocket fuel
Ammonia: found in floor cleaner
Cadmium: used in batteries
Carbon Monoxide: part of car exhaust
Formaldehyde: used to preserve (to keep in perfect condition) body tissue
Butane: lighter fluid
Hydrogen Cyanide: the poison used in gas chambers

Every time someone inhales smoke from a cigarette, small amounts of these chemicals get into your blood through your lungs. They travel to all the parts of your body and cause harm.

Smoking makes you smell bad, gives you wrinkles, stains your teeth, and gives you bad breath.
Smokers get 3 times more cavities than non-smokers.
Smoking lowers your hormone levels.
When smokers catch a cold, they are more likely than non-smokers to have a cough that lasts a long time. They are also more likely than non-smokers to get bronchitis and pneumonia.

Teen smokers have smaller lungs and a weaker heart than teen non-smokers. They also get sick more often than teens who don't smoke.
So, why do like us youngers smoke? it's wrong.. I don't smoke btw.

Every time you inhale smoke from a cigarette, you kill some of the air sacks in your lungs, called alveoli. These air sacks are where the oxygen that you breathe in is transferred into your blood. The alveoli don't grow back. So when you destroy them, you have permanently destroyed part of your lungs. This means that you won't do as well in activities where breathing is important, like sports, dancing, or singing.

Smoking paralyzes the cilia that line your lungs. Cilia are little hairlike structures that move back and forth to sweep particles out of your lungs. When you smoke, the cilia can't move and can't do their job. So dust, pollen, and other things that you inhale sit in your lungs and build up. Also, there are a lot of particles in smoke that get into your lungs. Since your cilia are paralyzed because of the smoke and can't clean them out, the particles sit in your lungs and form tar.

Someone might say 'I know smoking is bad for me, but I like it' pathetic..

Many young like chavs? or maybe not chavs, like the feeling that smoking gives thema good feeling, a some sort of 'power' - pathetic really, 'cos like they're not 'hard' they're killing themselves. This good feeling is from the nicotine in the cigarettes. Some think smoking will help them lose weight or stay thin. Many teens also feel like smoking gives them a sense of freedom and independence, and some smoke to feel more comfortable in social situations. Well, there's plenty more things to do than to smoke, right?

Nicotine can make you feel good, but is feeling good (a feeling you can also get from healthy activities like playing sports) really worth all the bad things cigarettes do to you? If you smoke, you'll get sick more often. You also have the chance of getting lung cancer or emphysema, which will make you really sick for a long time before you die. If you are very sick, that good feeling from nicotine won't seem so important anymore.

Smoking doesn't really help people lose weight. If that were true, every smoker would be thin.
Smoking lowers your hormone levels.

Don't you think that smoking is a sign that you can do what you want? That you are in control of your life? Think about it this way: When you decide to start smoking, you are doing exactly what tobacco companies want you to do. They spend millions of pounds every year on advertising to try to get new people, especially teens, to smoke.

Once they have you hooked, THEY are controlling YOU. You are forced to buy their products in order to support your addiction. Do you really want a big corporation controlling your life and telling you how to spend your money?

No, you don't, It's YOUR life. You should control it not some company. But, I think they've stopped advertisements now, not sure. Enough of my rant. <33

Ban smoking in public places, end of.

Mit
13-12-2005, 05:00 PM
It stunts your growth and for boys it can stop your downstairs department growing ;)

ross
13-12-2005, 05:01 PM
It stunts your growth and for boys it can stop your downstairs department growing ;)
Exactly. Can do same for girls, but not down below. Not sure, I'm not female.

At the end of the day; it's dirty and disgusting.

Mit
13-12-2005, 05:02 PM
People who smoke are less likely to score, as their breath stinks...

Mr. Shadow!
13-12-2005, 05:03 PM
Smoking is one of the biggest killers of the population, it gives cancer to those who smoke, and also to those who DONT SMOKE!, smoking shouldnt be allowed as it is, but so many people are addicted, if it was stopped, there would be a rebellion within society. Why do we smoke? There are many reasons, peer pressure being the most commen one of all, many people just want to look cool, and many people want to act cool. But who can say they havent thought about what one would be like? I dont think any of you could, i know myself i have thought "wonder what there like" and im a grade B student , who helps little kids with their problems!!!.

Anyway, i think public smoking should be banned and it should be confined to homes only!

Infrontation
13-12-2005, 05:04 PM
Smoking should be banned in all public places, everywere that is not privately owned. It would be too harsh to ban smoking everywere are there are millions of people addicted to smoking

mynameishelen!
13-12-2005, 05:07 PM
It should be banned in public places because non-smokers should be allowed to go where they want without having to worry about passive smoking. I don't think it's that much hassle for a smoker to smoke outside away from other people, instead of possibly making people ill by smoking in public places.

;]

Laura.
13-12-2005, 05:43 PM
One Question To All:

When you have been walking down the street has any smoke bothered you?

To me, no because the air quickly makes it disappear, which does nothing.

/Rossco\
13-12-2005, 07:32 PM
My opinion is that smoking should be a definite ban in public areas(pubs nightclubs, streets, shops everywhere apart from your own home. It's extremely anti-social. It's horrible when your walking along the street and someone else walks past you smoking, leaving you to walk through a wall of smoke. It's up to each individual person if they want to smoke or not. However, when they take the option to smoke it should be done in the privacy of their own home. Non-smokers (me anyway) dont want our health affected by other peoples actions, its selfish to say the least.

Mit
13-12-2005, 07:40 PM
One Question To All:

When you have been walking down the street has any smoke bothered you?

To me, no because the air quickly makes it disappear, which does nothing.

Yes it does, i hate getting a face full of smoke, if i wanted that i would put my face over a fireplace.

/Rossco\
13-12-2005, 07:48 PM
One Question To All:

When you have been walking down the street has any smoke bothered you?

To me, no because the air quickly makes it disappear, which does nothing.



Yes it does, i hate getting a face full of smoke,


exactly, me aswel. It isn't pleasent

Chaz
13-12-2005, 07:51 PM
Yes it should be, eating your dinner in a public restaraunt really puts you off! its not nice smelling eather, it should be banned FULL STOP

If you smoke your killing yourself...easy as that........don't start

.:Subarusti:.
13-12-2005, 09:33 PM
yes, although i dont smoke i think it would be a great way to get people to quit, it most be hard for someone whos quitting walking about seeing people smoking and enjoying it!

Baving
14-12-2005, 07:39 AM
Yea I agree, by stopping smoking it should stop people from getting the habit to smoke, but does this mean that they might turn towards drugs or other addictive substances.

Dupion
14-12-2005, 06:36 PM
In some places yes but most places no.

JoeComins
15-12-2005, 02:48 PM
You mean drugs lik Cannabis?

Cannabis has never killed anyone directly. Its only bad for you when you smoke it with tobacco, as tobacco contains more and worse things than the roads and your domestic cupboard ith your cleaning products.

Tobacco should be made a class A drug, as its more dangerous and more addictive than heroin etc. And Cannabis should be make legal!

Undesirable
15-12-2005, 02:52 PM
Yes it should be smoking. I work in a bar, and there is nothing more annoying than being surrounded by people who smoke. I can't wait till the law comes into force banning it in public places!

Bef
15-12-2005, 03:09 PM
I myself am a smoker, personally, i think that the way everything is at the moment is pretty good, There are smoking and non-smoking sections in most resturants. You can't smoke in shops, most work places, school etc...
But, one thing i do not like is people walking round smoking, You see people barging there way through a busy street puffing away, for starters i think this looks common, it also causes problems with second hand smoke etc, to stop this i think they should create things called "Smoking shelters" Anybody who has been to Gatwick airport may have noticed the little bubble like smoking section in the middle, well yes, i think they should have them in busy towns, parks, etc.
Also, i think that all night clubs and pubs etc need to have seperate smoking and non smoking sections. Okay im rambeling.
Anyway, thats my view. <333

Undesirable
15-12-2005, 03:10 PM
Having a smoking and a non smoking section does is f all! The smoke still floats around..it's not like there is a wee invisable boundary and then it stops before it crosses it!

Bef
15-12-2005, 03:14 PM
If doors are shut then that should be okay, it works in most restraunts i know off! Some people just seem to look for things to fight, i don't understand why the goverment is so worried with smoking and opening pubs 24 hours when theres all these serious problems with Iraq that are still not resolved, all this violence in schools.
If smoking was to be banned 100% then that would cause an outrage!

/Rossco\
15-12-2005, 03:17 PM
If you smoke your killing yourself...easy as that........don't start

and dont kill others with passive smoking!

Bef
15-12-2005, 03:24 PM
Woops massive computer lag sorry <33

Syd
15-12-2005, 05:54 PM
I believe that there should be specific areas, such as schooling establishments and certain areas where young children may possibly be at harm should be anti-smoking areas. But if you ban public smoking completely, people will be angry that they cannot go out with their colleagues and friends who are also smokers to be allowed not to smoke. I have smoked since I was 13 and have smoked publicly under my own attention for the past 6 years and would be upset that I wouldn't be allowed to smoke in public places such as pubs. I understand they have banned smoking in football grounds which is quite right within the law, yet people still seem to do it. So I believe that if a ban does come out on smoking publicly it will probably fall on deaf ears and people will still push the laws to the limit by smoking in pubs and throwing cigarette ends on the ground.

Jin
16-12-2005, 12:09 AM
as its more dangerous and more addictive than heroin etc.

That is a complete lie and whoever said that is a fool, heroin is far more addictive and dangerous! Usually it takes only the first try in most people to get addicted it whereas 2 cigarettes (on average) a person usually smokes to become addicted.

Not to mention that heroin is far harder to quit and the withdrawal symptoms have led to people committing suicide due to the immense pain. Also, do you even realise how much more dangerous heroin is? You chance your life with every fix you take, you never know the potency of the mixture and not to mention the additives which are added to heroin to make a 1kg supply of Smack magically turn into 3kg. Its white as pure and even pre-processed china white (usually 90%) but the thing you actually get delt is usually a brown or pale yellow colour. They add brick dust, rat poison, cement / plaster powder and to think people usually inject this stuff into their veins.

Have you ever heard of an over-dose of tobacco? Heroin is so addictive people turn to other serious crimes in order to pay for their habit.

Cannabis in its self is still just as bad (as tobacco) to smoke especially with the point made about the cillia hairs in your throat, cannabis burns hotter than tobacco so what chance has your lungs got to keep debris out? Yeah I have had my fair share of cannabis in my time but I can actually feel the difference of smoking it compared to tobacco I feel much worse. For several days after I am as scatty as can be and I cant remember where I put my wallet or keys which I had in my hand 2 mins ago i will do silly things like start day dreaming whilst doing something crucial such as when I am filling the car up with petrol.

ross
16-12-2005, 12:13 AM
That is a complete lie and is totally made up, heroin is far more addictive usually it takes only the first try in most people to get addicted it is supposedly 2 cigarettes (on average) a person smokes to become addicted.

Not to mention that heroin is far harder to quit and the withdrawal symptoms have led to people committing suicide due to the immense pain. Also, do you even realise how much more dangerous heroin is? You chance your life with every fix you take, you never know the potency of the mixture and not to mention the additives which are added to heroin to make a 1kg supply of Smack magically turn into 3kg.

Have you ever heard of an over-dose of tobacco? Heroin is so addictive people turn to other serious crimes in order to pay for their habit.

Cannabis in its self is still just as bad to smoke especially with the point made about the cillia hairs in your throat, cannabis burns hotter than tobacco so what chance has your lungs got to keep debris out?
I agree with that 100%. Heroin is way harder to quit, and the aftermath has lead to suicidal accident and such and such.

Baving
16-12-2005, 07:33 AM
Heroin is meant to be the most addictive drug out there but I also believe that drugs such as canabis and exctasy are equally the same.

le harry
16-12-2005, 07:54 AM
I think it should be stoped, I mean people are dieing every minute from cancer and still they keep it? There making people rich form us dieing, also everyone that is around the person who is smoking is Passive smoking, it could be a small kid or an elderly man, either way it's harming people in the community and killing people.

What do people get out of it? Why start in the first place if you know its going to ruin your life, We WASTE millions on trying to cure cancer and all that stuff when people are basically SELLING it to people through cigerattes, I think its abnormal to sell them, dont you feel bad selling cancer?

I can understant peer pressure and all that stuff having to try smoking etc but whats the point? Cant you just say, "Sorry guys, I dont wanna ruin my life", if your FRIENDS are offering it to you, well there not friends, you really need new ones. Dont get su'cked in to trying it.

So I say BAN smoking in public areas...

RLY-CRAIG?
16-12-2005, 07:57 AM
You mean drugs lik Cannabis?

Cannabis has never killed anyone directly. Its only bad for you when you smoke it with tobacco, as tobacco contains more and worse things than the roads and your domestic cupboard ith your cleaning products.

Tobacco should be made a class A drug, as its more dangerous and more addictive than heroin etc. And Cannabis should be make legal!

Omg do you even know what you're saying? Smoking is no way as bad as canabis and heroin you idiot-That stuff could kill you in one go-What a noob

Adam$
16-12-2005, 10:52 AM
Omg do you even know what you're saying? Smoking is no way as bad as canabis and heroin you idiot-That stuff could kill you in one go-What a noob
He's not a noob for that. :\ Cannabis couldn't kill you in one go.

GJay
16-12-2005, 10:55 AM
yes it should be banned, it kills hte people who smoke, it kills hte people around them...it just kills. STOP SELLING CIGARETTES!

Jin
16-12-2005, 12:17 PM
Heroin is meant to be the most addictive drug out there but I also believe that drugs such as canabis and exctasy are equally the same.

Cannabis is no way nearly equally addictive, not in my experience anyway.

Heroin is just damn well wrong, the drug they used to give to people to overcome their pain is called "methodone" and that in its self is even more addictive than heroin so people who tried to give up and failed soon became methodone addicts hence why methodone is no longer used in rehab clinics.

StripedTiger
16-12-2005, 12:24 PM
you just HAD to come up with a good debate didnt you!

and YES! i dont wanna die from passive smoking!

even though 2 years of smoking has done in my lungs already xD

Bef
16-12-2005, 01:29 PM
That is a complete lie and whoever said that is a fool, heroin is far more addictive and dangerous! Usually it takes only the first try in most people to get addicted it whereas 2 cigarettes (on average) a person usually smokes to become addicted.

Not to mention that heroin is far harder to quit and the withdrawal symptoms have led to people committing suicide due to the immense pain. Also, do you even realise how much more dangerous heroin is? You chance your life with every fix you take, you never know the potency of the mixture and not to mention the additives which are added to heroin to make a 1kg supply of Smack magically turn into 3kg. Its white as pure and even pre-processed china white (usually 90%) but the thing you actually get delt is usually a brown or pale yellow colour. They add brick dust, rat poison, cement / plaster powder and to think people usually inject this stuff into their veins.

Have you ever heard of an over-dose of tobacco? Heroin is so addictive people turn to other serious crimes in order to pay for their habit.

Cannabis in its self is still just as bad (as tobacco) to smoke especially with the point made about the cillia hairs in your throat, cannabis burns hotter than tobacco so what chance has your lungs got to keep debris out? Yeah I have had my fair share of cannabis in my time but I can actually feel the difference of smoking it compared to tobacco I feel much worse. For several days after I am as scatty as can be and I cant remember where I put my wallet or keys which I had in my hand 2 mins ago i will do silly things like start day dreaming whilst doing something crucial such as when I am filling the car up with petrol.

Here here! Exactly. Owned ;]

Anyway... Has anyone watched that fast food thing where all he eats is mc donalds for a month, that harmed him more then smoking would have. So should fast food be banned? The smell of mac donalds makes me nausius yet people still eat it in the street etc...
If smoking was to be banned then why shouldn't fast food be?

Baving
16-12-2005, 06:42 PM
ISn't talking about fast food going way of topic :s

Anyway!
The government has been talking about banning smoking for some time now, and each time it comes to making the final decission it has been left as they cannot decide. Well should they do a vote to see how many of the public want it banning? I would have thought that most of the public would say you to ban it.

YellowParasol
16-12-2005, 10:35 PM
Yep it should be banned.. I also don't wanna die from breathing in other people's Smoke (Passive Smoke)

Catchetat
17-12-2005, 05:26 AM
BUT SMOKERS should be given at least some spaces of smoking cuz they have the rights to do that
but the government can limit their space even MORE

RLY-CRAIG?
17-12-2005, 10:02 AM
Yep it should be banned.. I also don't wanna die from breathing in other people's Smoke (Passive Smoke)

Yeah I will that way too

Bef
17-12-2005, 10:09 AM
ISn't talking about fast food going way of topic :s

No, what im saying is, all these people who say smoking should be banned because its harmful. Well fast food harms you more, if they ban smoking, why shouldn't they ban fast food. Would be easier, people dont really get addicted to fast food... what i am saying is if everything that harmed us was banned life would be boring, we would have no choices to make really.

Baving
17-12-2005, 11:39 AM
Smoking should be banned in most public places, but to give smokers a chance I agree with others that there should be a designated spot where smokers can do their thing. But then again the smokers could agrue that they have been singled out and that this is not fair.

NekkLe
17-12-2005, 12:28 PM
Smoking should be banned in most public places, but to give smokers a chance I agree with others that there should be a designated spot where smokers can do their thing. But then again the smokers could agrue that they have been singled out and that this is not fair.
Wouldn't it be a good thing if smokers felt that they were being singled out, I think so. If there being segregated from the public so's they can have a smoke, let them, they'll soon realise that there habbit is useless and they'll follow the direction of giving up.
I think thats a good idea, you either kill yourself smoking or live life in many better ways without smoking.

Baving
17-12-2005, 12:34 PM
Yea I suppose making them stand out would make them feel bad and could make them stop smoking. But there also has to be a bit of leway to what they can do.

NekkLe
17-12-2005, 12:53 PM
Well like you said, they come to a decision and scrap it at the brink of concluding the verdict. That doesn't say much about the government these days :rolleyes:
But banning smoking in public areas should go forth, why should the second hand smoker suffer, give up space for smokers?

Baving
17-12-2005, 01:44 PM
Well yeah everytime it does come to government it is scraped when it comes to the final decission. The sooner they completely ban it the better. It should stop as many people getting cancer and other illnesses.

NekkLe
17-12-2005, 01:55 PM
Ofcourse, also its said that second hand smokers suffer as much as the actual smoker, its not doing anyone any good. But the government are going to be slow on the case, afterall it makes them there money, they won't hesitate.

Mit
17-12-2005, 03:21 PM
Its also the fact that quite a few MP's smoke or are snooty morons that are keen to keep the tradition of being able to smoke anywhere and people dieing from it.

Baving
17-12-2005, 07:31 PM
Quick search on google turned up the following information!

Every year around 114,000 people in the uk die from smoking
Passive smoking kills around 30,000 people a year


30,000 people dieing from passive smoking, that is horrible.

NekkLe
17-12-2005, 07:58 PM
Quick search on google turned up the following information!

Every year around 114,000 people in the uk die from smoking
Passive smoking kills around 30,000 people a year


30,000 people dieing from passive smoking, that is horrible.
Thats dreadful.

So about a quarter of passive smokers die a year, that tells us how bad this is getting.

Baving
17-12-2005, 08:00 PM
That proves that the government has to act and do something very quickly. As the site that I went on even said in big bold writing that within 10 years that number could double.

NekkLe
17-12-2005, 08:03 PM
Exactly, and until that verdict is acheived, all the government are doing is sitting back whilst thousands suffer under the power of greed.

Baving
17-12-2005, 08:17 PM
This issue needs to be sorted quite quickly. Yea I know there are other things that the government needs to get on with but, this issue has been going on for a while and needs to be sorted.

/Rossco\
17-12-2005, 08:20 PM
yet again I had another problem with a smoker last night, was in the casino happily betting at blackjack, and this old guy starts smoking next to me and all the smoke is getting blown right into my face, very unpleasant for me. This is why it needs to be banned, some people do not have the common decency to light up when they are not in a public area where there smoking affects others.

Baving
17-12-2005, 09:39 PM
I would say and I am sure that there is people that agree that: -
There are more people that don't smoke and suffer than there are people smoking all together.

NekkLe
17-12-2005, 10:12 PM
I would also agree with that, passive smokers seem to get affected worse in the long run. Health issues such as Athsma, different issues causing all sorts of bad health problems present and in future life.

Baving
18-12-2005, 12:15 PM
I have ashtma and there are some people that smoke around me and I hate it.

ilovejordan
18-12-2005, 01:18 PM
I think it should because when somebody is out having a meal or in the pub having a good times if they have ashtma [like baving] they will find it very uncomfortable & it is also passive smoking which is a killer.

Baving
18-12-2005, 05:14 PM
Generally when I go out for a meal I feel very uncomfortable if someone near by is smoking. It puts me of my meal.

le harry
19-12-2005, 03:01 AM
Me to, we try and avoid places that have a non smoking rule, because since all the other places have banned it, most smokers go there, the moment we enter a pub, smoke feels your lungs and it really is disgusting, its gross.

Jin
19-12-2005, 03:22 PM
Congratulations to Klock for his most compelling arguement,
http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=1246954&postcount=110

He has won this debate.


The majority of people have said they would like to see the ban in intrests of non-smokers and people who do not wish to inhale other peoples smoke. However there has been a sort of comprimise in the sense that people feel that there should be areas smokers can smoke in order to not be singled out or targetted in a sense.

Most peoples concerns are the possible health changes in case of a ban and how it will be an advantage to most people of the UK. This debate is PRO banning of smoking in public places.

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!