another positive for scotland

[kronas]

i seem to have a bit of a bias for the scottish executive in a positive way i think this just adds to it


deputy health minister tim mcabe has said he hopes smoking will be banned in scotland but the idea will need public backing

public consultations are set to begin in spring

'Scottish National Party MSP Stewart Maxwell plans to introduce a member's bill at the Scottish Parliament banning smoking in places where food is served.'


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3351909.stm

this is great i have said it before i thought a ban would be positive and now something is being done about it even if it does not affect everyone atleast the scottish executive are setting the wheels in motion

[Jerrek]

The United States tried banning liquor in the 1920s, and it didn't work. I don't think the government should have a say in every day private life, especially not if it isn't hurting others. BUT, having a socialist healthcare system... I can see why a ban on smoking would be desirable.

[kronas]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

The United States tried banning liquor in the 1920s, and it didn't work. I don't think the government should have a say in every day private life, especially not if it isn't hurting others. BUT, having a socialist healthcare system... I can see why a ban on smoking would be desirable.

the ban is in favor of a 'public' banning on smoking where it causes harm to others especially in enviroments where food is served i dont think i would want to 'eat' smoke or inhale it while i eat something in a public outlet

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

BUT, having a socialist healthcare system... I can see why a ban on smoking would be desirable.

Pssst! Smokers pay loads of taxes, so the more we have the more taxes we get, so the better the NHS can be

(why do I feel like putting after "so the better the NHS can be"?)

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Pssst! Smokers pay loads of taxes, so the more we have the more taxes we get, so the better the NHS can be

(why do I feel like putting after "so the better the NHS can be"?)

Except the NHS spend a fortune on treating the effects of smokers (on both smokers and non-smokers alike).

[luftys]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Except the NHS spend a fortune on treating the effects of smokers (on both smokers and non-smokers alike).

That is true,but without the taxes on cigs who would pay
Y dont they ban drinking the NHS spends lot on them too
or SEX how much does that cost us

[Russ B]

No-one is saying smoking should be banned completely - the suggestion is that it should be illegal in public places, like they do (quite successfully I hear) in New York.

[Theodoric]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

The United States tried banning liquor in the 1920s, and it didn't work. I don't think the government should have a say in every day private life, especially not if it isn't hurting others. BUT, having a socialist healthcare system... I can see why a ban on smoking would be desirable.

And quite a few Canadians made a lot of money by smuggling booze into the USA.

[Nor]

I think smoking brings in more money than is spent on the NHS treating it. Thats totally irrelevent though. Passive smoking kills. I have no problem at all with people wanting to smoke, even if its bad for them, but I do have a problem with them damaging the health of those of us who chose not to smoke.

This is great news and hopefully one day it'll be implemented.

[Russ B]

Originally Posted by Nor

I think smoking brings in more money than is spent on the NHS treating it. Thats totally irrelevent though. Passive smoking kills. I have no problem at all with people wanting to smoke, even if its bad for them, but I do have a problem with them damaging the health of those of us who chose not to smoke.

This is great news and hopefully one day it'll be implemented.

I say give smokers somewhere they can smoke, and give us non/anti-smokers somewhere we can enjoy ourselves without the smoke and we'll all be happy. Choice is the key.

[Jerrek]

Smoking is banned in public places in Ontario. That includes libraries, hotels, hospitals, buses, and so forth. Restaurants have their own jurisdiction. If you're a family oriented restaurant, smoking is not allowed. If you cater to 19+ people, those of legal drinking age, you are allowed a smoking section or a non-smoking section, or both, as you wish. The smoking section must be separate from the non-smoking section though. Most bars, well, all bars I think, are either smoking only or have both. I myself, although I'm a non-smoker, do not care for smoke in a bar. When I go to a bar I go to enjoy myself and want everyone around me to have a good time. That includes smoking for some people, and who am I to spoil that for them even if it gives me some discomfort?

Taxes are incredibly high in Ontario on cigarettes. A pack of 20 will run you almost $7 [GBP 3.50] and a carton (200 ciggs) will run you about $70 [GBP 35]. Most of that goes into healthcare I think. In addition, our cigarette packages are very, um, nasty. At least half of the label contains one of the following warning labels:


































Bottom line is, I enjoy a smoke free environment in general. I don't want to smell smoke when I go into a library, or McDonald's. I don't care for it in a bar.

[kronas]

Originally Posted by luftys

That is true,but without the taxes on cigs who would pay
Y dont they ban drinking the NHS spends lot on them too
or SEX how much does that cost us

i think the overall thinking style of the general public is to whine incessantly about banning something in the public domain which affects other peoples health if you want to kill yourself with alcohol and cigarettes then do so by allmeans just dont take me down with you on the smoking aspect

[Xaccers]

You also have to consider the people who have to work in these places (sorry but I don't feel the "you chose to work there so tuff" argument really works) breathing in smoke throughout their shifts.

Many pubs have a "no smoking at the bar" policy but very few actually enforce it.

Pubs are supposed to have forced air ventilation to get rid of the smoke, but my gf's pub for instance has woefully inadequite ones and the brewery won't invest in upgrading them.

My old Uni had massive extracter fans in their nightclub. Unfortunately they were in the no smoking area so it sucked the smoke across

Thankfully most of the places down south that I go to have pretty clear air, even though there are smokers there, so it's not too much of a problem, but in the back room of my gf's pub there's no movement of air, so the smoke gets quite thick.

Also, most smokers I know will do their best to keep their smoke away from non-smokers. Unfortunately, smoke seems to seek out non-smokers so no matter what they do it always heads your way!


With reference to the warnings on fag packets these days, you can now get stickers to go over them which say things like "They're my lungs I'll kill them how I like" or "hands off my fags"

[kronas]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

You also have to consider the people who have to work in these places (sorry but I don't feel the "you chose to work there so tuff" argument really works) breathing in smoke throughout their shifts.

i agree saftey of staff has also got to be considered as a priority for employers

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Many pubs have a "no smoking at the bar" policy but very few actually enforce it.

yes but that is to stop customers from going elsewhere

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Pubs are supposed to have forced air ventilation to get rid of the smoke, but my gf's pub for instance has woefully inadequite ones and the brewery won't invest in upgrading them.

its a business as with most if not all businesses profit comes first i find that sadly true

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Also, most smokers I know will do their best to keep their smoke away from non-smokers. Unfortunately, smoke seems to seek out non-smokers so no matter what they do it always heads your way!

smoke has a tendency to linger in the air in most directions if you couple that with a few smokers instead of just one the affects are well quite clear

[Nor]

Think it costs nearly £5 here for a pack of 20 Jerrek. I don't smoke though so could be wrong.