Smoking Ban

[Illuminattile]

MPs have voted by huge margins to ban smoking from all pubs and private members' clubs in England.

Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt said the change, expected to take effect in summer 2007, would "save thousands of people's lives".

Ministers gave a free vote amid fears Labour MPs could rebel against plans to exempt clubs and pubs not serving food.

The Commons decided by a margin of 328 to ban smoking from all pubs. It then voted by 200 to extend this to clubs.

The Cabinet had been split on how far restrictions - set out in the Health Bill - should go, with Conservatives calling government policy a "shambles".

'Historic day''

Smoking is already to be banned in pubs and clubs in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The Health Bill gives the Welsh Assembly the right to decide for itself whether to implement a ban it has already twice approved in principle.

This is really going to affect generations to come and make the nation a lot healthier
Elspeth Lee, Cancer Research UK

Ms Hewitt, who voted for a total ban for England, told the BBC: "I'm absolutely delighted. This is really a historic day for public health."

She added: "This is going to save thousands of people's lives."

Prime Minister Tony Blair, Chancellor Gordon Brown and Home Secretary Charles Clarke all voted for a blanket ban.

But Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell, Defence Secretary John Reid and Education Secretary Ruth Kelly opposed it.

Dr Vivienne Nathanson, of the British Medical Association, said she was "delighted" by Tuesday's Commons results, adding: "Every day around 30 people die in the UK as a result of second-hand smoke.

"Today's vote will mean the beginning of the end to these frightening statistics."

'Illiberal'

Elspeth Lee, of Cancer Research UK, said: "This is really going to affect generations to come and make the nation a lot healthier."

However, Simon Clark, director of smoking support group Forest, said: "This is a double whammy and an unnecessary and illiberal piece of legislation that denies freedom of choice to millions of people.

"The Government should educate people about the health risks of smoking but politicians have no right to force people to quit by making it more difficult for people to consume a legal product."

About one third of people who smoke more than 20 cigarettes a day will have their first within five minutes of waking

Earlier, health minister Caroline Flint said fines for failing to stop people smoking in restricted areas would go up by more than ten times from £200 to £2,500.

She said: "I am confident that these increased fine levels will result in better compliance with smoke-free legislation, which of course, will make enforcement easier."

The Cabinet originally proposed prohibiting smoking only in pubs serving food, in line with Labour's election manifesto.

But a free vote was offered after many Labour MPs, fearing a partial ban could increase health inequalities among customers and staff, threatened to rebel.

Ministers came up with three choices: a total ban; exempting private clubs; or exempting clubs and pubs not serving food.

Many MPs opposed a smoking ban on civil liberties grounds.

'Good news'

The government predicts an estimated 600,000 people will give up smoking as a result of the law change.

Liberal Democrat Steve Webb said: "This legislation is good news for tens of thousands of bar staff up and down the country.

"The key issue has always been the health and safety of people who work in public places."

Conservative MPs were offered a free vote on the issue.

Tory leader David Cameron missed the vote following the birth of his third child, a son, earlier on Tuesday.

In a recent report, the Commons health select committee said a total ban was the "only effective means" of protecting public health.

The Health Bill also contains measures relating to the control of MRSA, pharmaceutical provision in hospitals, the prevention of fraud in the NHS and the establishment of a new commission to appoint senior NHS managers and trustees.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...cs/4709258.stm

I'm all for it. As a non-smoker, I don't want to have to inhale other peoples deadly cancer mist while I'm standing around in bars.

 

[Amara]

I'm all for it. As a non-smoker, I don't want to have to inhale other peoples deadly cancer mist while I'm standing around in bars.

True. I hate stinking like a bar for a week after venturing into one for even a short time.

I cant understand why we have to submit to the desires of tobacco companies and not just outlaw smoking all together. Call it "illiberal" I dont care - murder is illegal in order that we protect the right to life and freedom from harm ... preventing death and god knows how many other health complications from smoking is just the same.

 

[Saint33]

True. I hate stinking like a bar for a week after venturing into one for even a short time.

u no, showers r often a good idea, and not only after goin to a smelly bar, u can shower and participating in a physical activitie or sporting event, u can shower after a long hard day at work, wen u wake up after a night out, next to a fat slob, and some people even shower daily, jus to stay clean.

 

[Amara]

u no, showers r often a good idea, and not only after goin to a smelly bar, u can shower and participating in a physical activitie or sporting event, u can shower after a long hard day at work, wen u wake up after a night out, next to a fat slob, and some people even shower daily, jus to stay clean.

Predictable comment.

Got anything worthwhile to contribute to the discussion. Didnt think so.

 

[Illuminattile]

murder is illegal in order that we protect the right to life and freedom from harm

Suicide is illegal too, and smoking is a slow, relatively ineffective form of suicide.

Maybe it's an invasion of privacy, but those people who the government are trying to help by banning smoking should be grateful.

 

[PuffnScruff]

they have a smoking ban in lexington kentucky where i used to go to college. there was a big drop in sales for bar owners and restaurants. sucks to be a bar owner. smokers would really drive to a place outside the city to get a bite to eat or have a drink. but on the other hand i can agree with what amara said. when i go to the casino my clothes stink like all hell. it sucks getting the smoke smell out of a track jacket

 

[Chronic]

I'm all for it. It's hazardous to other people and it smells horrible.

u no, showers r often a good idea, and not only after goin to a smelly bar, u can shower and participating in a physical activitie or sporting event, u can shower after a long hard day at work, wen u wake up after a night out, next to a fat slob, and some people even shower daily, jus to stay clean.

Fucking 'tard.

 

[Amara]

Suicide is illegal too, and smoking is a slow, relatively ineffective form of suicide.

Maybe it's an invasion of privacy, but those people who the government are trying to help by banning smoking should be grateful.

Thats how governments have to work and always have. Take some liberties in order to give more back. People dont need cigarettes, you're not endowed with a right to them.

(Side note: I was surprised when in criminal law I found out suicide is illegal...)

Puff - you'd think it might boost sales of food and drink though as an alternative in bars if it was a widespread law.

 

[bigmack]

Some of you are being very selfish and only thinking about yourselves.I myself find it to be a very stupid idea.Let's step away from the health hazards perspective for a moment,it's the only and cheapest defence.

I mean,what a great way to make your society less sociable.Where do you think people are going to go if they can't smoke in a bar? They're going to quit like the government predicts? My ass they will.They'll just stay home and smoke instead.Where are the people's rights? They are being stripped away.

Also,less smoking means less cigarettes sales.Less cigarettes sales means less taxes,which is money that can be used to build shelters for homeless people.What about the fact that this will also fuck with the economy?

I say,don't ban smoking.Designate specific areas for smoking.There everyone will be happy.

 

[Saint33]

Predictable comment.

Got anything worthwhile to contribute to the discussion. Didnt think so.

it was a joke, don be so uptight

and infact i do hav some insight, i believe this is a step in the right direction, since manitoba banned smokin in public places my step dad and my mom's girlfriend hav lowered ther smoking imensly and not only jus in public places, because they've become less acustomed to smoking all the time, so at home they've slowed it down, and in public places.

But because of the ban in public places, smokin in bars has gone up, cuz the people that used to smoke in coffee shops, and other places, but now the only place they can smoke indoors, is in a bar, so unless they want to stand outside in the winnipeg (winterpeg) weather, ther forced to go to bars

if it was banned in bars, then people would be forced to go outside, and would limit smoking ALOT, and people would start to quit.

 

[Duke]

Although I'm not against it (second hand smoke is stupid and dangerous), I feel it should be left up to the property owners to make their place either smoking or non-smoking.

If I own a pub or club, I don't want the government coming in telling me what I can't or can't allow on my own turf. That's stripping away my liberties in front of my eyes.

It's not like non-smokers are forced to go inside.

 

[The.Menace]

If you'd ban smokin around here I think there'd be a revolution, can't see that happenin within my lifetime.

 

[S O F I]

, I feel it should be left up to the property owners to make their place either smoking or non-smoking.

.

Property owners wouldn't make their establishments non-smoking. Bad business.

 

[k69atie]

i am not sure what to think. i think pubs/clubs etc are going to lose a lot of money people are going to stay at home rather than go out. the cig machines will go in the pubs which means people will be out of jobs. more people will quit smoking which yes is good but that is where most of the taxes come from, less people smoking will equal them increasing the tax on other things to make up for the money that they have lost from the tax on cigs.

yes smoke in pubs is annoying but there are no smoking areas in all pubs, and if they are propely ventilated then it shouldn't be a problem with the smell in the rest of the pub. ig it isn't properly ventilated then yes that can cause problems

 

[~live2tell~]

I'm not arsed about the smell it's my health I'm concerned about. I'm all for the smoking ban, I don't think bars/clubs etc will lose money - I seriously doubt that people will stay in rather than do without a cigarette for a few hours - smokers still get on planes after all.

 

[k69atie]

yeah that is true but a plane is to go on holiday not for just one night!

if they think people will quit smoking just cos they can't smoke in public then they are sadly mistaken.

there was a student union that banned smoking in it's student bar (one of the 1st to do it was ages ago now) and they lost £35,000 in the 1st week

 

[~live2tell~]

yeah that is true but a plane is to go on holiday not for just one night!

if they think people will quit smoking just cos they can't smoke in public then they are sadly mistaken.

there was a student union that banned smoking in it's student bar (one of the 1st to do it was ages ago now) and they lost £35,000 in the 1st week

My point is that if smokers can manage it for however many hours on a plane then they can manage it for a few hours in the club.

As for the student union that banned it in their bar - all the students that smoked probably went to a different bar and spent their £35,000 elsewhere.

But with the government banning smoking in all public places then it's going to be the same everywhere for smokers - I don't think they will becomes recluses somehow but on the other hand I wouldn't expect them to quit either.

 

[k69atie]

oh right yeah i see your point.

i am unsure what to think about it tbh, i am both for and against as i can see both sides of the argument

 

[Illuminattile]

In the UK, the tobacco industry generated over £10bn in tax revenue in 1998, enough to pay for three quarters of the Education and Employment Budget.

The industry directly employs 9,800 people and supports about 138,500 other jobs, according to the UK's Tobacco Manufacturers Association.

Smoking makes the world's governments a lot of money through taxes, but smokers also cost governments a lot of money due to smoking-related health problems.

Tobacco is the fourth most common risk factor for disease worldwide. The economic costs of tobacco use are equally devastating. In addition to the high public health costs of treating tobacco-caused diseases, tobacco kills people at the height of their productivity, depriving families of breadwinners and nations of a healthy workforce. Tobacco users are also less productive while they are alive due to increased sickness. A 1994 report estimated that the use of tobacco resulted in an annual global net loss of US$ 200 billion, a third of this loss being in developing countries.

 

[Sebastian]

Also,less smoking means less cigarettes sales.Less cigarettes sales means less taxes,which is money that can be used to build shelters for homeless people.What about the fact that this will also fuck with the economy?

smoking causes health problems, which costs money.

EDIT: what Illu said.

it was a joke, don be so uptight

if you want to make a joke, go to OurBlock.