To think smoking should now be banned in public spaces?

[MrsKingfisher]

I saw on the news footage of people Christmas shopping in London and people sitting outside in cafes etc. Given the current situation should public smoking be banned? Not only because it stinks and it's anti social but more people are now meeting outside due to covid. I don't believe there is any evidence that breathing out smoke spreads the virus anymore than normal breathing. It's just selfish, non smokers no longer can be told 'if you don't like it go inside'

Ill be for banning smoking once they've banned sugar and fatty foods

What about the freedom of others not to breathe in smoke, and not to get the smell on their clothes and in their hair?
They can get behind me in the queue of people not wanting to breath in strong perfumes, body odour, not watning to listen to loud telephone conversations or people playing loud games, not wanting to be the person on the street responsible for dodging the phone zombies and a whole load of others with other perfectly legal but really bloody irritating things on their 'let's just ban it' wish list.

Body odour and loud telephones don't cause respiratory problems or any of the other second hand smoke side effects. But yes, it's the ones who don't want second hand smoke forced on us that are entitled. The only people FORCING you to go outside to smoke is yourself funnily enough, you could always not.

Seeing children wade through clouds of smoke outside the school gates and in town is horrid but people are defending it... be the first to complain if your kid had an asthma attack after breathing in someone elses shite though I bet.

YANBU. I hate inhaling other people's second hand smoke at the best of times. It seems so much worse with Covid, makes me feel really anxious.

@LolaSmiles

Our children and grandchildren will be as baffled at our generation's tolerance of smoking as we are at our parents and grandparents leaving us in the car outside the pub/putting brandy in baby bottles/being content for teachers to hit their children in school.

We know how dangerous it is and we know how many people find second-hand smoke unpleasant or downright deleterious to their health, yet it's still held up as some kind of civil liberty

Exactly this.
What amuses me is how many smokers think they're making some brilliant point saying 'ooh you're only upset now you're out here with us' when many of us have long thought people should be free to sit in an indoor or outdoor venue without being subjected to second hand smoke.

I find it bizarre that I used to ride in the back of my friend's mum's car without a seatbelt as a child because the car had no rear seatbelts and then when I was older I had a backless booster in my parents'car. My DC are in rear facing seats as long a possible. The more we learn, the more attitudes change.

Both of these points. I find it really difficult to comprehend why smokers think they have the right to find people not wanting to be around them offensive: if you have an anti-social, mutually harmful habit you will receive criticism for it.

Let me see...

Strong perfume causes me problems, watering eyes etc, some make me wheeze

Phone zombies cause me physical pain, I have mobility issues, dodging the insensible can cause twinges. And if I am driving they cause no end of emotional trauma when they step off the kerb into my car.

All sorts of things cause real problems for many people. The world has to work for the majority. When you start banning people from legal pursuits you set a precedent you won't like when it is applied to something you like.

I don't smoke. I don't like the smell of smokers, but I walk round, stand upwind, don't wind myself up into paroxysms of pique...

@GoldfishParade

Ill be for banning smoking once they've banned sugar and fatty foods

Those don't affect other people - and it's possible to have a healthy lifestyle alongside eating them.

Smoking means you don't have a healthy lifestyle. Full stop. It is in no way the same. There is no "ok in moderation" with smoking.

It does when you look at the strain it has on the NHS

And being fat probably places more strain on the NHS. Smokers at least pay lots of tax.

Don't get me wrong, I hate smoking and I have zero idea why anyone with two brain cells to rub together under the age of say 40 would ever have started.

But I think the inside ban was sufficient.

And nobody has to go to a pub and sit outside. If you hate it that much, go to a park with a mini bottle of prosecco and meet friends there, or in your garden if allowed.

I have a much bigger problem with garden bonfires, which pollute everything around and should have been banned at the outset of covid, especially as we thought it was a respiratory disease then.

Yes it should be. Have felt this way for years.

Once I was sat in a bench in a theme park with my child. A girl I didn’t know came over sat on the same bench and lit up a fag (she had child in buggy too). Vile for us and for her own child! The theme park had designated smoking areas but obviously she didn’t care! I went elsewhere but I shouldn’t have had to. I was there first!

We're not talking about banning smoking though? By all means vote for that.

What is essentially being proposed is banning smokers from all public spaces. So basically everywhere unless you're at home or a fellow smokers house. If you're homeless, you're living in public space. Maybe we should line them up and shoot them if they smoke.

A separate section for non smokers in outdoor seated areas is one fair idea, I've seen those.

It's also possible to ask a smoker to move away politely. Most smokers are human beings.

Perhaps direct your ire at the tobacco industry and government. The hyperbole on this thread is a bit much; battling through clouds, blowing smoke right into my face, zjgzagging on the pavement to dodge hordes of smokers coming towards me, outside next to a smoker I couldn't find any oxygen, smokers everywhere....and so on..

14% of the UK population smoke. It's a small section of the population.

I'll stop polluting the outside air when you stop driving a car.

Smoking has no plus points so why do people smoke
In the same vein alcohol doesnt have any either no nutritional value so why do people drink the stuff

@rosie1959

Smoking has no plus points so why do people smoke In the same vein alcohol doesnt have any either no nutritional value so why do people drink the stuff

But disingenuous Rosie!

Smoking and drinking is enjoyable. I love my mid morning coffee and fag (in my garden)
I mean, Salted caramel Magnums have no nutritional value if we're splitting hairs.

SmileyClare not quite sure why disingenuous
I enjoy nothing more than a fag and a cup of tea
Don’t drink alcohol raving alcoholic haven’t touched it for years
Just pointing out everyone has their vices

Smoking immediately sets off my asthma & I have to reach for an inhaler. Vapes & their sweet smell & fog makes me gag
it's both are really antisocial habits to do in public. I dont them it banned outright that seems very harsh on the smokers, not sure what the happy medium to suit both is.

Tricky.
It's not smokers' fault that Covid has meant that more people are now eating/drinking outside . Smokers have been ( rightly) turfed outside to smoke for a number of years now.
It won't last forever once we're all vaccinated.
My beef is with those you don't wear masks near me.
I'm more likely to get Covid than suffer from a few puffs of a civvies. As a medical person on the news said, earlier this week, there are only a very tiny minority of people who cannot wear masks ... much less than we currently see.

@FortunesFave

Doing that would be a step towards making it illegal and they won't because they make too much money from it.

Actually the healthcare costs for dealing with smoking related illnesses is far higher than the tax revenue they generate

It is smokers fault that they smoke though

I think we have a reasonably good balance between personal freedom and public health with the current restrictions. I would suggest that taxes do need to by higher on cigarettes until at least they are covering the associated health costs of smoking.

I would suggest that taxes do need to by higher on cigarettes until at least they are covering the associated health costs of smoking.

It already does. By quite a few billion. Maybe people should stop smoking, they'll save money and the non smokers will have to pay considerably more tax. Then the non smokers will be moaning about that instead.

These threads always come up about smokers, but smoking is an addiction, and most smokers would quit right now if they could. It takes a phenomenal amount of support and iron willpower to quit smoking.
To all of the people who are aggravated by smoking fumes, are you also aggravated by BBQ's? Bonfires? Fumes from buses, taxis & cars? Chimney smoke? Factory emissions? Aircraft emissions for people living in close proximity to an airport?
Maybe we should just ban all pollutants, of which smoking is just one.
For the people who are affected adversely by smoking fumes, surely you must also be affected by other pollutants too?
Yes, the air should be cleaner to breathe, but why is it always smoking and smoking alone?
Surely, we should be campaigning to ban all pollutants?

There's a lot of anti-social behaviour outside. Smoking is unpleasant for others but so are the effects of chewing gum, dog shit or drinking alcohol. Who'd enforce the ban outdoors? It is not unreasonable to have pubs and restaurants enforce rules on their premises but they aren't responsible for random outside areas like parks or residential streets.

It already does. By quite a few billion. Maybe people should stop smoking, they'll save money and the non smokers will have to pay considerably more tax. Then the non smokers will be moaning about that instead.

Estimates I've seen put the cost to the public purse at £14 billion with a revenue of only £12 billion. Direct NHS costs are obviously lower, but that isn't the only set of costs.

As for saying that smokers will save money and non-smokers will have to pay more tax. That saved money would be spent elsewhere and improved economic productivity due to improved public health would also be a benefit.

Of course I've also seen arguments that smoking helps kill off people before they claim their pension so you could argue that there is a benefit there, but that is a pretty shitty way of looking at it and doesn't neccesarily factor in the benefits of consumer activity by alive people that add tax revenues and provide jobs elsewhere.

As long as they ban alcohol too. When was the last time anyone got violent after having one too many cigarettes?

Useful link here to the costs/tax income thing, though it won't suit the anti-tobacco lobby: iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Smoking-and-the-Public-Purse.pdf

Useful link here to the costs/tax income thing, though it won't suit the anti-tobacco lobby: iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Smoking-and-the-Public-Purse.pdf

You do realise that that report was written by a right wing think tank funded by all the major tobacco producers?