added June 26 2007

You do what you want and I do what I want. That's good..... except when what you want goes into my lungs and gives me CANCER!

Report as offensive

added June 29 2007

i agree with what you say, but, i have civil rights as well, i want fresh air and not your smoke, so keep the ban

Report as offensive

added July 01 2007

I notice you say a great many people enjoy smoking. That's called addiction. And just because you want to do something does not give you the right to do it. The govt. has the responsibility to protect the populace from harm, within resonable bounds -- bounds that a smoking ban would fall under. That includes protectin you from yourself if you will not recognize the health complications caused by tobacco. An example is, people enjoy drinking and, by proxy, drunk driving. It may not be fatal most of the time but even once is enough to support a law protecting against it. Same for smoking,and br proxy secong hand smoke. On a far more chilidish note, all your smokers look aged beyond there years and sound really bad.

Report as offensive

added July 02 2007

i think the smoking ban is so childish, this country has lost its freedom of speech.Tonight while me and my husband was out drinking, all the non smokers where complaining that they where cold because the doors where left open while us smokers were having a puff. well all we got to say to that is tough ha ha ha ....YOU CANT HAVE IT ALL YOUR OWN WAY

Report as offensive

added July 02 2007

I know smoking isnt good for me, but it was the availability and the acceptance in the 60's that made me become a smoker. If I had been told then, at 16, you can become an addict, I would never have lit up in the first place. Now they put even more addictive ingredients in cigarettes and the government allow it. They are the pushers, and now they are backtracking. They have enjoyed the revenue for all these years and now they have to be seen to be helping people get healthy. Ban junk food then, stop obesity, that is the major problem. It took a TV programme to make them provide children with better food, they just dont care about anyones health unless if it costs them money. Smokers pay enough revenue to support their own health care, what are the government going to do without it? Put everyones income tax up 10% probably, just wait and see. I have enough manners to know not to smoke in restaurants, I havent smoked at work for 15 years, give me some credit. Being a smoker doesn't make you a moron, it makes you an addict, thanks to the government. I am more concerned about putting on 3 stone if I stop as I know for a fact that would affect my health, I do not know that smoking will, a lot of smokers live to a ripe old age so wheres the proof? They could have installed extractors in pubs and clubs, restaurants have had separate smoking areas for a long time anyway, it could have easliy been made acceptable for everyone, not just the non smokers. They are trying to make us feel like lepers and it's disgusting the way we are being treated. If it is so bad for everyone, why are cigarettes still readily available. The ban wont affect me much anyway for the reasons I stated above, I only go to the pub once a week for 3 hours and I know I can manage without a cigarette for that length of time, I do it every day at work. I just object to being told what I can and can't do at 57 years of age.

Report as offensive

added July 02 2007

Are ya'll retarded? Just because someone "likes" something, doesn't mean it's "an addiction" All you freakin' non-smokers like to eat food and drink water. Is it an addiction for you? By your own words, yes. As far as it's right until my "secondhand" smoke gives you lung cancer. What about all the crap your autos put out. That also causes lung cancer. I'll quit smoking when driving a petrol powered vehicle is banned. Grow up. If ya go to a place and it has smokers and it bothers you. LEAVE Find a resturant or pub that is for NON Smokers only. and let smokers have their rights.

Report as offensive

added July 02 2007

Although smokers now make up only about 25% of the population of this country, we are far more harshly treated than any other minority. The vast majority of smokers are considerate enough not to smoke around children and those eating. Indeed, although a smoker, I hate it if people light up whilst I am eating. However, that aside, there is a far more fundamental issue at stake, that of freedom of choice. Thousands of people gave their lives in two World Wars to preserve that freedom of choice and whilst some non-smokers bleat about having to breathe in my second hand smoke - they had the choice as to whether or not to visit the establishment that allowed smoking. That choice has now been arbitrarily taken from hundreds of thousands of British people. Where does it end? The next target would seem to be alcohol as we are already seeing "enjoy alcohol responsibly" on TV and newspaper ads for booze, how long before alcohol intake is restricted by legislation. We all know that smoking is bad for us however, as a mature adult, I really resent the government telling me what pastimes I can and cannot enjoy. It is my choice to smoke, I pay my taxes and National Insurance and the colossal tax I pay on my cigarettes more than covers what I may cost the NHS. I'm a nurse so I do know what I'm talking about. One last point, if the government succeed in their quest to get us all to stop smoking, where are they going to get the billions of pounds to replace the tax revenue from cigarettes. All you moaning minnies please be ready to dig deeper into your pockets when your fuel duty, income tax, council tax et al increase. Have a nice day.

Report as offensive

added July 02 2007

If you had a choice of being locked in a room with 50 chain smokers or alternatively a room with single car with the engine running, which would you choose? It is still completely unproven that second hand smoke causes serious illness, even if it does prove to be true and you did choose the room full of smokers over the car. Maybe/possibly/ perhaps in 30 years you might get lung cancer. But I know one, thing. That car will make you stone cold dead in just a couple of minutes. My point? We are surrounded by carcinogens every day of our lives. From the deodorants and perfumes we spray on, chemicals in the clothes we wear and furnishings around us, and even in the food we eat. We cannot escape them and chances are that one of them will very likely contribute to your death. If it hasn’t already sown the seeds. The role of governments is to research and advise us on health risks so that we can make informed choices, not try to win votes with fear and fiction. So to those who support politicians who think nothing of removing the rights and liberty of the people, I would recommend you go to a country where your needs will be better catered for. Where the government knows best and will do all it can to stop you and those around you from injuring your stupid selves. Might I suggest North Korea. This law is just the thin end of the wedge, your children will not thank you for it. It is them that will suffer from the further lack of freedoms which you used to take for granted. If the debate on smoking was in any way balanced then government advisers would tell you facts like Smoking prevents Alzheimer’s and possibly other degenerative brain disorders. They would also tell you that Smoking greatly improves your memory. These are proven peer reviewed scientific facts, but you will never hear them from the lips of a politician. We already know that it reduces stress, it is one of the basic reasons people smoke. If the government truly cared about the health effects of Smoking, it would have passed law on tobacco curing methods and banned those which create carcinogens during this stage of production. They would also have developed or promoted cleaner strains of Tobacco and better tip filtration methods. They have done none of these things. If the truly cared, they would aim for a completely smoke free country, by giving every smoker the information and support they need to give up without strings or excessive expense. Rather than feeding them lies and trying to force them into a social and criminal underclass. Why should smokers have to attend therapy in order to qualify for free nicotine patches? Why should they have to listen to some self righteous patronising health worker telling them that the average Smoker has one and a half cups of tar in their lungs when It is a complete lie? Have you ever noticed that the ‘more healthy’ low tar cigarettes are the most expensive? Why are we forced us to pay a premium for taking the healthy option? In short the Government does not care about your health. It cares about tax, votes and power. This law was never about Smoking, you just think it was.

Report as offensive

added July 02 2007

Its amazing how many smokers defend their addiction in so many ridiculous ways! Their comparisons with vehicle emissions are both stupid & ill thought out. They talk about THEIR rights. They point out that in the past it was a quite acceptable practice. That quite true but then so was the slave trade & that became unacceptable many years ago. Why has smoking been such an acceptable habit for so long then? Its probably due to its insidious & highly addictive nature. Nicotine has a very profound effect on both the brain & the personality. It makes one feel more assertive, confident & of course relaxed. When the nicotine supply is cut the feelings are reversed with feeling threatened, stressed & angry. Smoking is unnatural. A person chooses to smoke! A person DOES NOT choose NOT to smoke! In todays enlightened world we ALL know of the dangers of smoking. None smokers already knew of the discomfort of being in proximity to a smoker, whether in an enclosed area or outside. They now also know of the very real health dangers of passive smoking. Come on all you die hards! Admit it: smoking has had its day & is on the way out!! The next step will be banning smoking in ANY public place & it wont come too soon for me!

Report as offensive

added July 02 2007

whilst i completlty agree with the right of the non smoker not to subjected to passive smoking i feel the ban is wrong in that it would be easier to enforce legislation that stated that smoke free areas had to be maintained by the lanlords of the premises and that workers should be protected from passive smoke .in my factory we had smoking booths on the shop floor with extraction fans in the top,smokers were quite happy to go and sit or stand in the booth as was i,in pubs all that is needed is to enforce h.s.e. regs and provide smoke free areas and proper extraction and to not allow smoking at the bar things that would have to be done for any other harmful chemical or vapour under coshh regs the same would apply to any wher else,but this would all cost money and would have to be paid for by the people who want to make a profit out of us.its much cheaper just to tell us to go outside,on the other hand companies who had taken a rsponsible approach like the one i work have had to pay out twice ,first for perfectly good smoking booths and now to have them ripped out,and bus shelters installed in the car park,when a simple visit fron the hse would have said that the booths provided more than adeqate protection from passive smoke and things could have stayed as they were.

Report as offensive