Smoking in Scotland

[Everose]

I gave up 4 years ago, so I've no personal axe to grind. I fully support a ban on smoking in totally public places. But restaurants and public houses are not that. They are neither owned nor subsidised by the state, yet the state demands the right to control what free citizens do with their property.

More than this, many of those who support these bans do not frequent the establishments they wish to control, that hardly seems fair. There has been no serious attempt at finding a compromise solution. It has been argued that public houses have not made any attempt in that direction either, but given the fact that threats of this sort of ban have been around for a while who would invest in equipment to extract smoke when they could find that within a short period of time there are no smokers anyway.

Is there any sane reason why, if the state is allowed to make some sort of restriction, they can't say that 50% (for example) of the "public" area must be smoke free. And when I say smoke free I don't just mean without smokers, I mean that smoke from smoking areas does not contaminate this area. Obviously it would also be necessary to be able to use major facilities (entry ways, bars, toilets etc) without entering a smoking area.

Private members clubs will not be affected by the proposed bans, because they are treated as an extension of a members home, therefore Human Rights legislation comes in to play. I can easily foresee a large increase in membership of such clubs, and even some public houses becoming private members clubs.

It amazes me that so many are willing to restrict the freedom of others with so little thought. What will be next? Alcohol? That does far more harm to non-participants than smoking. Do I hear the same calls for a ban on that from those who have been so vocal in this thread?

I understand your view, Lynx, and many smokers in this country are very vigilant and vocal about this. I guess I feel guilty for smoking around others who do not smoke, so, as I said in my first post, I rarely smoke in a public place so the bans don't really effect me. I have a right to smoke, but I don't have a right to force others to do so also. Drinking, I feel, is done only to oneself, while smoking effects the physical bodies of others. imo I am aware that overdrinking all the time does affect other people, too.

[hobbes]

I like to drink, but I do not pour it in your throat nor spill it on your clothing.

Smoking is an invasion of my space.

My clothes smell like crap today because I was out at a club last night. Are those smokers going to come clean my jacket?

If they could smoke, smokelessly then I wouldn't care. But I am fully in support of banning something that interferes with others.

It to me is an extension of civil rights. You can pursue happiness as you please, but your pursuit may not impinge upon the happiness or health of others.

Drinking responsibly bothers no one, smoking responsibly does.

[DanB]

I smoke but I don't drive, why should I not be allowed to smoke in a public place yet you are allowed to drive your car everywhere causing just as much if not more damage to me?

[ruthie]

Hmmm. I am a smoker, and I fully back smoking bans in restaurants, though I wish I could smoke there anyway...however, no one should have to breathe in my smoke..that's my addiction, not theirs. Cigarette smoke does stink..we only smoke inone room of the house. Our target date to quit is in Jan. This past year, I stopped for three months. It's a nasty, dirty, unhealthy habit, and we have no right to endanger others health, regardless of the fact we ignore our own.

[vidcc]

I smoke but I don't drive, why should I not be allowed to smoke in a public place yet you are allowed to drive your car everywhere causing just as much if not more damage to me?

I agree, but as i said before 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Should i be allowed to stab anyone on sight because other people use guns ?

[lynx]

So, no compromises then.

You may recall that I did not say that everyone who drinks causes problems, and I was suggesting a solution whereby those who smoke do not cause problems for those who do not want to be affected by smoke.

So lets have no compromises all round, close all the bars so that the problem drinkers don't affect anyone, and automatically we get the smoking ban at the same time. A perfect solution. Anyone disagree?

[Everose]

So, no compromises then.

You may recall that I did not say that everyone who drinks causes problems, and I was suggesting a solution whereby those who smoke do not cause problems for those who do not want to be affected by smoke.

So lets have no compromises all round, close all the bars so that the problem drinkers don't affect anyone, and automatically we get the smoking ban at the same time. A perfect solution. Anyone disagree?

Yes, I disagree. I prefer, as you say, to have totally separate rooms, totally seperate ventilation. I know this would put a lot of small businesses out of business, though, due to the expense.

[hobbes]

I smoke but I don't drive, why should I not be allowed to smoke in a public place yet you are allowed to drive your car everywhere causing just as much if not more damage to me?

I drive on roads, where cars are intended to operate. I don't drive on the sidewalk you walk on.

If you want to talk about pollution, that is part of the risk/benefit ratio of living in a community. Cars are one piece to this very large puzzle.

There is no risk/benefit scenario with smoking.

[lynx]

Yes, I disagree. I prefer, as you say, to have totally separate rooms, totally seperate ventilation. I know this would put a lot of small businesses out of business, though, due to the expense.

Those that can't afford the expense still have the option of being totally non-smoking.

Of course, the truth about the "success" of the Irish experience has yet to be seen, the smokers who have to stand outside still have to experience it during winter. If the coming winter is as harsh as has been predicted, I can't see them being quite as accepting. Mind you, if it really is that bad they probably won't be able to get to the pub anyway. No, forget that last bit, they always find a way to get to the pub.

[Biggles]

So, no compromises then.

You may recall that I did not say that everyone who drinks causes problems, and I was suggesting a solution whereby those who smoke do not cause problems for those who do not want to be affected by smoke.

So lets have no compromises all round, close all the bars so that the problem drinkers don't affect anyone, and automatically we get the smoking ban at the same time. A perfect solution. Anyone disagree?

I am content with whatever solution leaves the air I breathe smoke free. If this can accommodate smokers then a compromise proposition should be considered. The Bill has a little way to go before it is law and I would presume it will follow the normal consultative phase.

As Rose said, though, the small free house may not be able to install whatever it takes to achieve a smoke free atmosphere for customers and staff.