As the title says - this is a simple poll, do you support the ban on smoking?

The discussion as to the rights and wrongs is here

Please keep it on topic.

 

I support a partial ban, something not on your poll, so I reckon this "vote" will be somewhat skewed in favour of the no smoking lobby.

A partial ban would be workable, and a lot less draconioan than the mess thats been delivered.

I was never in favour of a ban on pubs that served food etc, which was a crazy idea. But favour premises which wish to allow smoking to apply for *smoking licences* and pay a fat fee for the right to do so, detering the majority from applying.

 

im not so concerned about the health aspects personally...i guess in the long run if objective evidence suggests it saves some lives thats got to be a good thing...

im more bothered about the anti-social aspect to smoking, and the f*cking mess it leaves everywhere...if its a step closer to reducing litter (***-ends, packets, stinking ashtrays, etc) then thatll make me happy...!

 

My wife is a Midwife, job includes visiting peoples homes.

Should she still have to go in houses where people smoke?

 

I am glad it has come in. But i am still not bothered either way.

 

Smokers have been pretty selfish over the years so stuff them,ban it everywhere.

 

Walk into a pub. I hate the smell. I hate the smell on my clothes afterwards. I don't even like the smell of people who smoke.

 

Well, the poll so far is pretty comprehensive. So the ban was right and is representing the majority of views.

 

The majority of views in the right wing world of scoobynet that is

And as mentioned I feel the poll will be a misrepresentation due to the limited options.

 

NO - Woteva happened to freedom of choice and living in a democratic country?????

 

Smokers could have CHOSEN not to smoke in pubs. They haven't so there's a ban. It IS democratic. The MAJORITY want the ban so that's what they've got. Democracy in action.

 

Seems to be inline with the 12k+ voters on the bbc site. MP's voting in accordance to the publics wishes. Democracy in action.

 

Most people want a proper NHS and no Taxes in this country too. Where's the democracy in action there?

Democracy in action seems to be your phrase. Seem to remember that Hitler was democratically elected too

 

No Taxes - ROFLMAO.

Get real.

 

Voted Yes ...& all you selfish smoking ***** can **** off & di.... oh hang on a minute!

 

I do.
People should smoke in their own bleddy rooms,not in public places:mad.
We may have a desire to kill ourselves but we have no right to impose it on others.
IMO

 

I am real. If there was a vote on people having to pay no tax from summer 2007 people would be falling overthemselves to vote for it. A majority view, but does it make it right?

Im still of the view that an outright ban is not the right solution. I myself would not like to breathe in smoke if I was a non smoker, but that's different to say I'd ban it everywhere and run roughshod over the views of what still makes up over 25% of the adult population, ie smokers.

 

Chose NO... I think its a preposterous move and am totally against it...

 

Nonsense assumption. Most people have enough common sense to realise that such a decision would result in anarchy. We might bitch about our taxes, but most of us do also realise that they are a necessary evil.

 

I personally don't like smoking one bit, but I voted no.

I look at it as I would any other kind of pastime. I respect other people's rights to enjoy a ***, I just ask -as I would with anything- that they respect the rights of other people who may not feel the same way.

The total Ban is overkill. Provisions should be made to protect establishment staff, who would otherwise have no choice but to be exposed to the smoke and -where possible- smoking and no-smoking sections be provided to give people a choice. I also think that a ban on smoking in environments that would effectively mean that people couldn't make a decision about whether they wanted to expose themselves to the smoke e.g. on public transport, in elevators etc... is appropriate. That's just plain courtesy.

That would be sufficient.

Ns04

 

It's not nonsense at all. It's a hypothetical situation, and it demonstrates (if somewhat at the extreme end) what situation you can find yourself in if Majority Rule was in place.

 

I'm saying that a majority *wouldn't* support that particular proposal, that's all. Smoking is cuaght up in so many other issues than just majority rule though, it isn't that simple. Public places should be that - places for the public. And since smoking kills people, the public should have the ability to go into public places without the risk of unintentionally exposing themselves to these dangers. It's pretty straightforward in my mind. If segregated, totally smoke-proof areas could be provided which didn't in any way impact non-smokers then i'd have difficulty finding a reason to oppose that, but how on earth would that ever be enforcable, so the option to blanket ban is the only really workable solution in my opinion.

 

I hate smoking and have never smoked myself, but I don't support the ban.

Dracoro: Everyone else (the majority?) could have chosen not to go in pubs that allow smoking. I don't understand why market forces have not driven people away from smokey pubs, forcing them to introduce a ban or close down? Since a majority of pubs allow smoking then I don't understand how the majority are in favour of the ban. Now smoking is banned will pubs see a huge increase in trade? I don't expect so.

Scrappy9: The ban does not apply inside private dwellings so no change for midwives I'm afraid.

 

Good poll - common sense is ahead I see

 

A) They're NOT banning smoking. Smokers will still smoke.
B) People who do give up will still spend that £5 a day on something else which will result in income to society and govt.
C) Any revenue lost will be gained from elsewhere, either through differing priorities and separate taxation.
D) The NHS will NOT go without, smoking or no smoking.

Your Hitler argument is irrelevant and non-sensical. Unless, you disagree with democracy of course?

Regardless, I didn't say whether I agree with the ban or not, I'm merely stating the govt. is doing what the majority want. It's that simple. For better or worse, it's democracy in action.

 

But they do have a choice, don't work in that establishment. It's just like any other dangerous occupation that might be detrimental to your health, soldier, fireman, tiger mucker outer, bailiff, etc. If the pay is right, people will balance the danger and do the job.

 

I stopped smoking about 7 months ago but still dont agree with the ban. Should be peoples right to smoke in designated areas in public places and if people still dont like that stay in.

 

Pointless argument. After all, people used to be able to smoke anywhere, workplace included. The work that soldiers, firemen etc. do is inherently dangerous for a reason and a purpose. Stopping smoking in pubs doesn't stop barstaff doing their job now, does it?!

 

Yeah right - an employer still has a legal obligation to ensure the workplace/job is as safe as possible.

It doesn't just come down to 'if you pay enough it doesn't matter'.

 

That analogy is not really appropriate.

Some occupations are inherently and unavoidably dangerous by their nature, as you say, if you don't consent to the danger, don't apply. However, the danger -if there is a danger from passive smoking- is not an unavoidable feature of bar work. The risk can be avoided by asking people not to smoke at the bar, as many pubs already do. Inhaling other peoples smoke is not an inherent and unavoidable feature of barwork.

Ns04