Diesel

I can tolerate a bit of smoke, as an ex smoker, but not TOO close in my face pls! Its a different story for my daughter though...

It pees me off that the first question when we are thinking of going somewhere (say a simple Sunday lunch) is 'is it smoke free'. And that means proper 'smoke free' - not some token gesture no-smoking section, right next to the carcinogenic asthma promoting stinky wafty puffers >damn sorry - nothing worse than a bl00dy ex smoker who's a new father<

Markus

I'm not really fussed. I'm not a smoker so a ban does not effect me.

Ontario has just banned smoking in all restuarants and bars and it's upsetting quite a few people, but the Cannucks are so bloody apathetic about *everything* nothing will ever be done to reverse the situation.

There is a very nice bar on the ground floor of our office and Bill, the owner has said his daytime/lunchtime trade has dropped off substantially as a result as many smokers would come in for lunch. He's lucky he has a patio area, otherwise it would be even worse.

Banning smoking outdoors is just silly, and I really cannot see a justification for it tbh. Does not suprise me that it is that way in California, the bloody sun has frizzled the brains of the nut-jobs down there, suprised they let you crap in cally!

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

YES

Make it illegal too - it kills people and costs taxpayers billions

Abdabz

Ban smoking everywhere, except public places and private places...

"Would you like smoking or non smoking".
"Non smoking please"
"There you go, a seat in a non smoking air conditioned eating house sir"
"Thanks"

Its these same dobbins who want it banning in public places as now they have their non smoking area - that isnt enough OOOOO NOOOOO they want to stop smokers fun altogether and pay the gap left in taxes when everyone in the world ever ever ever stops smoking...

If it gets to you that much develop aggrophobia and then it wont bother you - will it...

Luan Pra bang

Why don't places just ban smoking where you eat, and have a bar area where people can smoke. It seems to work pretty well for me the smokers sometimes moan but so far only one customer has told me point blank that he refuses come back untill I let him smoke. (Its just a shame that it had to be a millionare alchoholic who eats out every day

logiclee

Nearly all the studies in the States have shown that trade initially drops off but picks back up after people start to enjoy the clean air and stop longer.
I think it was LA that had a 20% drop in trade, after 3 months it was back to normal trading rates and at 6 months was 15% up. As a result there has been expansion in the industry.

It's a bit too early to tell with Ireland but pilot schemes in the UK has shown a similar trend to that of the US.

Lee

Jerome

Not quite:

Tobacco tax revenue 9 billion quid.

Cost to the NHS from smoking/smokers 1.5 billion.

Cost to the NHS from obesity 3.5 billion.


Studies in Canada have shown the opposite:

Within 80 days of a 100% smoking ban in Vancouver, 800 bar staff had lost their jobs.

In Ottawa, 60 bars out of 210 closed after a 100% smoking ban.

Leslie

I support a complete ban in restaurants, because smokers usually won't consider others when they want a smoke, and Pubs should have a smoking room and no smoking anywhere else.

Les

fitzscoob

agree, but cant see this ever happening, to much money involved.

from a non smokers point of view, standing in a pub or club with others who are smoking not only affects your health but makes you smell like a badgers ****. on a more personal note, I have to be very careful if I am around smokers during summer time, my asthma is bad around this time of the year and smoking just makes it worse.

If people want to smoke then let them, aslong as it in no way affects anyone, directly or indirectly.

TelBoy

The only sensible answer in my opinion, is "yes" indoors, "no" outdoors.

Until and unless the cost of treating smoking related illnesses outweighs the tax revenue from cigarette sales, upon which both answers should be "yes".

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

I'm looking forward to someone sucessfully suing the tobacco companies


However, prior to that will come cases for damage caused by smoking at work & once that happens, every business will ban it or have to face being sued

MattW

I think more effort should be directed in ensuring a\c units are fitted and turned ON. No one would have a problem if that were the case.

TelBoy

We all have to breathe recycled air to keep the smokers happy??

camk

ASH Propaganda......What about the cost in family misery due to early death, how do you put a price on that. Dublin nightlife appears to be flurishing under a ban. They're still waiting on the big backlash on closures and job losses promised by the pro smoking lobby.

Dream Weaver

Not this one again

Tobacco sales habe gone down 9.8% in Ireland since they brought the ban in.

In the UK that would equate to about £1bn pounds in tax revenue - so where does the government recoup that loss from?

Typical Labour bull****, just like the current shools fiasco "offering parents a choice of school"

Senior_AP

I want to hypnotize all of England - get them to put their X in the BLUE box!!!

C'mon Tories!!! ha ha

logiclee

I'm not too bothered about the financial costs of smoking, most studies do point to a reduction in smoking and loss of revenue being totally out weighed by the savings made on the NHS.


It's the human cost that bothers me. I've been at hospital twice a week for the last 10 weeks and to see all the people who's lifes have been ruined by smoking is very sad. To see families learning how to work the oxygen bottles for their parents. Watching men in their 40's being helped to the toilet.

Anything anyone can do to get rid of this disgusting, dangerous drug must be done IMO.

As for the Tories, they will have to show me how they intend to fill the gaping holes in their funding policies before I even consider voting for them.

Lee

camk

What have party politics and money got to do with anything. Tobacco is the biggest preventable killer in the western world. Surely this is what we should look at first and the other factors secondly. All this **** about tax is just a smokescreen(sic). We should be working towards a total ban, if the first phase of this is public places then so be it. I don't want to hear this BS about freedom of choice either, if the general public were bright enough to be able to live with freedom of choice then they would not smoke. We don't allow lots of things as people are not always responsible in their usage, why the hell should we treat tobacco differently. The country would not fall apart if we had no tobacco industry, sorry it wouldn't.

Brendan Hughes

(...preventable?...)


BMA are pushing hard for it... http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/St...251173,00.html

camk

yes indeed

SiPie

Stick with me on this one...it's all just a guesstimate.... but

- Heavy smoker dies probably on average20 years sooner than Mr Non Smoker and he's already paid a fortune in Taxes ..

- Therefore.... there's a brief cost to the NHS as they keep him alive for a while on some false lung breathing thing or whatever as he struggles with lung cancer or emphysemia...

- then Mr smoker dies early

- so...... surely the NHS must of saved a fortune by not having to supply him in later life (for the extra 20 years, he could of lived) with artificial hips, eyes, hearing aids, angina medication, incontinence pants, ant-dementia drugs, varicose vein removal etc etc ...

Just a thought

....and on a more serious note I fully appreciate that the other costs attributed to smoking realted illnesses to the NHS and industry etc etc are huge

camk

what about the fact he leaves a family on welfare and doesn't manage to contribute income tax for his full working life. He effectively takes a worker out of the system before they have fully contributed.

or

Money spent keeping Mr Smoker in hospital could help mr Non Smoker get a hip replacement later in life. Reducing waiting lists and generally improving everyones life experience.

Or

Money spent on Research into smoking related illnesses could be spent on non self inflicted illnesses in general improving life expectancy for our children.

SiPie

Maybe he didn't work himself and was a drain costwise anyway and not supporting his family in anyway


Mr Smoker is already dead dude


Why the **** bother researching it........

We all know it kills you and we know why ... end of story

PS Back In the real world...all valid points mate

logiclee

SiPie,

I know your post was a bit tongue in cheek and you would be correct if Smokers just died 20 years early.

Unfortunately most smokers get an early onset of Coronary Heart Disease, Lung Disease or various Cancers. They usually die a slow and very expensive death.

Just in my experience in the Cardiac unit of one hospital we have around 50 peolpe a week coming through. In the 10 weeks I've been going through the program I've met one other person who has never smoked and that was only this week. The Re-hab nurse says it's usually 90% smokers.
These people will require upto six lots of drugs and constant checkups and care for the rest of their lives.

Cheers
Lee

SiPie

Appreciated Lee and I hope saw the last line of my initial post

Secondly.. I hope you are doing well mate and well on the road to full fitness again

Cheers
Si

Diesel

Tangents! It's not about cash, it's about AIR!

Leslie

I second what Lee said having had some time in the Cardiac wards myself. Smoking is by far the greatest cause of these problems, almost totally in fact. It caught me even though I had stopped smoking 8 years ago. I was lucky to be diagnosed before I had a heart attack, but many are not.

I cant recommend the operation to anyone as part of life's rich tapestry!

I also think it is disgraceful that the tobacco giants have now lowered themselves even further by marketing fruit flavoured cigarettes in an attempt to catch young people. I also read that some of them are even guilty of additives which increase the chance of addiction!

Les