Thank you for your response
Replies since 03.07.04| Yes |  69% |
| No | 29% |
(the total is less than 100% because of rounding
and respondents who expressed indifference)
Comments:
For a Ban |
Against |
| I
feel strongly
about it since I developed asthma. *
I think that it is a good thing because when people are smoking they're slowly killing them-selves and they are kill people around them, not just the environment but people. It is true people have the right smoke if they to choose.But in doing so, they deny others the right to choose. Banning it is only common sense. My wife would love to be able to visit pubs casually and easily but can't due to so much smokiness. All pubs should have an enclosed smoking room so the rest of us are unaffected. Smokers stink! Sorry but it's true. When my son, who I love dearly, visits and greets me with a big hug I cringe as the smell of smoke envelops me. Banning smoking in public places can only be seen as a good thing. I believe a ban would reduce the number of people actually taking up the habit. Banning it in public places would officially give the habit the "unsociable" label, where as in the 40's and 50's it was seen as a very "sociable" habit and more and more people started smoking (that and the lack of education. If our children grow up with the ban in place, perhaps less children/teenagers will start whilst they are at that very impressionable age.There's concern about smacking children when they're naughty, yet we can poison them with smoke in an enclosed car (or is it a mobile gas chamber?) even when they aren't naughty. Surely, that must constitute physical abuse! I don't think there has ever been so many child smokers as there are now. Banning will only make it more attractive. However, I am asthmatic and it would be great to go out to pubs and clubs without getting ill and having to take time off work to recover. If I were disabled in any other way, I would get more respect and consideration than I do as an asthmatic. Health issues aside, smokers stink. Their breath their clothes, their hair. I find it socially repulsive to have to sit in their company. The surrounding members of the public will take in the smoke, especially if the area is enclosed. I have a friend who has had the equivalent of three packs of cigarettes due to passive smoking. If anyone wants to smoke, they should do it out of the way of any non-smoker that may be around. To the last 3 comments for smoking ----------> You all have a point - but try nursing someone who is dying from lung cancer. See if you are so positive then. Otherif the goverment want to bring in the non smoking policy why are we still allowed to buy the fags???? i dont think they are actually interested in any ones health but they like their fancy cars to much that the tax put on fags... pays for!!!!!! |
Given that people who live on busy streets have the pollution effects of smoking 60 fags a day even if they are non-smokers, and that due to pollution children are getting asthma rates as high as 1 in 6 across the country, it would appear that tackling car and industrial pollution is a far more effective way of improving health than banning people smoking. Especially as the revenue raised from smoking taxes outweigh the costs for treating lung cancer victims on the NHS - so a smoking ban could actually lead to less money on the Health service. I think that smoking is people's choice and if they want to smoke they should be alowed because its their choice. I'm a non-smoker and intolerant of smoke. However although I agree with banning smoking indoors in spaces used by the general public, I think there have to be places where people can smoke if they want, the fools and addicts. Bullying and undemocratic laws are not the way to deal with people's antisocial behaviour if the main harm is to themselves. This sits all too well with other undemocratic laws (control orders etc). Where do all the smoking pensioners come from? Traffic pollution is the real cause of breathing problems in this country. Obesity is also killing our children because parents continue to fill their children full of rubbish. A look at the proper figures regarding passive smoking reveals that it is all heresay that has been doctored up to suit the anti-smoking fascists who treat smokers like second class citizens. All of a sudden it is fashionable to insult smokers and take the moral high ground which is not only ignorant but very rude to say the least. How many of you have fat children? is that not a case of parents killing their children? People will be relying on smokers to carry on as the £12bn we contribute to the treasury every year is being used to treat people who have problems due to fat! There is either nothing in place or it is totally over the top. I chose to smoke and I am very considerate to none smokers, obviously they are not worried about me only the revinue that smoking brings am a nice friendly girl that smokes and has done
for
ages i wont quit till i want to if i cant smoke anywhere but my house
whats to say i wont smoke outside my house in my frount garden and ppl
walkin passed and the air will still b affected though cars and other
forms of transport are poor they cause more damage to health and why
can ppl in prision smoke more then we can since we work 9 hour days adn
plus our travel the money we give , smokkers have rights to and so do
you non smokers if we said ok we wont smoke on streets but inbars adn
clubs we will in a room design that smoke will not affect those outside
everyone should smoke its good for you Mr Blaire and his associates should concern
themselves with running the
country on a political level and not peoples private lives. I am with John Reid on this one. there has to be something left for us working class heros. Everytime I open the paper under this Blairite Junta I half expect them to be anouncuing that they have banned something. What's next? Will they ban masturbation on the grounds that it sends you blind? |
Would you like to submit a comment?
