86
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
86 points (96.7% liked)
UK Politics
3023 readers
124 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Absolutely authoritarian.
Education campaigns are far more effective with far less pushback than draconian bans. Let people choose for themselves.
I remember constant campaigns in the past trying to convince the public of the ills of smoking, and it (slowly) appeared to be working. Then vaping came along, and instead of continuing the education campaigns, the health departments tactics seemed to change to "take up vaping, it's better than smoking".
And now, it may just be anecdotal, but smoking appears to me at least, to be on the rise again. I wonder why?
Sounds like the same argument against banning smoking in pubs, which is probably the single greatest health intervention in the last fifty years and now supported by basically everyone.
Inside is very different to outside where smoke doesnt accumulate. You can instantly smell someone had a ciggarette inside even hours later, outside you cant tell (once the person has left) even a few seconds later.
That's incredibly subjective, and not true for many. A lot of people can tell if you've been smoking outside
Its incredibly subjective that smoke dissipates far faster outside where there is significant airflow than inside closed rooms?
Yes your clothes might smell if you've been smoking outside, but if you walk away from the spot there isn't any smoke hanging around for other people to breathe in. That is the difference when it comes to health effects from second hand smoke.
Sorry, I was referring to your comment, I'm not sure what you read
I've got bad news for you, smoker....we can tell. You fuckin STINK no matter where you smoke. Your breath, your clothes, your hair....yuck. Everyone knows you took that cigarette break.
A) other than a few joints in my 20s I've never smoked, dont be an arse and make assumptions about people you dont know.
B) I really dont care that smokers often stink, I dont live with any. My point was that their cancer causing fumes dont linger outside for me to breathe in so I dont care that they are doing it to themselves. The opposite is true inside where they are affecting me, so I'm glad that's banned.
Well you specifically mentioned the smell which is what I was referring to
I mentioned the smell merely as a way of showing that smoke fumes linger inside in a way they dont outside.
Oh no! Smells! Call the police.
"Yes, police service please. Somebody was stressed at work and decided to take a break to calm down and in doing so inadvertently made my jumper smelly. Can you arrest them please? They're still here. They're behind the bar serving pints to everyone, you can't miss them, their t-shirt is so pongy, poooooeeeyyyyy. I'll see you in 5 minutes."
I worked in a pub for a few years, do you know how difficult it is to get the plod to show up? Even if there's two blokes kicking the shit out of each other it can be a task to get them to respond to the call.
Making it ILLEGAL to smoke outside is ridiculous. Those who say otherwise are far happier with government overreach and authority than they'd otherwise admit.
Edit: to add, remember when we were told sitting outside kept us safe from covid, an airborne virus, because of the constant airflow? Funny how that doesn't apply to smoking.
The comparison to COVID is interesting. If people can smell the smoke, they're literally breathing in the air that the smoker is breathing out, and one can definitely smell smoke from the next table over. Maybe that's part of why lockdown didn't work as well as we hoped.
Also, if you can smell it, it's doing harm. Second and third hand smoke on your clothing is still real in outdoor spaces, and people should have the freedom to avoid that harm.
In your experience, do bartenders tend to take their smoke breaks in the outdoor seating area with the patrons? If not then your post is moot - the ban isn't for employees taking a smoke break out back.
Can you read?
Care to point out what I missed? I saw nothing in the article indicating that it would ban smoking outdoors in general
This reminds me of the pushback against mandatory seat belt use in the US. It's absolutely in the public's best interest to ban public smoking and arguing that people should make their own decisions is ridiculous. Make smoking inconvenient for smokers and allow people in pubs and bars to enjoy smoke free air.
People IN pubs and bars already enjoy smoke free air. The discussion is about outside beer gardens. Where the wind is. There's also nothing stopping pubs having their own rules against smoking in their beer gardens already. Why must the law be used to criminalise those who smoke?
I'm not a smoker by the way. I'm pro-smoke reduction even, as stated by my point about education, but I'm anti-authoritarian and anti every faucet of human life being criminalised.
Yeah because smoking was banned, and not because the smokers had any decency or concern for everyone else. They quite happily blew smoke to your face.
Health departments are recommending vaping, are they? Are you just making things up?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-could-be-prescribed-on-the-nhs-in-world-first
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/quit-smoking/using-e-cigarettes-to-stop-smoking/
https://www.nhs.uk/better-health/quit-smoking/vaping-to-quit-smoking/vaping-myths-and-the-facts/
That took about 3 seconds of Googling
They are recommending vaping in exchange for smoking. Come on you're not even trying to good faith argument at this point, you're just putting forward nonsense that isn't true and then backing it up by deliberately misunderstanding basic facts.
As in, not quitting ingesting nicotine. Still inhaling foreign substances into the lungs. Vaping is still shit for you.
In the early 2000s the message was "smoking is bad, here is why, this is what it will do to you, please don't do it". That message was sinking in to the general public. Smoking was plummeting.
Then austerity came along around the same time as vaping and it became far more convenient to just ask smokers to vape instead of mass education campaigns.
Now the simple answer is just banning it.
It's not a solution. It normalises government overreach into day to day life, it others people and makes them targets for discrimination, and doesn't convince people of the ills of smoking.
It's a dumb idea that polarises people and doesn't fix the root issue.
Who's not arguing in good faith now?
Fair dos. Better off just banning it. Would do me a world of good not to have the temptation.
Yeah bloody government, making laws, making people's lives better, how dare they.
I liked it back in the old days when 4-year-olds worked down the pit and no one back an eyelid, and then died quietly of tuberculosis. Snowflakes these days....