A smokeless environment
I believe that non-smokers, like anyone else, have this right. But how
far does
that right extend? Should it take priority over someone else's rights?
Airplanes, court houses, publicly owned buildings and anywhere else an
individual might be forced to go should properly be included in any
smoking law.
What should not be included are places located in or on private
property,
providing an individual is not compelled by necessity or law, to
frequent or
work at that specific location.

Second-hand smoke is not a significant health risk.

We keep being told that the ban is a popular measure but this report seems to undermine this staement.
41% do not know the details and many of the others do not like it so it is pretty obvious that the majority of the people have never given their opinion.
The ban is an atrcious piece of social engineering showing that Government has ignored 25% of the populace by legislating to exclude 25% of the population from following a legal lifestyle in any regulated indoor venue.
The simple answer would have been to allow choice - Smoke-free & smoke-friendly venues. This would have been a much cheaper option than the one that will soon be in effect which has already cost businesses and the Government well over a £100 million more than they predicted in their Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment.
£1 million became £12.5 million for education, £5 to 13 million became £29.5 million for enforcement and a minimal sum for alteration to premises has led to breweries and other businesses to set many, many millions aside for smoking shelters.
This is activist-led legislation ignoring the needs and wishes of the people of this Country. Fortunately groups like Freedom2Choose are willing to fight for an ammendment.

If smoking tobacco was invented now it would be made illegal. It's addictive, causes many illnesses, including cancer, affects those around the smoker and makes life very unpleasnat for those of us who like a night out in a pub but don't like having to wash our clothes afterwards. If you want to continue to carry on this disgusting habit, which will kill you sooner or later, please do it in the open air or in your own home where it won't affect me.

I may not be a supporter of the Blair Government but this is one thing they (eventually) got right. The writing is on the wall for you smokers, many countries are banning you polluting habit, even France, Italy and many parts of the USA as well as Ireland.

Get real - we don't like what you do and we are in the majority.

Tobacco was not invented now but is now a part of the lifestyle for a quarter of the population. Surely we all want smoking to decline but is this the right way?
Studies show that smoking prevalence decreases far more with education and encouragement than through legislation such as Blair is enacting.
There would be no need for any non-smoker to be affected in any hospitality venue IF the Blair Government had encouraged smoke-free venues (probably costing far less than is currently being spent) and ensured clear signage to indicate smoke-free or smoke-friendly.

Maybe the ban enforcers should wear armbands showing broken cigarettes ... maybe in the shape of a swastika?

it seems ok that i can live near an incinerator at the bolton hospital churning out god knows what
i live on a main road breathing in fumes from lorries and buses all day long but yet i cant have a ciggarette if i fancy one in the pub.
lets have smoking and non smoking pubs problem solved

I have noticed that the houses of parliment do not have this ban
they can all chuff away on their fine cigars all day long
one rule for us and another for them
charming

Chris wrote:
We keep being told that the ban is a popular measure but this report seems to undermine this staement. 41% do not know the details and many of the others do not like it so it is pretty obvious that the majority of the people have never given their opinion. The ban is an atrcious piece of social engineering showing that Government has ignored 25% of the populace by legislating to exclude 25% of the population from following a legal lifestyle in any regulated indoor venue. The simple answer would have been to allow choice - Smoke-free & smoke-friendly venues. This would have been a much cheaper option than the one that will soon be in effect which has already cost businesses and the Government well over a £100 million more than they predicted in their Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment. £1 million became £12.5 million for education, £5 to 13 million became £29.5 million for enforcement and a minimal sum for alteration to premises has led to breweries and other businesses to set many, many millions aside for smoking shelters. This is activist-led legislation ignoring the needs and wishes of the people of this Country. Fortunately groups like Freedom2Choose are willing to fight for an ammendment.

so, "Smoke-free & smoke-friendly venues "?

Isn't that a bit like having a urinating and a non-urinating part of a swimming pool?

The rancid poison of ****-smoke still permeates the cleaner areas of society - so, do yourself a favour, and pack it in.

I guarantee you'll benefit, as well as giving the majority of the poluation a well-earned breather!

Isn't that a bit like having a urinating and a non-urinating part of a swimming pool?

No because there isn't,as far as I am aware any demand for this type of swimming facilty.
There is however a need to retain the choice for people on smoking & non smoking pubs.
If as the non smoking lobby would have us believe the vast percentage of the population want non smoking then market forces would ensure the demise of the smoking pubs.
Most of us know of course that this simply is not true & for many local pubs to survive, there must be a choice.

Simon from Sunderland criticised my post by introducing swimming pools into the discussion but I can see no real connection.
The action he mentions does actually happen but swimming pools are not closed down. The problem is managed through applied technology.
He also wrote of a 'rancid poison of 'something' smoke' permeating cleaner areas -Quite strong and descriptive language eh? How much dilution is required to satisfy some anti-smokers? Unfortunately there are some with such a blinkered view who look no further than smoking for the cause of all the World's ills. It might be a shock for some to follow this link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,389990,00.jpg
- maybe we should move to Malta!
Dennis mentioned the potential demise of many local pubs but what is often forgotten is that many the (ex)customers of pubs, bingo Halls and cafes will have their main social pleasure removed. Isolation and depression are also killers.

I think it should be banned because most of the people who smok are just copy cats

Maybe we should ban copy cats as well then- can't let them get away with it