England Smoking Ban Takes Effect
6 07 2007Hurrah! Hurrah!! On Sunday July 1st at 6 a.m. GMT England joined the rest of the UK in banning smoking inside most public spaces – pubs, bars, clubs, restaurants, offices and factories. Great - and it’s about time too.
No more having to breathe in nasty, second-hand smoke from some smoker who doesn’t give a fig that I am inhaling their smoke – just so long as they can light up. No more going to a pub or restaurant – only to come home stinking of cigarette smoke, making it essential to wash all clothes worn as well as wash my hair.
My eyes won’t sting, and looking at my friends or partner won’t be done through an acrid blue haze will be a thing of the past. I won’t have to move away from overflowing ashtrays, or gingerly move them to the next table. I won’t have to brush ash from the seats. I won’t have that feeling that my food is coated in a liberal layer of second-hand smoke – ugh. And I won’t have to endure the “lighting up” persons who seat themselves next to or near to me, with me trying unsuccessfully to waft away their smoke drifting towards and over me. I won’t have to worry about whether second-hand smoke is going to affect my health sometime down the road.
I’ve always said – if I wanted to breathe in smoke I’d have started smoking myself. My husband is an ex-smoker (unlike most ex-smokers he isn’t a zealot about it either). Instead, though I don’t smoke I was forced to breathe in others’ smoke if I wanted to go out for a drink or a meal down the pub or to a restaurant. Yuck. I stopped going to most because of that. But it’s hard to refuse invitations to get together with friends or other social events particularly having been away and seeing friends is even harder to do. So I often ended up having to endure it.
We’re going to be in England in a couple of months and it will be a weird experience going into a pub where the air isn’t full of acrid smoke – and smokers. Weird but nice. In Toronto we are used to going out for a drink and/or meal in a non-smoking environment and so when we were in in England in 2004 we really noticed the difference. Amazing how quickly we take it for granted.
It’s a historic first in England (drinking and smoking are very closely associated) and I think our pubs will be better for it. Of course, the whiney smokers are moaning about how the nanny state has taken their human rights being taken away… and saying they have a right to smoke. Sure you do, just not where others are going to breathe in your vile smoke. And as for human rights – what about my right to breathe non-smoke filled air?
The unfortunate thing is that these smokers, now confined to smoking at home more will be exposing their kids even more to their smoke – since they would rather do that than give up. On the other hand, perhaps the smoking ban will help them to give up – since they won’t be encouraged by seeing others doing it. Until then I suppose if they go out they’ll be huddled in the doorways or on the street.
Whatever, it’s going to be great going into my favourite pub or watering hole and not be gasping for air, coughing or stinking of smoke afterwards.
No more breathing second-hand smoke. Yippee! I’ll drink to that!
England smoking ban takes effect
Technorati Tags: England, banning smoking
Oh congrats! That is wonderful news! Denver went smoke free 1 July of last year and the change has been WONDERFUL!
Interestingly enough, several of my friends that had wanted to quit looked upon it as a great opportunity TO QUIT! They said no more public smoking made it easier in the long run.
Best thing (besides having smoke-free lungs) is not having to worry about taking a shower before you go to bed after a night out on the town. Those 4 am showers…especially in Winter…sucked
Yay! That’s great! No one should have to put up with second hand smoke!
I just want to throttle people who smoke. Especially people of my own generation who KNEW it was bad for them but took it up anyway to be “cool”.
My parents are suffering with emphysema. They smoked for decades and eventually gave it up, but it was already too late. The damage was done and they ended up with emphysema, anyway. Now my mother has to take an oxygen tank everywhere she goes now. They live in a community for the elderly and my mother feels so bad that women 10 years older than her (who didn’t smoke) are so much more active than she is. (My mother is in her 70s).
My parents started smoking back in the when people didn’t realize how bad it was, but wtf is wrong with people of my generation who take it up, knowing it’s poison?! I just don’t get it. I think anyone who smokes should have to work a few weeks with emphysema patients and see if that gets through to them.
Meanwhile, having grown up with parents who smoked around me for more of my youth, I’ve developed an allergy to smoke and I just can’t stand to be around it, so I rarely go to bars anymore because I just can’t stay long. I’m not really a bar person, anyway, but it sure would be nice to be able to go to one once in a while without getting sick!
there are drawbacks, some minor some major.
but smokers help the economy, they pay for all and i mean ALL the health for everyone in the country, and education. so if everyone stopped smoking, personal tax would have to be raised by a large amount.
secondly, if smokers dont go to the pubs, then they will lose the money that the smokers spend in them, and so the prices will go up, if theres food served they prices will rise, and less people will go, and so price will be raised again, until the pubs that you love will shut down.
and the new problem since there is no smoke to mask the other smells, theres bars that use more perfume in the air, which causes asthma attacks for some people.
there should be a choice , if a pub wants to be smoke free let it, if it doesnt let it.. that would have been the more sensible solution.
a bit of history, in the prohibition area, after they banned alcohol, they also mentioned and started to ban cigarettes. and we all know how well that worked.
i dont smoke, but i support the right and the freedom for people to smoke.
pubs and bars will close, then where will you go. (and those pubs with the patio heaters, well they produce more pollution than smokers ever did, and this could be seen to contribute to global warming.)
well the puritans have won the battle. what enjoyment will there be in life, if all these bans occur. will we be all mindless drones.
no salt in foods, so alcohol, no fat, no sugars, no smoking, (what about aromatherapy), cant use coal or electricity unless its green, have to us bio fuels,(which do cause more ecological damage). no music, complete sun protection. why not ban cars and buses, they produce more of the chemicals in than in cigarette smoke.
of course some open air parks are planning to ban people from going into them if they smoke, plus banning of alcohol (all alcohol is bad for you, and banning of music (http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1028672007&bad=755469)
banning of medical treatment if your slightly over weight, will you want to be in a world where you cant do anything unless the government tells you. and you will be personally poorer.
Nearly 440 fewer pub licences were issued or renewed last year than in 2005, the steepest fall recorded in the Republic. The greatest number of closures were in remote communities along the West Coast. Up to 1,000 rural bars are now thought to have shut since the ban came into effect in 2004.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1443931.ece
While Mrs Kirwan says that she is just about keeping her head above water, elsewhere in the village the mood was more gloomy. Eugene Duffy, proprietor of Duffy’s Bar, said: “Drink takings have been down about a third over the past 12 months. At the moment we can’t afford to close, but I can’t see the next generation keeping it going.”
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banlinks.html
You’re a strikingly beautiful woman, and now I know why you laughed when you saw the link pic I put up for you.
Oh dear, as a member of the UK Chimney society I am attempting my first smoke free tonight and in all honesty I can not say I’m looking forward to it!! Whereas I think smoking should be outlawed in restaurants I would have like to see non-food pubs stay smoking because at least we could all make an adult choice. My biggest problem with this ban is it will attract more families into (in my opinion) a purely adult environment. My protest is to swear as much as possible after 8pm if children are in my pub space!!
Sorry, I don’t buy the whole “pubs/restaurants will close” stuff that people spout because of a smoking ban. They said the same thing here in Toronto when our ban started. Big surprise, we still have pubs and restaurants! Some places have seen an increase in business because more people are coming out who never did before. Remember, that the majority are nonsmokers.
I know that I go out more because of the smoking ban. It’s wonderful to breathe in clean air. Like Phoena, I grew up with smoking parents and it definitely contributed to their deaths. I understand it’s an addiction but I think it’s a disgusting, filthy habit. I am forever grateful that I avoided it completely.
So hoorah to England for joining the smoke-free status!
A no smoking ban will not adversely disrupt businesses. Smokers will adapt since they are, despite their stupid life choice, still human. Bars and restaurants will simply find other ways of boosting their revenue. Quite frankly I’m prepared to pay a few pence more for a drink or a meal to enjoy it in a smoke free environment. In fact I’m happy to pay an extra few pound in National Insurance tax (even though it’s false that tobacco revenue keeps the health system operational). Tobacco companies are greedy entities that prefer to see poor health systems in place because it makes people more miserable and likely to resort to taking up smoking to relieve their stresses.
If someone chooses to deliberately wreck their health, whether it’s through a bad habit such as smoking or unmanaged obesity, then that person should expect to cover the costs of the consequences. Why should the rest of us that chose a healthy lifestyle have to fund the lifestyles of the idots?
When we were in the UK last summer, the only thing that we found unpleasant was the smoking in enclosed public places. I’m delighted that England is going smoke-free, and like RMS, I know that we had the same moaning and groaning here in Toronto when the new laws came into effect, and things are just fine a few years later.
No one is telling smokers they can’t smoke, but only that their smoking cannot override the rights of others not to breathe it in. As an ex-smoker, I always went out on balconies if others objected, and it was never a problem. I eventually thought being social was more important than being addicted to a cancer stick.
I can see both sides to the argument, but as a non-smoker, I don’t particularly enjoy secondhand smoke. Personally, if you want to slowly kill yourself, that’s your business not mine, but don’t subject me to it as well. I’ve read studies where secondhand smoke can actually be more dangerous than regular smoking because it isn’t filtered. I don’t think making cigarettes completely illegal is the solution, but don’t force me to have to inhale (and smell like that stuff).
Kath: I agree! It would be great to be able to go home after a night out and just go to bed instead of having to shower and scrub to remove that awful stench. Of course, there were a few nights in college where I…um…forgot to shower the night before and that was the first thing that I noticed when I woke up the next morning. Not exactly the best wake up call!
Phoena: My grandmother started smoking when she was 16. Of course, like you said, they didn’t really know the hazards back then. People these days have no excuses. It’s also a major turnoff in my opinion. I remember how disgusted (and disappointed) I’d be when a guy I might be interested in would turn out to be a smoker. Yuck…
If smokers want to go out and socialise now, they are going to have to do so without their evil weed. No one is saying they don’t have the right to smoke. But for years they have ignored the rights of non-smokers not to breathe in their filthy air. They have the right to smoke their guts out. Just not near me.
No doubt they will congregate in the doorways, like those workers on their ciggie breaks. But at last, at LAST, the ability to breathe in one less carcinogen, the right to be able to go out for a meal and not to breathe in another’s smoke!
I agree with Mosh, smokers will adapt. And sorry Mercurior I don’t believe for one minute that smokers pay for all our health, all our education and the like. If anything they, with their triple heart bypasses and lung cancers and emphysema they are a drain on the health service.
If business drops initially while smokers sulk or find somewhere else to indulge that should be expected. It will go back up in a few years. But we have just come back from a smoke-free evening out and the place was very busy - and it was early.
Like Rebbecca says, every one is going to squeal that their business is gone or going (now we don’t have smokers). I’m pretty sure the Consortium of businesses had their chance to weigh in. They need to find ways of attracting new custom and ways to make business will go back up. Relying on people who are addicted smoking… there’s something not right there.
Mosh - I agree.
Victor - Can’t see alcohol being banned just yet, can you? Although arguably it does a lot more damage than cigarrettes. And as for fats being banned.. isn’t that “transfats”?
Christine MB - you have a point there. On the other hand, if children of smokers were allowed to go, then maybe there’ll be a “net result?”
Mel - apparently second-hand smoke is more dangerous. I used to work in an office where the people on either side of me smoked. It was awful. I was breathing in second-hand smoke for well over a year one of the girls was a chain smoker - nothing I could do about it. I stank of smoke every day. I was so glad to leave that place..
Kath
I hear ya!
Phoena -It is a major turn off. I know that my husband quit smoking because he wanted us to be together and I wasn’t interested in being together with a smoker. it was a deal breaker. As he says now, “you do what to have to do.” But he tends to stay out of the smoke/non smoker dialogue - because he knows a lot of ex-smokers really smug about the fact that they are now “ex” and he dislikes that.
Dave… Thank you… what can I say…you made my day. In fact, I’ve been grinning since this morning when I read your comment… I hope you’re not going to remove the link pic though ;).
Why can’t they ban brats from places, instead of smoking? Ear splitting shrieks are far worse than smoke.
i say they should have made it optional, no one forces anyone into a bar. have smoke free, and have smoking bars.. that would be fairer, and it would be better for everyone. but its denying choice.
legislation can remove rights. one group will always be less well off than another. and it isnt a criminal act, only a civil act.
its like them banning all abortion, no one forces (maybe a few) into having them, its about personal choice. if a pub wants to have a smoking pub then let them all the people will know and its their choice.. their decision their life. if non smokers want a pub then let them have one.
thats the more equitable thing, but its not about that at all, its about power.
its about personal choice. if its my choice to go to a smoking pub, then if everyone agrees, staff and people. then why not allow them, its my choice to drink, no one force feeds me alcohol, so if i dont drink i dont go to a pub where they only sell alcohol. if you go down this route, you will ban drinking, you will ban music incase it hurts someones hearing, its taking the freedom of choice away from people.
oh for the sake of the children route. wont someone think of the children, we have to obey things that take your choice from you. is that freedom, i dont think so. freedom of choice isnt just one small subject its massive, and affects everyone, and the moment, any freedom is taken away from anyone. whether its the right to go out and smoke, to the right to have an abortion, makes you and me and everyone else, slaves to the state. without the rights and freedoms therein.
thats the danger and thats the problem. they will ban more things, count on it.
It has been smoke free here an Canada for a couple of years and I have to admit even as an Ex-Smoker it made going out to the clubs and eating dinner at a resturant more pleasureable!I
Mercurior… the thing is - this isn’t about personal choice. It’s about public places. Which we all have to share.
And if we are talking about rights then we must also mention responsibilities.
Incidentally, music that is above the approved decibel limit for non-disturbance within certain times should be banned. They get the noise pollution police on that one. That means I don’t have to be kept awake during the wee hours so someone exercise their “right” to play their stereo so loudly at their party so that my entire apartment and contents shake ;). But let’s not go there, as it’ll take this off-topic.
Angela - I take it for granted!
but shouldnt the pubs who’s livelihoods be able to choose, which one is best, smoke pub, or non smoke pub. segregate the smokers from the non, that would have been the best solution. let the landlords choose, no one is forced into a pub, if you dont like a smoking pub. then dont go.. if you dont like a non smoking pub, then dont go..
that would have been fairer (and this isnt a go at anyone, just stating what i think, i am not insulting or anything, just trying to be fair to everyone)
Phoena - I place health care professionals and you would not BELIEVE the amount of Respiratory Therapists of mine that SMOKE! Knowingly smoke when they see the dangers every day.
It just boggles the mind!
Mosh - Smokers will adapt since they are, despite their stupid life choice, still human.
sorry but I that’s a bit sharpe, that’s like saying being CF is a stupid life choice , just because it happens not to be your life choice.
Mercurior, I think you’re forgetting about the people who have to work in a smoking environment. They have a right to a safe workplace like anyone else. Get another job is not the point; health and safety in workplaces is a right for everyone.
but if the staff agrees, if everyone agrees, staff and people who visit.. isnt that their choice their decision.
if i had a private members club, where all the staff smoke, and all the people who are members smoke, then shouldnt they all be allowed to smoke. but no, in america there are cigar clubs, they are exempt.
wouldnt it be better, fairer for workers who smoke, and the people who do smoke have smokers pubs. and if people dont want to smoke, have non smokers pubs..
Mercurior - This is not a voting issue. Staff would be forced to vote in a way that would protect their jobs. Neither staff nor customers should have to vote on whether or not to endanger their health.
Smoking is unhealthy and unpleasant. Staff have had no choice but to breathe in smoke that can endanger their own health. As RMS said, workers have the right to breathe smoke free air.
I worked for a year (years ago) where the whole office was smoking and having to suffer for that year until I couldn’t stand it and changed jobs. That year was horrible but that was my job until I found another. I know that where you have smokers outnumbering the non-smokers, they would carry the vote.
Why should we endanger our health so they can indulge their addiction?
Smokers can still smoke… in their homes or outside. If they want to go out and enjoy a pint or socialise they’re going to have to adapt so that we can all breathe the air.
Christine MB - Actually I don’t agree it’s the same thing as a CF choice….My being childfree doesn’t harm anyone at all. Smoking does - not only does it harm the smoker, but potentially everyone around them. At the very least it is an irritant to non smokers or those trying to quit.
And isn’t it a stupid choice to do something that is so harmful (and disgusting) that it could kill you? Or make you ill? Or to become addicted so that one can’t function without it?
Maybe it’s more of a death choice
but they have made certain open air parks smoke free, its not enforcable, but its not encouraged. and you cant smoke in your own home if you work there.
or drive in your car if its for work purposes.. it says ANY work place. so if you are at home, and are doing some home work. then you could be fined.. thats the thin end of the wedge.
but i can see that no one is going to change their minds, but just wait in 10 to 15 years and we will see what else is changed “for the sake of the children”
Hi Brit Girl
The point I was trying to make to mosh is the phrase ‘stupid life choice’, I found resentful. Stupid I am not. Obesity will be the highest killer in 20 years if you had a weight problem and I saw you eating a burger would it be right for me to tell you of your stupid life choice and advise you to go to the gym and watch your diet like I do? No I don’t think people would appreciate that, as I do not appreciate being told how stupid I am even though I know smoking is extremely bad for me it’s the choice I made.
I compared it to being CF because it annoys all of us when we have a parent who thinks the CF life choice is stupid we all go on the defensive. I was not comparing it on health grounds!
Back to the smoking ban, I do not like it but I have accepted it. I can understand why non-smokers want the ban and I have happily gone outside since the ban as I do not smoke in the house so I do not find it a huge deal. I also have never smoked in restaurants even when we could as I always thought that would be unfair to others and rude.
Christine - What I think Mosh was saying is that it is the choice was stupid not the person.
You can find somebody that can make an argument for or against the stupidity of ANY choice, no matter how ludicrous that choice might be. (e.g. listening to James Blunt, voting Tory, or Cannibalism).
Our town has been smoke free for a year, while it is much more pleasant to go out now, there have been many detrimental effects on the bar community. Many small, neighborhood taverns who simply couldn’t cope with an upwards of 40% loss of clientel have had to close. Unfortunately large, bland, loud corporate bars thrive because they can absorb such losses, or have the space to add televisions and more “family friendly” areas. As a result, people are now bringing their kids to bars because they are no longer smokey. Great. Now, in my local ADULT establishment, I have to deal with a bunch of ankle biters playing hide and go seek around my barstool, and a bunch of hovering parents glowering at my ADULT language, in a bar…where I am drinking ADULT beverages with OTHER ADULTS.
This would have worked out much better for everyone involved if the smoking issue was left up to individual bar owners who know their patrons, and what they want.
exactly feh, i dont object in principle to the idea of the smoke free pubs.. so long as there is a choice. it would have been more equitable. no one forces anyone into a pub, smoke or non smoke.
The city I live in has been smoke free for a year and a half. I can say that as a smoker, this sucks for me. The bars are not as much fun, and forget about the casino. They should have places where you can smoke, and non smokers can choose to not go there.
what have freedom of choice.. you must be kidding.
::sarcasm off well only a slight sarcasm::