i wonder re smoking ban if the goverment increased the tax on sale of bottle and canned beer/wine (alcohol) etc products.. but not those sold in draught form, that would help hospitality by making it cheaper to drink in a pub than to pre load at home?? Or has society changed and the pub is doomed like the ciagrette? Personally i love a smoke free pub.
The proposed outside smoking ban is a truly progressive measure. Smoking costs lives as well as making outside areas truly unpleasant for non smokers.
I don't believe the whole of the hospitality industry opposes the ban,and those that do are just rehashing old arguments about banning smoking indoors.
I do understand why the hospitality sector is up in arms about this proposal to ban smoking in beer gardens. I say this as someone who has never smoked a cigarette, can’t stand the smell of cigarettes and welcomed the internal smoking ban back in 2007.
The internal smoking ban of 2007 made sense, since it protected hospitality workers who would inhale the tobacco smoke. This ban doesn’t have that same reasoning. People who are smoking in beer gardens are in the open air where passive smoking is minimal. Reading the press reports, this proposal is based more on the government wanting to increasingly ban smoking, which I find this worrying. Do we really want a state where activities are banned because the government has decided it is not healthy for you. What next will be banned or restricted because the government has decided it is not healthy: will it be alcohol, processed sugar, red meat, watching too much telly, riding a motorbike, going to loud rock concerts, eating fried food, participating in dangerous sports? Where does this ban culture end?
I try to live a healthy lifestyle, but I do believe people should have the freedom to live the lifestyle they choose, if it doesn’t impact on others. If people are aware of the health issues involved, then people should be free to smoke, drink, eat copious amounts of meat that is sprinkled in layers of sugar, while they binge watch the entire series of Breaking Bad in the middle of sky-diving from 20,000 feet. Banning smoking in beer gardens where passive smoking is minimal is a worrying step in an increasingly banning culture from the state.
Where would you draw the line Martin, on an unhealthy lifestyle not affecting others? We all know know smoking will likely you kill you, if I choose to do it anyway, develop lung cancer, utilise the NHS for all my (ultimately futile) treatment isn’t that resource that could have been used on someone who didn’t make the ignorant choice that I made in smoking?
I agree there is balance to be struck on protecting us from ourselves (I’m not sure how far I’d go along my point above) but I think we’ve demonstrated enough times at this point that we can’t be trusted as humans, as society, to do the best thing for ourselves? Putting some bowling alley gutter guides in might not be a bad start
I do believe the government needs to agree its philosophical starting point. Is it banning an activity because it is harming others, or because it will ultimately cost the NHS money.
We would all agree that passive smoking is harming others, but I am sure scientists would argue over the level of dilution of the tobacco below which the impact of passive smoking become negligible. Once you agree this, then what you ban or restrict logically follows. Further, the government can encourage us to change our lifestyle through education, taxation or financial inducements, but ultimately the citizen has the final decision.
The Labour government appears to have a starting point that smoking should be restricted because it will ultimately cost the NHS money. The problem with this is that everyone reading this article will today be doing something, or not doing something (eg exercise) that will ultimately cost the NHS money. This is turn leads us down an authoritarian path, where a huge swathe of activities are banned or restricted and the public are forced to do activities on the grounds it will reduce the cost to the NHS.
Ahhhh 2007 indoor smoking ban discourse is BACK with a vengeance! Maybe more people could enjoy the patio areas if it was smoke-free?
i wonder re smoking ban if the goverment increased the tax on sale of bottle and canned beer/wine (alcohol) etc products.. but not those sold in draught form, that would help hospitality by making it cheaper to drink in a pub than to pre load at home?? Or has society changed and the pub is doomed like the ciagrette? Personally i love a smoke free pub.
The proposed outside smoking ban is a truly progressive measure. Smoking costs lives as well as making outside areas truly unpleasant for non smokers.
I don't believe the whole of the hospitality industry opposes the ban,and those that do are just rehashing old arguments about banning smoking indoors.
I do understand why the hospitality sector is up in arms about this proposal to ban smoking in beer gardens. I say this as someone who has never smoked a cigarette, can’t stand the smell of cigarettes and welcomed the internal smoking ban back in 2007.
The internal smoking ban of 2007 made sense, since it protected hospitality workers who would inhale the tobacco smoke. This ban doesn’t have that same reasoning. People who are smoking in beer gardens are in the open air where passive smoking is minimal. Reading the press reports, this proposal is based more on the government wanting to increasingly ban smoking, which I find this worrying. Do we really want a state where activities are banned because the government has decided it is not healthy for you. What next will be banned or restricted because the government has decided it is not healthy: will it be alcohol, processed sugar, red meat, watching too much telly, riding a motorbike, going to loud rock concerts, eating fried food, participating in dangerous sports? Where does this ban culture end?
I try to live a healthy lifestyle, but I do believe people should have the freedom to live the lifestyle they choose, if it doesn’t impact on others. If people are aware of the health issues involved, then people should be free to smoke, drink, eat copious amounts of meat that is sprinkled in layers of sugar, while they binge watch the entire series of Breaking Bad in the middle of sky-diving from 20,000 feet. Banning smoking in beer gardens where passive smoking is minimal is a worrying step in an increasingly banning culture from the state.
Where would you draw the line Martin, on an unhealthy lifestyle not affecting others? We all know know smoking will likely you kill you, if I choose to do it anyway, develop lung cancer, utilise the NHS for all my (ultimately futile) treatment isn’t that resource that could have been used on someone who didn’t make the ignorant choice that I made in smoking?
I agree there is balance to be struck on protecting us from ourselves (I’m not sure how far I’d go along my point above) but I think we’ve demonstrated enough times at this point that we can’t be trusted as humans, as society, to do the best thing for ourselves? Putting some bowling alley gutter guides in might not be a bad start
I do believe the government needs to agree its philosophical starting point. Is it banning an activity because it is harming others, or because it will ultimately cost the NHS money.
We would all agree that passive smoking is harming others, but I am sure scientists would argue over the level of dilution of the tobacco below which the impact of passive smoking become negligible. Once you agree this, then what you ban or restrict logically follows. Further, the government can encourage us to change our lifestyle through education, taxation or financial inducements, but ultimately the citizen has the final decision.
The Labour government appears to have a starting point that smoking should be restricted because it will ultimately cost the NHS money. The problem with this is that everyone reading this article will today be doing something, or not doing something (eg exercise) that will ultimately cost the NHS money. This is turn leads us down an authoritarian path, where a huge swathe of activities are banned or restricted and the public are forced to do activities on the grounds it will reduce the cost to the NHS.