British Parliament Votes to Ban Smoking in Public

[FaDeR_SP]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/international/europe/14cnd-britain.html?ex=1297573200&en=e10e568c9ed996c3&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

February 14, 2006
British Parliament Votes to Ban Smoking in Public
By ALAN COWELL
LONDON, Feb. 14 — After a tortured debate, Britain's Parliament voted overwhelmingly today for a total ban on smoking in public places — a move that seemed certain to end the time-hallowed traditions of the smoky British pub, where a pint of ale and a cigarette once defined the down time of generations.

The decision, by an unexpectedly high margin of 384 to 184, brought England into line with Ireland, which barred smoking in public places in March 2004, and with other parts of Britain, like Scotland and Northern Ireland, where bans are to come into force over the next 13 months. The local Parliament in Wales has also said it will seek a full ban. The English ban is expected to come into force next year.

The issue was seen as so divisive within the ranks of the ruling Labor Party that legislators were given what is called a free vote, enabling them to defy the party line if they wished.

Monday's ballot overturned the formal policy of Prime Minister Tony Blair's government, which had supported a partial ban permitting smoking in private members' clubs and pubs that do not serve food. The compromise would have permitted smokers to congregate in drinks-only pubs.

Opponents of that policy — including Patricia Hewitt, Mr. Blair's health secretary, and, according to the Press Association news agency, Mr. Blair himself, had said that passive smoking would damage the health of workers in any club or pub, whether food was served or not.

"This legislation is good news for tens of thousands of bar staff up and down the country," said Steve Webb, a legislator from the Liberal Democrat opposition. "The key issue has always been the health and safety of people who work in public places."

Ms. Hewitt said the arguments over banning smoking on private members' clubs were "very finely balanced" but a total ban provided a "level playing field" among all premises serving alcohol.

The government estimates that 600,000 people will give up smoking when the new law is enforced. "This bill is going to save thousands of people's lives," Ms. Hewitt said, comparing the ban to the legal requirement to wear safety belts in cars.

Some smokers, interviewed on British television, said the decision was one more sign of a "nanny state" encroaching into private lives. But campaigners from many anti-smoking groups welcomed the move.

Alex Markham, the head of Cancer Research U.K. called the ban "the most important advance in public health for 50 years" since researchers linked smoking to lung cancer. Ben Youdan, of the group No Smoking Day, said, "Compromises can't be made when protecting people against a killer is at stake."

[bigjeff]

It's somethin realli good coz smokin the public will produce 2nd smokin of which is more harmful to the passers than the smokers themselves.

[cut]

"ban smoking in public" :cantbeli:

stupid title, keep it as it was "ban smoking in public places" i.e. bars, restaurants etc...

When a stupid title like "ban smoking in public" get's slapped on an article it makes it sound like their banning smoking outside your own property, which is a gross exageration. All the bars and pubs on my campus have banned smoking already.

Banning smoking in clubs isn't so good though, coz you can't nip outside for a smoke when you go to a club.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

The ban on smoking in public places in Scotland comes into affect at the end of this March.

[StukaJr]

Same law has been passed in Cali 6-7 years ago and few other states in the US. Seems to work - even clubs are allocating outside smoking areas so you don't leave the premises, yet clubs still reak of reefer :) Majority of the divey bars don't enforce it, however I'm no longer used to having smoke cut my eyes so it takes some time to get used to. Making small talk with ladies became easier too - standing outside and waiting for the cab, some honey bums a cig at least once - I don't smoke but began carrying a pack of cigs just in case :)

Laws are stupid but they are needed since some people just don't take care of themselves at times. On my trip to Florida, we were fooling around with Cigars at local Hooters - we were in the smoking section with plenty of seats available in non. So some family with younglings in tow plops right next to our table.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I wonder how long it will be in the UK before we have to seek the permission of some government apparatchik with a heavy desk before we can have a sh1t in the morning:roll:

[CMNot]

Good job. Best thing I ever did was quit.

[Ayura]

"ban smoking in public" :cantbeli:

stupid title, keep it as it was "ban smoking in public places" i.e. bars, restaurants etc...

When a stupid title like "ban smoking in public" get's slapped on an article it makes it sound like their banning smoking outside your own property, which is a gross exageration. All the bars and pubs on my campus have banned smoking already.

Banning smoking in clubs isn't so good though, coz you can't nip outside for a smoke when you go to a club.


Gross exagerations are nothing new. We muslims have had to put up for it ages now.

[big_les]

It's somethin realli good coz smokin the public will produce 2nd smokin of which is more harmful to the passers than the smokers themselves.

The effects of 2nd hand smoke are still an uncertain quantity. It's certainly not MORE harmful than smoking itself - that defies logic.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

The effects of 2nd hand smoke are still an uncertain quantity. It's certainly not MORE harmful than smoking itself - that defies logic.

And why is eating food in a smoky environment so bad. There's no evidence that it is more dangerous than not eating food in a smoky environment

[Para]

The whole thing is crock, more people from alcohol related diseases and accidents than from smoking, but what have they done about alchol

[pegasus]

its already happened in canada & i like it. so now when i go home to england i can enjoy it in the pub there. thumbs up!

[Jani.R]

The whole thing is crock, more people from alcohol related diseases and accidents than from smoking, but what have they done about alchol

Untill drinking alcohol starts to harm others around you, i don't know why would the get involved.

[Mailman]

And why is eating food in a smoky environment so bad. There's no evidence that it is more dangerous than not eating food in a smoky environment

Second hand smoke is more "lethal" than smoking yourself.

Not to mention eating where someone is smoking is absolutely disgusting! Cant stand it when f*ckers light up near us!

What this does show though is that the English parliament can actually get something right, even though they (in their usual customary way) almost f*cked it up completely!

Mailman

[SHAM]

What took yiz so long, when they first talked about it in ireland i thought it would never happen, there would be outrage and it would kill the atmosphere in the pubs, on the contrary, the only change i notice now is when i go abroad and you find these "irish bars" with no smoking signs up all over the place and every fecker in the place smoking like a chimeny, i end up leaving and finding some place more friendly and not stinking of fags the next morning.

[Geezah]

Untill drinking alcohol starts to harm others around you, i don't know why would the get involved.

Did I read that right, how about drunk drivers, fights that are caused by drunks those are just a couple of problems caused by alcohol..

[Geezah]

I don't smoke never have, but I'm not in favour of the Guberment forcing anyone to do anything. If the smokers want to kill themselves, oh well.

[East Scout]

To many goverment goons telling people what they can and can not do.It wont stop there cause they know "whats best for us" right?....Horse Krapp!

I dont smoke but laws like this just open the door for more oppression......

[Cabbage]

I'm an ex-smoker...and I'm all for the ban. Smoking kills so does second-hand smoke. Is there a better reason to ban something?

[Fenna]

Well I'm glad for it, now hopefully my clothes won't smell of smoke after a night out. Just beer, mmmmmmm.

[ocdt goose]

Once the ban comes into place and everybody settles to it, it works great. Also banning smoking in clubs is not a bad idea, most clubs if not all in Ireland now have outside smoking areas and the idea works great.

[Para]

Jani.R........You said....
Untill drinking alcohol starts to harm others around you, i don't know why would the get involved.

Well it does, what about drunken drivers, and drunken brawls, and accidents at work due to drunkeness, even Air Line pilots are being picked being drunk in charge of an aircraft. What about the drunk that goes home and slaps his wife and family around, or don't you count this. Now I often wonder just how much of this smoking ban is hype as father still smokes 20 a day and he is 99.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Second hand smoke is more "lethal" than smoking yourself.

Not to mention eating where someone is smoking is absolutely disgusting! Cant stand it when f*ckers light up near us!

What this does show though is that the English parliament can actually get something right, even though they (in their usual customary way) almost f*cked it up completely!

Mailman
Well I'm not a smoker myself but I have never been bothered by other people smoking. To me coming home bladdered and stinking of smoke is the sign of a good night out.
I'm thinking of taking it up now just to piss off all the nanny knows best fcukwits the UK seems to be infested with these days.:)

[Cabbage]

Well I'm not a smoker myself but I have never been bothered by other people smoking. To me coming home bladdered and stinking of smoke is the sign of a good night out.
I'm thinking of taking it up now just to piss off all the nanny knows best fcukwits the UK seems to be infested with these days.:)

It's not so much your clothes smelling of smoke, it's what happens to your lungs. Take up smoking if you want...

[a_very_ex_STAB]

It's not so much your clothes smelling of smoke, it's what happens to your lungs. Take up smoking if you want...

I know let's ban cars, vans and trucks in the UK as well because of the damage their exhaust fumes do to our lungs:roll:

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I think mobile phone use when driving is fast catching up with drink as a cause of motor death.

[babydave]

im glad they passed this, im tired of breathing in second hand smoke. hopefully it will discourage people taking it up to, i have no sympathy for smokers, it says on the box it will kill you.

i hope one day we get to the point where people that get smoking/alcohol related problems dont get NHS money spent on them. If they get lung cancer or whatever as a result of smoking then they can go private, id rather my tax went to better causes - cure for cancers,diseases/soldiers/even charities. we could save so much money.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

im glad they passed this, im tired of breathing in second hand smoke. hopefully it will discourage people taking it up to, i have no sympathy for smokers, it says on the box it will kill you.

i hope one day we get to the point where people that get smoking/alcohol related problems dont get NHS money spent on them. If they get lung cancer or whatever as a result of smoking then they can go private, id rather my tax went to better causes - cure for cancers,diseases/soldiers/even charities. we could save so much money.

FYI the tax revenue that the UK government gets on the sale of alcohol and tobacco VASTLY outweighs the costs of treating smoking and alcohol-related diseases.

You should be thanking the smokers and drinkers of Britain for valiantly laying down their lives for the sake of the finances of the NHS in particular and the UK government in general.

[Geezah]

I think mobile phone use when driving is fast catching up with drink as a cause of motor death.

Too bloody right......

[Cabbage]

I know let's ban cars, vans and trucks in the UK as well because of the damage their exhaust fumes do to our lungs:roll:

What a desperate point you put across. Cars and transport in general serve a purpose...to get from A to B in a reasonable time.
The only purpose cigarettes serve is to die from lung cancer or other related diseases.

[Cabbage]

FYI the tax revenue that the UK government gets on the sale of alcohol and tobacco VASTLY outweighs the costs of treating smoking and alcohol-related diseases.

You should be thanking the smokers and drinkers of Britain for valiantly laying down their lives for the sake of the finances of the NHS in particular and the UK government in general.

Rubbish. The burden on the NHS far outweighs how much revenue the goverment gets on duty from cigarettes or alcohol.

[Cabbage]

At the end of the day they haven't banned smoking. They've banned smoking in public places. If you're too lazy to go outside to light up and insist on giving everyone lung cancer....then I don't know what should be done with you. But whatever it is, it isn't pleasant.

[welshmann]

I'm an ex-smoker...and I'm all for the ban. Smoking kills so does second-hand smoke. Is there a better reason to ban something?

no offence m8 but ur the worse kind to tell people to stop smoking or all for a ban,while the goverment is doing this they are still taking around £3 in taxs from a 20 pack of cigs, if its that bad ban it outrite...now as a non smoker i could not give a **** about people lighting up by me,i choose to go into a pub with people smoking...while u bang on about passive smoking maybe u should be more worried about the way companys pack foods or burn garbage...like they say the uk is known for the freedom to do what u want but u know cant go into a pub a have a good fag with ur pint but ur allowed to wave a banner asking for peoples heads to be chopped off cause of some ****ing cartoons..is it just me or should the british goverment should care more about other things what are ****ing this country up rather than the guy who just wants a fag....the smoking type:)

[welshmann]

Rubbish. The burden on the NHS far outweighs how much revenue the goverment gets on duty from cigarettes or alcohol.

soz but that is bollox m8,my wifes a nurse...burden on nhs??????? try going to the hosptail on weekends and see whats been done because of assholes drinking..as inpeople smoking..ok bad for them,but burden??????most of these dudes pay taxs and ni every weekend people get glassed etc because of drink,at the end of the day in persnol and expences drink cost the nhs more money then smoking does.

[Cabbage]

no offence m8 but ur the worse kind to tell people to stop smoking or all for a ban,while the goverment is doing this they are still taking around £3 in taxs from a 20 pack of cigs, if its that bad ban it outrite...now as a non smoker i could not give a **** about people lighting up by me,i choose to go into a pub with people smoking...while u bang on about passive smoking maybe u should be more worried about the way companys pack foods or burn garbage...like they say the uk is known for the freedom to do what u want but u know cant go into a pub a have a good fag with ur pint but ur allowed to wave a banner asking for peoples heads to be chopped off cause of some ****ing cartoons..is it just me or should the british goverment should care more about other things what are ****ing this country up rather than the guy who just wants a fag....the smoking type:)

Well I gave up because other people wanted me too, at the time. But then again I saw my uncle die from lung cancer due to smoking at the age of 40 and his wife died 4 years later from cancer also (suspected passive smoking). That was a pretty good argument to give up smoking as well.

[Cabbage]

soz but that is bollox m8,my wifes a nurse...burden on nhs??????? try going to the hosptail on weekends and see whats been done because of assholes drinking..as inpeople smoking..ok bad for them,but burden??????most of these dudes pay taxs and ni every weekend people get glassed etc because of drink,at the end of the day in persnol and expences drink cost the nhs more money then smoking does.

Oh, ok. Your wifes a nurse, thus she has access to all the NHS accounting figures for the past 5 years. :roll:



Smoking imposes a huge economic burden on society—currently up to 15% of total healthcare costs in developed countries. Smoking cessation can save years of life, at a very low cost compared with alternative interventions. This chapter reviews some of the economic aspects of smoking cessation.



Who benefits from cessation?

The most obvious benefits of smoking cessation are improvements in life expectancy and prevention of disease. However, cessation also improves individuals' quality of life as smokers tend to have a lower self reported health status than non-smokers, and this improves after stopping smoking.

There are also wider economic benefits to individuals and society, arising from reductions in the effects of passive smoking in non-smokers and savings to the health service and the employer. These wider benefits are often omitted from economic evaluations of cessation interventions, which consequently tend to underestimate the true value for money afforded by such programmes.


Economic burden of smoking

Many estimates have been made of the economic cost of smoking in terms of health resources. For the United States they typically range from about 0.6% to 0.85% of gross domestic product. In absolute terms, the US public health service estimates a total cost of $50bn (£29bn; 42bn) a year for the treatment of smoking related diseases, in addition to an annual $47bn in lost earnings and productivity. Estimated total costs in Australia and Canada, as a proportion of their gross domestic product, are 0.4% and 0.56% respectively. In the United Kingdom, the treatment of smoking related disease has been estimated to cost the NHS £1.4bn-£1.5bn a year (about 0.16% of the gross domestic product)—including £127m to treat lung cancer alone.
When expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product, the economic burden of smoking seems to be rising. In reality, however, the burden may not be increasing, but instead, as more diseases are known to be attributable to smoking, the burden attributed to smoking increases. Earlier estimates may simply have underestimated the true cost.

Passive smoking

In the United States, passive smoking has been estimated to be responsible for 19% of total expenditure on childhood respiratory conditions, and maternal smoking has been shown to increase healthcare expenditure by $120 a year for children under age 5 years and $175 for children under age 2 years. In the United Kingdom an estimated £410m a year is spent treating childhood illness related to passive smoking; in adults, passive smoking accounts for at least 1000 deaths in non-smokers, at an estimated cost of about £12.8m a year at 2002 prices.


from:

http://www.no-smoking.org/april04/04-16-04-3.html

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Rubbish. The burden on the NHS far outweighs how much revenue the goverment gets on duty from cigarettes or alcohol.
Well provide some facts to disprove my claim then.

As for your idea of discriminating against people who smoke by denying them equitable NHS treatment (even though they've paid NI and income tax all their lives like everyone else) - this is pure fascism.

Smoking isn't the only cause of cardiovascular disease and lung cancer you know - these things are multifactorial. Are you going to start discriminating against people who don't exercise enough to keep their BMI <25 or who were simply born with the 'wrong' combination of genes:roll:

BTW the 'figures' you quote above are not good enough they simply class all the diseases in which smoking could play a role and say that smoking is the cause of all the costs of treating those diseases. However the aetiology of such diseases is multifactorial and only in rare cases can you point to a single cause.
For example, people who don't smoke get lung cancer. People with heart disease usually get it because of a complex interaction of high blood pressure, dyslipidemia, impaired glucose tolerance, smoking, obesity, lack of exercise and genetic factors.

So when are you 'nanny knows best' fcukwits going to ban cars, vans and trucks in the UK as well because of the damage their exhaust fumes do to our lungs?

[Cabbage]

Well provide some facts to disprove my claim then.

In my post before, I quoted from an organisation set up to investigate the effects on smoking. All those figures in the post are facts. What do you think, they made them up?
How about you put up a link saying smokers pay more money in cigarette duty then the money they waste on the NHS by curing their smoking-induced illnesses?


As for your idea of discriminating against people who smoke by denying them equitable NHS treatment (even though they've paid NI and income tax all their lives like everyone else) - this is pure fascism.

Where did I say they should discriminate against people who smoke by denying them equitable NHS treatment? Oh yeah...that's right. It's only something else you made up. :roll: I challenge you to find where I said that...because I didn't.


Smoking isn't the only cause of cardiovascular disease and lung cancer you know - these things are multifactorial. Are you going to start discriminating against people who don't exercise enough to keep their BMI <25 or who were simply born with the 'wrong' combination of genes:roll:

It may not be the only cause, but in the vast majority of cases, it is the cause. And as I said before, smoking does not serve any purpose except for being a nasty habit and causing premature death.


BTW the 'figures' you quote above are not good enough they simply class all the diseases in which smoking could play a role and say that smoking is the cause of all the costs of treating those diseases. However the aetiology of such diseases is multifactorial and only in rare cases can you point to a single cause.
For example, people who don't smoke get lung cancer. People with heart disease usually get it because of a complex interaction of high blood pressure, dyslipidemia, impaired glucose tolerance, smoking, obesity, lack of exercise and genetic factors.


And you're an expert are you? :cantbeli: Those figures are from an .org website. Meaning they are official figures used by governments and made by government funded entitys. The absolute cheek of you trying to disclaim official figures. So apart from someone who's never done any research into this subject and just says things on a whim, what other qualifications do you have? :roll:


So when are you 'nanny knows best' fcukwits going to ban cars, vans and trucks in the UK as well because of the damage their exhaust fumes do to our lungs?

As I've said countless times. Transport serves a purpose. Smoking doesn't. Smoking has been banned from public places, effective from next summer.

Live without or eff off.

[ZaakM433]

everybody knows that most auto accidents are caused by those damn parasites that cats give us all that change our personalities and response times.

[SafetyCatch]

Two words... **** Labour.

[babydave]

Where did I say they should discriminate against people who smoke by denying them equitable NHS treatment? Oh yeah...that's right. It's only something else you made up. I challenge you to find where I said that...because I didn't.

i said that, smokeing is a pointless exercise, if you want to kill yourself then fine but dont burden the NHS anymore than it needs to be, and if you are going to require extra expensive treatment you should be prepared to stump up the readies.

[Apathy]

everybody knows that most auto accidents are caused by those damn parasites that cats give us all that change our personalities and response times.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b101/apathy18/cat.png

[Cabbage]

Two words... **** Labour.

Yeah...and a decade ago everyone was saying "**** the Tories". You'll get your wish, cos they'll win the next elections. Look at the Tory version of Tony Blair. Then we'll be in the crap...but hey. The vast minority living in Kensington and Chelsea will be happy once again.