The future of tobacco – a positive one?

Whatever your views on an issue that provokes more strong feelings than most, we really need to look at the future of tobacco not just as a conflict between “smokers” vs “non-smokers”.

This argument has successfully been arranged, funded and co-ordinated by so-called “pressure groups” and other media-based organisations secretly funded by multi-continental businesses, with the intent of creating smokescreens upon smokescreens. Unfortunately, this has made the media's task of dealing out simple news all the more easier.

My own personal viewpoint is that whilst I am absolutely disgusted with breathing in other people’s waste – and seeing the effects it has - we cannot ignore the fact that there is some significant evidence that we at least need to look further at some possible BENEFITS of this drug.

Of course, like all drugs, if tobacco can remedy specific health problems, it should be made available on prescription, from whoever is best qualified to make such judgements (GPs, consultants etc.).

I also wish to make clear that I want to see the end of ALL political parties – AND their misleading party political ideologies. You can’t help but wonder at how refreshing a change it is to find British politicians actually getting it right for once.

Well I think those who do not smoke have a right to fresh air. I do not however think that smokers should be herded out into the elements to potentially suffer exposure, just to have a fag.

Smoking areas and none smoking areas and a bit of creative airconditioning is surely a more rational approch than trying to kill smokers off by flinging them into arctic conditions.

Non smokers who drive cars can of course suck my balls as their vehicle produces a lot more harmfull chemicals in 1 mins than a whole 20 deck of tabs.

Please don't take my cigs away I'm gonna give them up some day

how is it going to work?

my local back street boozer has, say, 90% smokers.

the barmaids sell ciggies, and most of the down and outs smoke golden virgina.

just can't see it working.

If I go out to a non-smoking establishment, then I don't smoke - I go outside. Simple. If non-smokers go into a smoking den, then......why? Go somewhere else and stop moaning. Not difficult really is it. Loads of places round this way have banned smoking altogether, but a lot of them have reintroduced areas where you can smoke - usually somewhere that resembles a toilet admittedly, but there is somewhere apart from outside. They have done this, because they have noted a specific downturn in trade. TGI Fridays for one.

Smokers have just as many rights as non smokers - or at least we all used to have the same rights in this democracy. Whatever next? Shame the same amount of time, effort and taxpayers money can't be spent on something worthwhile - like real drug and alcohol abuse/issues.

yeah, if a pub is a smoking pub, then people who go in have no right to complain. and vice versa.

but if back street boozers start getting hit with 2grand fines then sooner or later they will have to shut...or change.

sad innit?

Apprently this is "the greatest pblic health move in 50 years"

Really....reduced ciggy sales= MUCh less money for NHS....while at the same time FORCING people in t shirts to walk out of a niteclub caked in sweat into a freezing winter gale, reapeatedly throughout their night out.....no no...no health problems there.

If the Government or politicians in general really wanted to heroically save us all from the demon weed then it should/would ban tobacco altogether. But they won't cos of all the money it makes them. Most towns and even villages in the UK have more than pub or bar - some scope surely for providing the majority of people with a choice - go somewhere that allows smoking or somewhere that doesn't, like the choice I make every time I want to go out - go to a really rough place where I'm likely to get my head kicked in or a bit further afield to a nicer, quieter, altogether more pleasant place... Currently there are too few places for non-smokers to go to enjoy themselves without having to put up with tobacco smoke - and they do deserve that opportunity, but there is really no need to go to the other extreme... while we still can...

Snorri xxx

Firstly, is this another blessed import from the USofA, where puritanism meets hygiene whilst driving an SUV?

On the one hand it's a no-brainer - non smokers having the right to breathe freely - but it also seems to be part of an ongoing movement of generalised state repression. So much for the rights of the individual...

It has taken 40/50/60 years since the diagnosis of smoking's true health hazards for this to come to legislation. The Nazi party were the first to really tackle the problem, and they certainly had a twisted agenda!

Don't get me wrong - smoking is disgusting if you don't smoke. So are most computer games if you don't like mindless violence.

Let's get to the point and ban all 4x4 cars immediately. Restrict the sale of computers, TVs and telephony to those who have installed anti-magnetic radiation screening devices. Remove all additives from food. Force the whole population to eat garlic daily. 30 minutes of press-ups once you get to work.

Chinese Cultural Revolution meets shrink-wrap Britain

As an ex-smoker I can say this--you are a bunch of smell bastards! Smoke at home or in your car but remember the window is not an ashtray. I wish all my fave pubs were smoke free. Do not smoke where I eat or around my children.

Hey, can I bum a smoke from someone? No methols. Clove would be super.

All i know is my local Workmens clubs & British Legion are gonna be deserted come next summer. Job losses no doubt and hopefully people not voting for that twat Bliar again (in protest)

Will be interesting to see whether any pubs/bars choose to ignore the ban, as some bars in Ireland did... although I imagine that spirit of rebellion has been crushed now... It's not so much what's been done but the way it's been done... better to push money into encouraging people to give up properly than employing a bunch of jobsworths to dish out fines to those who ignore the rules... I also suspect that actually getting into a smoke-fre pub will prove as hazardous for non-smokers as drinking in a pub with proper ventilation and no-smoking areas... How many poor souls are going to be hanging around the entrances puffing away? It'll make it easier for me not to smoke, but it'd be btter for me to make that decision myself rather than being forced into it...

Snorri xxx

Personally, I think the ban's long overdue. To all the smokers out there: If you want to slowly kill yourselves, then do that by all means. Just keep it to your own homes and don't try and kill everyone else around you, OK?

Miss Disco, you're always so right.

People who are different are stupid.

And they smell.

Fair enough, but it shouldn't be an all of nothing thing - the point is there are enough pubs to have some that allow smoking and some that don't... Similarly enough bar staff who are happy to work in an environment where people smoke, if the number you see smoking on their breaks is anthing to go by, and certainly enough people who want to smoke in pubs... Cambridge has a few no-smoking pubs and if I'm going out with non-smoking friends we go there and I dont smoke... If I want to watch the footy or have a quite pint on my own, I can go somewhere where I can smoke if I want to... If everyone has a choice, there shouldn't be a problem... In the past when I've been off the tabs and didn't fancy being in a smokey place, I've gone somewhere with a decent non-smoking section or which didn't allow smoking... Personally this will help me not to smoke, which is good, but if other people want to carry on and they aren't harming other people (aside from those who have CHOSEN to put themselves in that position) then why not..

Snorri xxx

The no-smoking laws have nothing to do with the poisonous nature of second hand smoke. The policy is driven by a need by the government to make it harder to smoke and therefore make people smoke less. The burden that smokers place on the NHS is one reason for this, the other reason is that it's in the nature of good governments to want the people in the country to be healthier. It's not just benevolence either, sick people are a burden, healthy people earn money for the economy.

Successive bad governments in this country have been railroaded by the smoking lobby (the tobacco industry) who have bought their way out of this legislation. This government got their fingers burnt by the tobacco people over F1 sponsership: this is them putting it right.

For once, America has shown the way here and we are doing the right thing by following them.

I live in Scotland, where smoking in public places will be history by the end of next month. They will even do you for smoking in a bus shelter. I sometimes smoke in pubs, and now I will stop. So it works.

Well done Scotland - catch up Engerland!

J.A.K wrote: yeah, if a pub is a smoking pub, then people who go in have no right to complain. and vice versa.

A few years ago, a pub in my home town became totally no smoking. One pub out of 100 in a city of 50000 people. And it did`nt last 5 minutes, no-one went in there. Surely if so many people find smoke so objectionable, they would have flocked to the place in droves.

On the other hand, my mate runs a bar in Ireland and always says how smooth the transition to no smoking has been and how no-one really seems to give a toss.

Im guessing though, that if smoking in the workplace is banned, you would not be able to smoke in your home if you had workers in? Should be a few interesting test cases there.

smoking should be like masturbation... do it by yourself hidden away. in the end u must submit, it's gotta hurt a little bit...

and if you have health problems, no whining and no gov't money to help you for

but if you make smoking illegal, that would make it cool. just tax smoking heavily to pay for all the military invasions

pumped full of drugs wrote: smoking should be like masturbation... do it by yourself hidden away. in the end u must submit, it's gotta hurt a little bit...

and if you have health problems, no whining and no gov't money to help you for either smoking or playing with yourself

Ouch just remember not to hold it near any naked flames!

I'm fed up of coming back from seeing my mates in pub,stinking of nicotine.So bad,even my undies stink of it.Now just hold that thought

when the first wave of hospitality workers start sueing because of lung cancer we'll see blanket bans pretty quick

I don't care, I'm a social smoker. If someone has cigs, I'll take one, if not I can live, it's no big deal. I'm not addicted.

NHS Money= Yes lots of tax money comes from death sticks, but lots more is spent on treating smoking related illnesses. Overall the two should balance out (and it would help if we stopped spending taxes bby declaring wars on everyone).

Human rights= Yes you have the human right to smoke, just as you have the human right to stick a knife in your eye. Doesn't mean you have the human right to stick knives in other people's eyes though.

Sueing= Employees can sue now under the 'control of substances hazardous to health' legislation. This law gives some added back bone to smoking cessation at work.

Quitting= Bloody nightmare! BUT most smokers fall off the wagon when other smokers are smoking around them in the pub. If you can go to the local boozer without everyone around you lighting up, you will be less likely to light up yerself.

Although I never intended to appear as impartial on this issue, it isn’t for me to act as a quality controller of people’s opinions.

I do find it disappointing however to find the debate here has remained in the “smokers” vs “non-smokers” context. In this sense, the publicity and lobbying representatives of these multi-national tobacco manufacturers are winning.

Without repeating the possibilities of medical benefits, it is very easy for constructive observations to be categorised in the “non-smokers” corner. Arguments such as:

“Since when has any private director held any sense for human/environmental compassion, apart from when it involves positive publicity?”

are not merely relevant to those against inhaling CO, but has part of a far more fundamentally wide-reaching series of debates.

Originally the US tobacco manufacturers genuinely deluded themselves into believing that waste that’s breathed in comes straight out – end of story.

When they realised just how stupid they’d been, they knew exactly that their industry’s revenue depended on consumers turning a blind eye on the devastating truth. Unfortunately by this time, several generations had been allowed to grow up with the idea that cigarettes were a source of sexy, glamorous and harmless pleasure. A pleasure that nobody had the right to take away from them.

Of course, tobacco had always been legal trade, which meant that its perception of being an inevitable part of society became unwittingly (or apathetically) accepted. Like most forms of perceived accepted inevitability, it would take several generations for the perception to disappear in the history books.

Nicotene isn't a harmful drug (unless you take around 50mg a day), but smoking is harmful.

So... the future is bright for nicotene gum, but pretty bleak for tobacco...

I re-iterate for those who may have missed it above. Those who drive cars can shut the fuck up about smoking...they dump more CO1 (how did u do the subscript 1 empress?) into the air per minute than a smoker does in a month.....along with LOTS of other interesting chemicals. And of course....add to that the fact that the motor car kills plenty of innocents non motorists too.

FWIW...I hate smokey pubs too and I smoke. The real answer here......better air conditioning :D

That's a seperate issue Steve... although I can see what you're saying (I don't have a car right now, but will by the end of the year)...

I would be in favour of non-polluting car fuel, even if it cost twice as much.

I hope the governments of the world pull out their fingers on this front too as the technology is there; it's just the financial will (to turn away from oil companies ala tobacco companies) that is lacking.

Craig's cloud cuckoo land wrote: That's a seperate issue Steve... although I can see what you're saying (I don't have a car right now, but will by the end of the year)...

I would be in favour of non-polluting car fuel, even if it cost twice as much.

I hope the governments of the world pull out their fingers on this front too as the technology is there; it's just the financial will (to turn away from oil companies ala tobacco companies) that is lacking.

it's only a seperate issue to people who don't call me a polluting health risk.

For someone to say I am threatening their lives, then get into a machine tat produces 1000's of times the amount of poison is hypocritical...at BEST. And as for health...asparatine causes more diseases than baccy and it's in everything you buy.