Should There Be A Smoking Ban?

The Welsh ban came into force in April. It's only England left.

I think it should be obligatory that you smoke in pubs. That should be an option (in this poll).

"I'll have a pint."
"Cigarette sir?"
"No thanks."
"I'm afraid I can't serve you..."

ban smoking from ilx

I think when we look back on this urge to regulate smoking we'll see that mad market forces ie. insurance companies, heightened premiums, PHEAR of lawsuits had more to do with the implementation than any genuine concern for the health of working people. When I first arrived in London stale smoke was a feature of almost every workplace I entered.

I think when we look back on this urge to regulate smoking we'll see that mad market forces ie. insurance companies, heightened premiums, PHEAR of lawsuits had more to do with the implementation than any genuine concern for the health of working people.

I think you've contradicted yourself there...

How so? 'We will save money' generally trumps 'it's good for you' where market forces are involved.

I'm awaiting the first London 'smoke-easies'.

i wasn't too fussed before but now i am quite looking forward to clothes (both mine and gf's) not being so stinky after a night in the pub.

yes! i was at a no smoking venue last night and then today when i pulled the clothes i was wearing last night out of my bag i instinctively pulled away from them but lo! they did not reek. awesomes.

I love smoking bans. Unfortunately ours recently had its teeth removed so more clubs/bars are letting the smoking happen again. No reeking clothes/hair and not having to leave gigs early b/c I can't breathe are awesome.

I really hate people smoking near me, stinking of smoke when I come home from pubs etc, and can't stand people smoking when I'm eating. So practically speaking I can't wait.
However, a blanket ban isn't the way to do this. Time and money should be spent implementing decent air-conditioning where possible, so people can choose to do something they enjoy without it affecting every other person in the area (or forcing people outside where they disturb surrounding neighbours). I particularly dislike the way statistics are used to argue against smoking/passive smoking, especially when they refer to 'smoking-related diseases'. Lung cancer has been linked to smoking. Therefore anyone who gets lung cancer, regardless of whether they smoke, has got a 'smoking-related disease'.

Also, it's July 1st.

i only just started smoking again this year so fuck this shit for real.

the full extent of the ban didn't really hit home until signs appeared by the two outer doors of the block of flats where I live, bearing the usual no smoking symbol and saying that as of 1st July smoking won't be allowed in communal areas (the blocks are council owned, although many of the flats are privately owned, inc mine).

I am generally in favour of the ban.

I'm in two minds. It will do a lot of people a lot of good (including me) but I do think there's a slightly sinister control issue going on - I just think there are some places where you should be allowed to do what the hell you want. I also think the dangers of passive smoking have been exaggerated somewhat. People have died of other's smoke, sure, but not nearly as many as have died from other's cars, for example. Life is about taking measured risks to some extent.

can't wait for all reasons already listed - seriously, waking up with reeking hair and reeking clothes is the worst, especially as my allergies kick in the following day (never on the night bizarrely) and every morning after i've been in a pub is just SNEEZING HELL for me.

it'd be like waking up with a hangover when you've been drinking water; this is the one vice i don't indulge in so to be penalised for it anyway seems unfair.

just think there are some places where you should be allowed to do what the hell you want. I also think the dangers of passive smoking have been exaggerated somewhat. People have died of other's smoke, sure, but not nearly as many as have died from other's cars, for example.

places where yr allowed to do what you want = yr own and yr mates' homes, obv.

but you are right about the cars thing. monbiot wrote a piece in the grauniad about "passive driving" a few months ago....

Banning in indoor public spaces is an injury I'm happy to inflict on others, but banning in outdoor spaces, as seems to be the next step, is like rubbing salt in the wound.

as seems to be the next step

I don't think it is. What makes you think it is?

I hardly think the cars comparison is fair, one has a purpose...

(well I guess cigarettes have a couple of purposes... keeping you up for anoter half hour when you're really tired, or making you poo apparently)

Also, driving cars in pubs is already banned

I don't think it is. What makes you think it is?

I have vague memories of reading something about it somewhere at some time

I don't think it will happen. Not only will there be an outcry against it, but also it would be impossible to police. Cue everyone heading into the woods and hiding behind trees...farcical.

"Peter Nield, a councillor in Angus, plans to petition the Scottish parliament to give local authorities the power to extend the smoking ban to footpaths, pavements and beer gardens."

Hmm, best I can track down is obscure local councillor one year ago - perhaps not the next wave of legislation.

Relax in the comfort of your own smoking shelter:

http://www.nosmokinglaw.co.uk/images/smoking_img3.jpg

People have died of other's smoke, sure, but not nearly as many as have died from other's cars, for example.

They really need to make running people over illegal...

under the influence while smoking a tab

maybe we will reach the stage where smoking is banned except for one country or city and everyone who wants to smoke will head off there, a kind of tobacco Vegas.

There has definitely been talk of banning people from smoking outside pubs, to stop noise.

banning people from smoking outside pubs will create a lot of noise!

maybe we will reach the stage where smoking is banned except for one country or city and everyone who wants to smoke will head off there, a kind of tobacco Vegas.

A Scottish local paper ran that as an April Fool gag.

2000ad's smokatorium to thread

http://www.2000ad.nu/mcmahon/img/mcm1c.gif

fucking nazis

I would gladly accept smokatoriums if we could also have Ping-Boing courts.

christ have any of you pro-ban types spent time with old people? they all want out, for realsies.

I think everyone should get to choose. Two bars that allowed smoking coexisted very well with the three non-smoking bars, in my small town. Until the ban. Now nobody can smoke inside - but everything was very civil before!
It worked very well: "I choose to have a smoking establishment." "I choose to have a non-smoking establishment."
And everyone got to make a choice about where they were going to hang out. granted, Angry Johnny and the Killbillies trumps karaoke - so the smoky bar was the cool bar.
Still is. The owner has opened the basement as a quasi private club.
I spend more time at the bar that never allowed smoking. They made a nice smoking area out back. (No klieg lights, Ed! No weird heaters either!)
Two benches and three gigantic ashtrays.

england is kind of bad-tempered already. that germaine greer piece in the guardian last week got it right too.

so i was at the barfly on tuesday or wednesday this week and sure, when i got home my clothes didnàt stink of smoke, but the entire time i was there my nose was full of the stench of unwashed indiekid. WHICH IS WORSE? i can't decide. i'm really really hoping it was all, or mostly, coming from the guy in front of me with the haircut.

Thanks for ruining pubs, you fucking wankers.

word

they hate our freedom, noodle.

It's like Stalinism without the communist bit.

it's like nazism without the couture and snazzy buildings

True, smoking did actually become an anti-Nazi symbol.

nazis didn't like snazzy

Man, when I was in the SALT LAKE CITY AIRPORT of all places, they had these crazy "smoking lounges" at every gate. Little glass-walled rooms full of ashtrays and soft seats with no closing door, just a permanently open entrance. It was bizarre and awesome!

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/chris_hallam/2007/12/smoke_out.html

lol nazis

lol commentisfree, laffs '08 agogo

Smoking ban just went into effect in Illinois. I have a feeling I will be smoking far less.

Awesome I can't wait for poor people to lose their homes for using a legal substance https://t.co/RNlj3jyiq5

— Italian Alex Pareene (@pareene) July 31, 2018

well
theres *an* angle

Should there be a pissing in the stairwell ban

that it comes same day as Manhattan DA announcing refusal to prosecute most pot crime is laden with irony

(dmac, see Twitter thread for amplification)

this is garbage.

As pareene points out, e-cigarettes also banned

I am pretty sure you'd be hard-pressed to find a lease that allows indoor smoking here, and the 25-feet-from-entrances thing is just the law. Within 25 feet of the building (the entire footprint?) is absurd and probably has no public health justification. In any case, why now and not ten years ago?

It’s not at all funny that a lot of the same people who are “socialism now” are also whinin about smoking laws and the plastic straw ban.

(dmac, see Twitter thread for amplification)

― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius)

thks but never happens

I think people against the plastic straw ban on the basis of the necessity of straws for some disabled people may just not be aware that there are straws made of compostable plastic that are perfectly functional and do not dissolve in liquid like paper straws

The smoking ban is going to have an outsized effect on poor people, even to the point of causing some to lose their housing. That's why it's bullshit, not because it TRAMPLES ON LIBERTY

It’s not a new thing and no one’s gonna lose their home over it.

phew, what a relief, thx nerdstrom

Public health types see how many health problems stem directly from tobacco use and they desperately want smoking rates to go to zero, because this would be a public health boon of major proportions. But outlawing tobacco won't happen and would lead to the same problems all drug prohibitions create. So they keep coming up with ways to make it expensive, inconvenient, and socially marginalized.

The smoking ban is going to have an outsized effect on poor people

Damn straight. Paternalistically drubbing poor people with sin taxes is politically easy. Spending money to make the lives of the poor less dire is politically very hard.

perhaps his idea of the NYPD was formed by Ricky Schroder and Dennis Franz

xp

xxxp

I'm curious why you feel so confident about saying that, but admittedly I don't know a lot about the issue apart from the obvious truth that poor people are never treated as if they have any right to privacy when plenty of other groups benefit from public resources without their personal choices being ultra examined to make sure they're "worthy."

Similar bans have been around for a long time now. The complex my family lived in around 2000-03 had similar restrictions. Very hard to prove a tenant has been smoking.

from late 2016:

Public health policies that discourage smoking are probably desirable. There is very clear evidence that smoking, and secondhand smoke are detrimental to one’s health and are contributing causes to a host of afflictions such as asthma and emphysema. But it’s only poor people who are discouraged from smoking by *punitive* means. A serious effort to stop smoking across society would target the source, going after the cigarette companies who make their living killing people. Strict limits on production, stricter FDA regulations, heavy taxes can all change the incentives of production and thereby reduce the amount of cigarettes available. One might also consider the kind of advertising/labeling regulations popular in Europe, or expanding education campaigns. If HUD wanted to get people in its projects to stop smoking, it should at the very least guarantee free and readily available nicotine patches to all of its residents.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/12/banning-smoking-in-public-housing-is-just-another-experiment-on-the-poor

what would happen if legally produced cigarettes became harder to get

poor people pay less for em would they

then people would get killed for selling loosies

Cigarettes cost $30-$40 a pack here, the bulk of which is punitive taxes. I dunno if its stopped that many people from smoking. Its a generational shift more than anything I suspect.

oh, i think it has, at the margins

as a non-smoker it's a bonus to me, as long as one doesn't care about The Underclass. let those addicted moochers pay for the government, i say

I have to admit I'm smoking a hell of a lot less mostly due to the cost, but also cos I just dont (cant) drink like I used to, I'm getting too old.

Surprised more people don't just roll their own.

In the US rolling your own is nearly invisible. If it were more visible and better understood, it would probably amass a much larger user group than at present, but most smokers never see another smoker hand rolling, so it never crosses their mind, or else gets dismissed out of hand because of not knowing how you even get started.

Oh, and the two most available brands of loose cigarette-tobacco (at least they were when I rolled decades ago), were called 'Top' and 'Bugle', and they were really dreadful stuff. Pipe tobacco is coarse enough to frequently tear the rolling paper. When there's no established market for decent rolling tobacco, it means decent tobacco is very hard to find.

I knew a woman a few years ago who rolled her own. She claimed it saved her a ton of money and was healthier (I guess due to lack of additives). I was about to say that there's an untapped market for artisan tobacco, then did a quick search and saw that it's already a thing.

I know tons of people who roll their own (all Drum) but all my friends are artists/musicians it comes with the territory, like cats and stick and pokes. I don't have the patience for it. I like American Spirits a lot. I can't smoke Reds or even Camel Lights without getting sick now.

I get the ban inside - I'm a smoker but I don't smoke in my own house. I actually don't even know if I'm allowed to or not, but I wouldn't even if I could. I love that I started smoking only a few years after the smoking bans took effect in the mid-atlantic - I smoke a lot less (5 or 6 a day) than I would if I could smoke inside clubs, theaters, planes, etc. The "not within 25 feet of the building" is on some west coast shit.

i totally respect people hating smoking or thinking it is gross (it does smell bad tbf). However, not one day goes by where i get side-eye or passive aggressive remarks on how sick it is. Often the person waits to pass me before saying it, which is some lily livered bullshit.

tons of people who roll their own (all Drum)

yeah. Drum was the only brand I liked. It wasn't easy to find, but I sought it out.

A serious effort to stop smoking across society would target the source, going after the cigarette companies who make their living killing people. Strict limits on production, stricter FDA regulations, heavy taxes can all change the incentives of production and thereby reduce the amount of cigarettes available.

this is astoundingly poor logic

this post by Max is persuasive:

https://maxread.substack.com/p/the-coming-pro-smoking-discourse

After seeing puffs advertised to young teenagers and hearing about Aussie/NZ policies, I'm increasingly abolitionist.

(Puffs is the name we give to the single-use bubblegum / fruit-flavoured e-cigs, no idea what the actual term in ENG is)

I've noted that I've seen since the pandemic more open smoking in NYC and Chicago among all ages and genders.

Rampant smoking (of all sorts) on the train is the number one complaint I hear from people taking the train, and the number one reason people I know have started to at least dread if not outright avoid the train.

to move past “trolling” and be adopted as common sense by a loose confederation of IDW Substackers, trad nutritionists, and downtown cool kids,

lol

Like, I can definitely see this:

This is speculative, but we believe the broad strokes of the argument will be something like this:

1. Nicotine is a creative and intellectual stimulant in an age of mid cultural production.

2. Smoking is a social activity in an age of platform-warped anti-sociality.

3. Cigarettes are an acceptable danger in an age of “safetyism” and fear.

4. Banning things is "neoliberal paternalism” that targets the “marginalized communities.”

I wrote this on the Should Marijuana be legalised? thread:

One thing I've noticed is the prevalence of skunky weed smells in utterly mundane spots: desolate bathrooms, obscure grocery aisles, quiet alcoves of museums... feel like the rise of the vape has ushered in a sly anonymity for a quick lonely indoor fix which wasn't as convenient with flammable methods.

Definitely a public transit thing as well, seems like every other train or bus I get on is a call-back to cheech & chong's van... which is not preferable when taking the kids to school or the library.

But my anecdotal theories back to the topic at hand: as a child of someone who smoked while she was pregnant with me and who barely survived a bout of lung cancer... and I can imagine that at least a few of my lifelong health issues might possibly related to the former, perhaps cigarettes are not that fantastic of a substance to be addicted to.

Def smell the skunky weed a lot more, which I thought could be chalked up to cali's relaxed laws but that doesn't account for everywhere I'm noticing it. There are also probably a lot more people who are in states of depression, anxiety, stress, etc the last decade and who are self-medicating with greater frequency. Maybe all the extraneous issues also account for what I think is notably worse driving idk.

As I understand it, apartments here forbid smoking of any kind, which sends people outside/to the windows, etc., which means smoke in/from all sorts of random places. I find it odd that there are indeed a few very specific places around here that always smell like weed. This one spot by the highway, this one block ... Weed is so pervasive that the smell of cigarettes is almost a novelty. Except on the train, where it is just part of the general weed/nicotine/urine/BO melange.

I am captivated by the tone and breadth of argument here,2 but for our more narrow purposes I want to underline two key components of Samuels and Luttwak’s argument, to wit:

Smoking is good for society as a whole, and
Cigarettes are bad for you and actually that’s good.

This is extremely advanced public-policy contrarianism of the kind that is difficult for even professionals to resist.

lol max this is so good

Yes this passage he cites is breathtaking no pun intended

A reason that is less well-explored, I believe, is the West’s war on nicotine. The massive brain outages we see throughout the West, and particularly in America, are in no small part due to the war on smoking, which both makes people smarter and kills them before they become senile.

I'd suggest that in certain/many contrarian circles, guns have filled the gap that cigarettes left. Had California not imposed an indoor smoking ban in 1998, maybe the 1994 U.S. Assault Weapons Ban would not have been allowed to expire in 2004.

would explain why british contrarians are so at a loss and reduced to obsessing over sausage rolls these days

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/06/06/marijuana-smoke-weed-smell-neighbors/

A D.C. judge has ruled that a man who smokes medical marijuana in his apartment must stop after a neighbor complained that the odor from his marijuana crept into her home and caused a nuisance.

Judge Ebony Scott ruled late Monday that while Josefa Ippolito-Shepherd could not prove she is entitled to damages, she successfully made the case that the smell is a private nuisance, and Scott ordered Thomas Cackett to stop smoking. Scott said that Cackett is licensed to buy marijuana but “he does not possess a license to disrupt the full use and enjoyment of one’s land.”

“Indeed, the public interest is best served by eliminating the smoking nuisance and the toxins that it deposits into the air, toxins that involuntary smokers have no choice but to inhale,” Scott wrote in her decision.

Cackett is banned from smoking at his address or within 25 feet of Ippolito-Shepherd’s address.

Why didn't he use a medical-grade vaporizer that reduces the scent like the Medic (or "Mighty Medic" as we call it in Canada)?

In terms of the link posted, it's wild. I assume it's satire.

The article doesn't say how he consumes it. This is as close as we get:

Cackett testified in court that the medical marijuana relieves his pain and helps him sleep after physically intensive shifts as a restaurant manager. He said that he smoked about “eight to 12 puffs” at night after he gets off work, typically outside if the weather was tolerable, and he denied smoking “all day and all night as the plaintiff alleges.”

“I am not Snoop Dogg,” he said during the trial.