Stony Stratford set to impose blanket ban on smoking

[ajt09]

The market town of Stony Stratford near Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire. The idea is being put forward, following the example of a similar scheme in practice in New York, by councillor Paul Bartlett.

Stony Stratford set to ban smoking in all public places - Telegraph

I'm unsure where I stand with this to be honest. I am a smoker myself, however, I don't smoke any further than the back garden, and never smoke when the kids are around. However, how can something be banned, that is perfectly legal? I acknowledge that there is nothing worse than getting a face full of smoke, and having your clothes smelling of tobacco, and of course there's passive smoking. But it is LEGAL. And to me it smells a tiny bit odd, that this is being endorsed, but the government gets more than a nice little earner from the revenue of tobacco.
And, what if someone does decide to light up, by him/herself, with absolutely no one around at all? Fined, thats what will happen. It seems that there are people who are more concerned about what everybody else is doing, except themselves. And also, even odder, MP's are campaigning to relax smoking laws in pubs. While we're at it, why don't we ban the cars and buses that are belching toxic fumes aswell?
The amount of stupid laws that are being brought in, are now ridiculous. This is no longer the country I knew that I grew up in, and I hate it intensly. And I never though i'd say that.

 

[GodCubed]

Good. Smoking is a disgusting habit with -literally- no benefits to the individual. If people want to kill themselves slowly, fine, but don't do it anywhere near me. A ban in public places is fine by me.

 

[Sam]

Agree with GC, smoking is useless, and I have too many friends who have taken it up and ruined their lives. I live a few miles from Stony Stratford.

 

[ajt09]

Good. Smoking is a disgusting habit with -literally- no benefits to the individual. If people want to kill themselves slowly, fine, but don't do it anywhere near me. A ban in public places is fine by me.

I agree that it is a filty habit, and smokers should never do it beside a non-smoker, which is why I don't. I don't to be responsible for making somebody else ill-they could have asthma for all i know. But isn't there a risk it could backfire-say smokers just disobey the ruling, and just say "stuff it I've had enough" and just totally disobey the ruling? I have a feeling there's going to be more cons than pros if this comes into force

 

[Sam]

I agree that it is a filty habit, and smokers should never do it beside a non-smoker, which is why I don't. I don't to be responsible for making somebody else ill-they could have asthma for all i know. But isn't there a risk it could backfire-say smokers just disobey the ruling, and just say "stuff it I've had enough" and just totally disobey the ruling? I have a feeling there's going to be more cons than pros if this comes into force

They can deal with the consequences.

 

[GodCubed]

I'm unsure where I stand with this to be honest. I am a smoker myself, however, I don't smoke any further than the back garden, and never smoke when the kids are around. However, how can something be banned, that is perfectly legal? I acknowledge that there is nothing worse than getting a face full of smoke, and having your clothes smelling of tobacco, and of course there's passive smoking. But it is LEGAL.

Having *** in private is legal, but in public it isn't. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it should be allowed in public.

And to me it smells a tiny bit odd, that this is being endorsed, but the government gets more than a nice little earner from the revenue of tobacco.

And the jury is still out on whether it spends an equal or greater amount of that revenue on the NHS taking care of the smokers who develop complications from it.

And, what if someone does decide to light up, by him/herself, with absolutely no one around at all? Fined, thats what will happen.

Actually, if nobody's around, they won't get caught, and therefore not fined.

It seems that there are people who are more concerned about what everybody else is doing, except themselves.

So you're advocating the Government only working in its own interest?

And also, even odder, MP's are campaigning to relax smoking laws in pubs. While we're at it, why don't we ban the cars and buses that are belching toxic fumes aswell?

Because they have tangible benefits.

---------- Post added at 01:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 AM ----------

I agree that it is a filty habit, and smokers should never do it beside a non-smoker, which is why I don't. I don't to be responsible for making somebody else ill-they could have asthma for all i know. But isn't there a risk it could backfire-say smokers just disobey the ruling, and just say "stuff it I've had enough" and just totally disobey the ruling? I have a feeling there's going to be more cons than pros if this comes into force

Boo-******-hoo if they do disobey the ruling. The law is the law. They break it, they face the consequences.

 

[ajt09]

That's the bit i don't like though. Although I agree that laws are made to be followed, if so many people go against it, it's going to create a major backlog at courts (if it goes that far-not sure if it's on the spot fines or what as obviously it's not in effect just yet), and if the cases are dismissed because of counter claims, it's going to be a waste of tax payers money. Btw, if they do break it I'm not in anyway going to condone it-it has to be followed. plus can guarentee, somebody will take it the court of human rights, and it'll be reversed, making the whole thing a waste of time.

 

[Calum]

good hope its comes throughout the UK hate walking beside or past someone who is smoking and breathing in thier smoke

 

[ajt09]

Surprisingly, I'm listening to the debate on the radio, and it's pretty much 50/50. Even no-smokers are saying its a bad idea. Very surprised tbh.

 

[GodCubed]

That's the bit i don't like though. Although I agree that laws are made to be followed, if so many people go against it, it's going to create a major backlog at courts (if it goes that far-not sure if it's on the spot fines or what as obviously it's not in effect just yet),

As you said, depends on the law. I doubt it'll cause that much of a backlog anyway.

and if the cases are dismissed because of counter claims, it's going to be a waste of tax payers money.

Not as much waste as the negative externalities smoking causes.

Btw, if they do break it I'm not in anyway going to condone it-it has to be followed. plus can guarentee, somebody will take it the court of human rights, and it'll be reversed, making the whole thing a waste of time.

Hahaha. I'd love to see somebody take it to the court of human rights. "So what have you come here today for? Were you raped? Were you denied food? Held against your will? Tortured?" "NO! THEY STOPPED ME SLOWLY KILLING MYSELF WITH A SUBSTANCE THAT COSTS OTHERS MONEY"

 

[ajt09]

The more I've thought about it, the more I'm actually starting to come around to the idea. Thing is, if traffic wardens are going to be given the powers to impliment this fining system, well the majority are on power trips as it is lol. I think it needs more sensible planning. People dislike wardens enough as it is. Imagine if someone got a parking ticket, followed by a fine for smoking a ciggy. there'd be **** on lol. I think they should change the way they go about it

 

[Jake]

Boo-******-hoo if they do disobey the ruling. The law is the law. They break it, they face the consequences.

Except they won't, because the consequences will be pathetic, or won't be enforced at all, this is England after all.