ban smoking in cars

[andyst2409]

To me this isn't about smoking or not smoking / drinking or not drinking it's the erosion of choice, common sense and responsibility that this kind of legislation engenders.
It's all being chipped away piece by piece a little here a little there.

There's far too many blank faces and empty minds out there as it is, continue down this path and there'll be no need to make a decision on anything. This will lead to the whole 'nothing to do with me' attitude spiralling out of control as these people will rightly or wrongly believe that if the government has decided that it's their concern then it can't possibly have anything to do with the individuals themselves......

How did we all cope growing up in the 70's ?? EVERYBODY smoked, nothing in the fridge had a sell by date, buses, lorries and taxis caused months of fog in the Autumn and the only cyclists that wore crash helmets were motorcyclists...... As far as I know, everyone I went to Infant and junior school with are still alive and well (with the exception of a couple of accidental deaths - RTA's and one murder).

At some point in the future we'll not be able to take a dump without it passing inspection for the dietary approval legislation....
Paranoid? possibly but look at all the itty bitty legislation that gets passed all the time. Most of it you could argue rescinds a right here or a right there so where does it all stop?

why is it we see this but the PC do gooders cant? this is an excellent post and if there were someway of thanking you in this forum (karma etc) i would

 

[yoby]

There is a percentage of people who drink alcohol where their actions affect others, be it by verbal or physical abuse from drinking too much or by drink driver. However that percentage of alcohol drinkers is the vast minority. For the majority of people who drink alcohol they only affect themselves

Smokers however are the opposite. If I stand next to you whilst you smoke it directly affects me, every single time. Stand next to you whilst you drink a pint of ale and there is no effect to me.

That's silly !! - No-ones arguing that you won't smell like stale fags if you follow a smoker around all day, but you certainly won't keel over with breathing difficulties either. However, not many smokers will deliberately stalk a non-smoker just to waft their evil habit in your face, whereas a drunk in a bar may well just lash out at whoever's standing next to them but all of that is beside the point.. YOU CHOOSE whether to stand next to a smoker or not YOU CHOOSE whether to visit a friends house or not if he's a smoker YOU CHOOSE whether you want to travel in a friends car if he's a smoker.

I don't understand your point ??

 

[joescrivens]

....and you thats going to stop me???? If someone (god forbid) raped my gf you think i would stand by and let the police handle it???? no id go out there find the ********** and kill him. now thats an extreme i know but the same ethos applies.... I long ago gave up any hope of justice and law in this country as there seems to be no justice and as for law HA! just another system for the government (whichever one) to gather more money ie our police today are nothing more than glorified traffic wardens ... but in a social sense.

firstly, i can't believe you just compared breaking a law that was passed to somebody raping your gf. How is it about ethos? and secondly yes it would stop you because you'd be in jail. If you want to spend your life going to jail every 6 months for assaulting an officer then thats up to you but it would be pretty stupid that you'd rather spend your life in jail just so you could smoke in your car.

Its obviously YOU who dont see the the difference here..... if i am smoking in a place where i am allowed by law YOU HAVE THE CHOICE to stand next to me or not..... whereas YOU would have MY CHOICE whether i would like to smoke or not removed..... ie i have to live my life by YOUR rules????

two words to that and the second one is off!

If what you are doing is directly affecting the people around you's health then yes you should live by their rules and stop being so selfish. You are allowed to smoke outside a building and the effect that has is that as soon as I leave a building i have to now wade through a fog of cancer to get out of it. Non smokers didn't have a choice about not inhaling smoke in this world before the smoking ban because you could smoke near us. If you want to kill yourself, go do it where it doesn't affect me!

 

[joescrivens]

That's silly !! - No-ones arguing that you won't smell like stale fags if you follow a smoker around all day, but you certainly won't keel over with breathing difficulties either. However, not many smokers will deliberately stalk a non-smoker just to waft their evil habit in your face, whereas a drunk in a bar may well just lash out at whoever's standing next to them but all of that is beside the point.. YOU CHOOSE whether to stand next to a smoker or not YOU CHOOSE whether to visit a friends house or not if he's a smoker YOU CHOOSE whether you want to travel in a friends car if he's a smoker.

I don't understand your point ??

you are making out like the non smoker chooses all these things but they don't. Like I said when I walk out of a building now i'm confronted by a cancerous smog - What's my choice hear? Stay in the building forever?

For the most part now thats the only example so I'm more than glad with the way things are, my point was in reference to why the smoking ban in the first place was just, when people could smoke in pubs my only choice was that I couldn't go into pubs - not much of a choice if you ask me. The smoker had a choice - he can go to the pub and when needed a fag, go outside. That's why the smoking ban came in and the argument that alcohol has the same effect is mute.

 

[Catdaddy]

Just ban smoking full stop, then there wouldn't be a problem with enforcement.

Huh? You only need to enforce legislation if something is illegal or restricted in some way - ie banned. If you don't want the enforcement, don't go for the ban in the first place...

Better yet, ban everything that's bad for us and have the authorities spoonfeed us every single life choice that we would have been able to make otherwise...

 

[Steep]

yoby it's not about smelly clothes, it's about carcinogens. The trouble with smokers is that they can't smell it the way a non smoker can, just walking down the street I can be hit in the face by a waft of some persons cigarette smoke, they don't have to be standing next to me. In a confined space it's many times worse.

I'm an ex smoker, they say ex smokers are the most vehement crusaders against it and that's right for a good reason, we have seen the coin from both sides. You cannot realise how much smoking harms you until you stop doing it.

 

[yoby]

but hasnt the quality of life and life expectancy increased in the last 40 years? Surely thats the direct affect of a lot of these changes due to health.

You might argue that your quality of life hasn't increased as a smoker, but mine certainly has as a non smoker the fact I am less exposed to smoke

Quality of life? Really? - Its subjective in that I have no idea how you rate quality, so we will certainly differ in opinion on this but I wouldn't say so.
As I alluded to earlier, society in general is excusing itself of it's moral social and community responsibilities as (in my opinion) a result of these types of laws that attempt to deal with what should be common sense and politeness... That's not an improvement on where we were in 1980 (or insert any random decade except this one).

Life expectancy is definitely increasing, and bringing with it it's own problems - There's an argument that this may be directly as a result of the nanny state but I would expect that there's plenty of other reasons for it as well, banning people smoking in their cars (then perhaps in any public place indoors or out, then perhaps in their own homes) won't make the slightest bit of difference to health, wealth, happiness or life expectancy. If that was really the ultimate goal it'd be far easier to just increase the tax on fags a few thousand percent.....

 

[Steep]

At last someone who gets it...... yes it is MY CHOICE something alot of people would take away from me if they could.

Nobody wants to stop you killing yourself slowly, we just want you to stop killing those around you slowly, get it?

 

[yoby]

yoby it's not about smelly clothes, it's about carcinogens. The trouble with smokers is that they can't smell it the way a non smoker can, just walking down the street I can be hit in the face by a waft of some persons cigarette smoke, they don't have to be standing next to me. In a confined space it's many times worse.

I'm an ex smoker, they say ex smokers are the most vehement crusaders against it and that's right for a good reason, we have seen the coin from both sides. You cannot realise how much smoking harms you until you stop doing it.

I also don't smoke....... Are you suggesting that walking down the high street (as it obviously wouldn't happen in a modern shopping centre) behind someone having a crafty and very public fag that the puff of smoke over your shoulder is causing you long lasting an serious harm? Really?

you are making out like the non smoker chooses all these things but they don't. Like I said when I walk out of a building now i'm confronted by a cancerous smog - What's my choice hear? Stay in the building forever?

For the most part now thats the only example so I'm more than glad with the way things are, my point was in reference to why the smoking ban in the first place was just, when people could smoke in pubs my only choice was that I couldn't go into pubs - not much of a choice if you ask me. The smoker had a choice - he can go to the pub and when needed a fag, go outside. That's why the smoking ban came in and the argument that alcohol has the same effect is mute.

Cancerous fog outside building doors - Did this happen before the legislation was brought in to ban smoking inside buildings???? - Most offices had smoking areas or rooms that were out of the way, most pubs prior to the ban had smoking areas and non smoking areas but I digress - That's not the fault of the smokers where else should they go to indulge in their vice of choice?

Also, I wasn't arguing that alcohol has the same affect as smoke - that was to illustrate what a daft comparison it was in the first place - Kind of lost track of where that once came from. For the record I'm not against the ban on smoking in pubs per se, I just feel that it could have perhaps been left to be a choice thing (i.e it's up to the landlord/owner whether he wants to have smokers in or not) rather than a punishable by fine act of legislation - It's not necessary......

 

[andyst2409]

secondly yes it would stop you because you'd be in jail. If you want to spend your life going to jail every 6 months for assaulting an officer then thats up to you but it would be pretty stupid that you'd rather spend your life in jail just so you could smoke in your car.

seriously now..... are you for real..... i just cant belive such horrible people exist in the country i fought for.

choice its all about choice its what i fought for, .... you dont like smokers..... fair enough YOU have the choice not to be around them and dont give me that sanctimonius crap about breathing in our toxins...you go outside dont you? THEN YOU ARE ALREADY BREATHING IN TOXINS FAR WORSE THAN OUR PASSIVE SMOKE or are you just too thick/stupid/dumb to acknowladge that. :bang:

go do an anyalasis on the ***** that pours out of buses trains planes wagons before moaning on about passive smoke toxins

 

[Steep]

I also don't smoke....... Are you suggesting that walking down the high street (as it obviously wouldn't happen in a modern shopping centre) behind someone having a crafty and very public fag that the puff of smoke over your shoulder is causing you long lasting an serious harm? Really?

That is exactly what I am suggesting yes.

 

[Catdaddy]

you are making out like the non smoker chooses all these things but they don't. Like I said when I walk out of a building now i'm confronted by a cancerous smog - What's my choice hear? Stay in the building forever?

For the most part now thats the only example so I'm more than glad with the way things are, my point was in reference to why the smoking ban in the first place was just, when people could smoke in pubs my only choice was that I couldn't go into pubs - not much of a choice if you ask me. The smoker had a choice - he can go to the pub and when needed a fag, go outside. That's why the smoking ban came in and the argument that alcohol has the same effect is mute.

You don't have to stay in the building forever, Joe... In fact, just think about the poor health of all us smokers, having to stand outside in the lousy English weather, risking our own (already-poor) health for you to have a nice clean smoke-free environment... Think of the pneumonia we might get... Take pity on us - with our bad health, we should be the ones inside, all nice and cosy in a warm pub with a nice warm beer while you lot show your ox-like constitutions off by drinking outside!

*Excuse me while I just remove the tongue from my cheek now...*

Seriously though, you've just said that the smokers have to be outside. Okay, fair enough - we've worn that, and we do go outside for a smoke. Our inconvenience, but our choice. But then you're saying that you don't want to have to go out and walk through a cloud of smoke that's more than likely already dissipating... You can't have it both ways, otherwise you become as guilty of what you're accusing smokers outside a pub of doing - forcing your choice upon other people. Wouldn't there be another way out of the building that you could go?

 

[Steep]

THEN YOU ARE ALREADY BREATHING IN TOXINS FAR WORSE THAN OUR PASSIVE SMOKE or are you just too thick/stupid/dumb to acknowladge that. :bang:

I'd say if you can't make your point without attacking and insulting board members, it's time you quit this thread, even if you won't quit smoking.

 

[joescrivens]

Cancerous fog outside building doors - Did this happen before the legislation was brought in to ban smoking inside buildings???? - Most offices had smoking areas or rooms that were out of the way, most pubs prior to the ban had smoking areas and non smoking areas but I digress - That's not the fault of the smokers where else should they go to indulge in their vice of choice?

It was there before the ban and it's worse now. I don't know of any pubs that had a non smoking area. Not in my town anyway, it was throughout the pub, restaurants perhaps yes but not your standard pubs pub.

Where should they go? Who cares, as long as it doesn't affect the non smoker I don't mind. They made the choice to pick a lifestyle that harms them and others around so they should be accepting of having to do it out of the way.

Also, I wasn't arguing that alcohol has the same affect as smoke - that was to illustrate what a daft comparison it was in the first place - Kind of lost track of where that once came from. For the record I'm not against the ban on smoking in pubs per se, I just feel that it could have perhaps been left to be a choice thing (i.e it's up to the landlord/owner whether he wants to have smokers in or not) rather than a punishable by fine act of legislation - It's not necessary......

it came from andy saying that alcohol is just as bad as passive smoking or worse. and I agree it is a daft comparison which is what led me to explain why in the first place

 

[Yv]

Nobody wants to stop you killing yourself slowly, we just want you to stop killing those around you slowly, get it?

...and we repeat again, MOST smokers these days ARE much more considerate of those around them and as Yoby has said, those few that aren't, no amount of legislation is going to stop them anyway, they will simply ignore it.

I am sorry, I fail to see how anyone can differentiate between the ill effects of 'passive smoking' and those of already illegal yet regular problems caused by other habits, whether its drugs and its associated crime or alcohol and its effect of the people around people around those that do it to excess. They all affect other people in some way, physically/mentally or both and cost the tax payer in some way - and that is seemple.





oh and can we please not get personal or the thread WILL have to close, lets keep the debate civil please all

 

[Steep]

You know if smoking wasn't addictive we wouldn't be having this argument.

 

[joescrivens]

You don't have to stay in the building forever, Joe... In fact, just think about the poor health of all us smokers, having to stand outside in the lousy English weather, risking our own (already-poor) health for you to have a nice clean smoke-free environment... Think of the pneumonia we might get... Take pity on us - with our bad health, we should be the ones inside, all nice and cosy in a warm pub with a nice warm beer while you lot show your ox-like constitutions off by drinking outside!

*Excuse me while I just remove the tongue from my cheek now...*

Seriously though, you've just said that the smokers have to be outside. Okay, fair enough - we've worn that, and we do go outside for a smoke. Our inconvenience, but our choice. But then you're saying that you don't want to have to go out and walk through a cloud of smoke that's more than likely already dissipating... You can't have it both ways, otherwise you become as guilty of what you're accusing smokers outside a pub of doing - forcing your choice upon other people. Wouldn't there be another way out of the building that you could go?

yes, if there was a different exit I'd be happy with that, you can have the smokers exit and i'll take the non smokers one. I'm not against going a different way if i have the choice, as long as there is a choice. If there is only one exit out of a building then the smoking area should be away from that exit in my opinion. Then it's my choice if I want to walk out of the exit and into your smoking area or not.

 

[andyst2409]

I'd say if you can't make your point without attacking and insulting board members, it's time you quit this thread, even if you won't quit smoking.

sadly i think your right

its a much contested debate with passions running high on both sides, and i think i get too passionate when faced with someone else cramming their opinions down my throat...... and before anyone replies to that i acknowladge i'm probably just as guilty of that when my backs up

so i'll leave this thread,

go outside

have a smoke, and calm down

 

[yoby]

That is exactly what I am suggesting yes.

How much are of their smoke are you inhaling in with that fresh air?
It's done to death and we're never going to agree but a couple of wafts of second hand smoke isn't going to do you any more damage than all the other crap that smokers and non smokers alike inhale every day. Not just talking about car fumes - there's toxins in furniture, carpet and god knows what else indoors as well.

Happy to stand corrected if someone could show me otherwise though.

 

[joescrivens]

go outside

have a smoke, and calm down

just make sure you aren't near me

 

[Just Dave]

...and we repeat again, MOST smokers these days ARE much more considerate of those around them and as Yoby has said, those few that aren't, no amount of legislation is going to stop them anyway, they will simply ignore it.

I am sorry, I fail to see how anyone can differentiate between the ill effects of 'passive smoking' and those of already illegal yet regular problems caused by other habits, whether its drugs and its associated crime or alcohol and its effect of the people around people around those that do it to excess. They all affect other people in some way, physically/mentally or both and cost the tax payer in some way - and that is seemple.

oh and can we please not get personal or the thread WILL have to close, lets keep the debate civil please all

LOL what makes me laugh non smokers and keep fit fanatics, they moan about us smokers and then go for a run along a road where theres more toxic car and wagon traffic fumes, surely thats even worst, OH No theyll probably ban cars now

 

[andyst2409]

just make sure you aren't near me

no hard feelings joe

 

[Yv]

yes, if there was a different exit I'd be happy with that, you can have the smokers exit and i'll take the non smokers one. I'm not against going a different way if i have the choice, as long as there is a choice. If there is only one exit out of a building then the smoking area should be away from that exit in my opinion. Then it's my choice if I want to walk out of the exit and into your smoking area or not.

Actually, a small story about that - you may be surprised to know that one thing I hate is walking down a street of offices and seeing a group of smokers outside the main door, butts all over the floor. Winds me up a treat. Smoking is still legal and it would not cost companies much to specify a smoking area and provide a couple of ashtrays - instead of which we still often see big fancy office blocks, all marble and glass fronts and a warm and smoky welcome for the visitors. I appreciate that in some locations, it may not be an option, but in most, its totally doable with a little imagination and thought and would benefit pretty much everyone - the company keep the smokers away from the main door, that area is kept tidy and presentable and the smoking employees have their own area. Oh and before anyone says it, no, I don't agree with smokers taking 'extra' breaks above and beyond what non smoking staff are allowed, I didn't do it when I was office based.

 

[Catdaddy]

Thinking about it, I can see why smoking should be banned from pubs. Certainly from real ale pubs, anyway... largely due to the inherent fire risk due to gas ignition from the lighters - you ever tried Pale Rider? It's like instant IBS in a bottle...

yes, if there was a different exit I'd be happy with that, you can have the smokers exit and i'll take the non smokers one. I'm not against going a different way if i have the choice, as long as there is a choice. If there is only one exit out of a building then the smoking area should be away from that exit in my opinion. Then it's my choice if I want to walk out of the exit and into your smoking area or not.

I'd suggest having a word with the landlord then... surely there should be more than one exit to a pub? Wouldn't there be a fire reg about that? Either that or get him to put one of those wall-mounted ashtray things a few feet away from the door...

 

[joescrivens]

LOL what makes me laugh non smokers and keep fit fanatics, they moan about us smokers and then go for a run along a road where theres more toxic car and wagon traffic fumes, surely thats even worst, OH No theyll probably ban cars now

now that is a choice. They can choose to run somewhere different - there's tons of places to run in this world that dont have lots of traffic - even in cities.

But pubs are pubs, you can't get beer from macdonalds!!!

 

[joescrivens]

Actually, a small story about that - you may be surprised to know that one thing I hate is walking down a street of offices and seeing a group of smokers outside the main door, butts all over the floor. Winds me up a treat. Smoking is still legal and it would not cost companies much to specify a smoking area and provide a couple of ashtrays - instead of which we still often see big fancy office blocks, all marble and glass fronts and a warm and smoky welcome for the visitors. I appreciate that in some locations, it may not be an option, but in most, its totally doable with a little imagination and thought and would benefit pretty much everyone - the company keep the smokers away from the main door, that area is kept tidy and presentable and the smoking employees have their own area. Oh and before anyone says it, no, I don't agree with smokers taking 'extra' breaks above and beyond what non smoking staff are allowed, I didn't do it when I was office based.

agreed!

 

[omega63]

FREE COUNTRY not any more..

 

[Yv]

now that is a choice. They can choose to run somewhere different - there's tons of places to run in this world that dont have lots of traffic - even in cities.

But pubs are pubs, you can't get beer from macdonalds!!!

My feeling on this is that landlords should have had the choice based on their own knowledge of their regular clientele. I don't want smoking in restaurants or food areas, despite being a smoker but in straightforward bar areas, each to their own. Many had already split areas anyway and some had already voluntarily gone down the smoke free route. I think that could have been much more actively encouraged to give everyone choice. Yes, I do think he recession has also affected pubs, especially with the supermarket alcohol battles meaning booze is no longer just a bit cheaper there, but substantially cheaper. However, when both factors are taken into account, many pubs didn't stand a chance!


FWIW, the pub we now use when we do go out, has installed a covered in area outdoors that is very welcoming, decorated like an interior room and warm....the one down the road didn't - guess which one is still open and thriving?

 

[yoby]

You know if smoking wasn't addictive we wouldn't be having this argument.

Lol can't argue with that one !!

 

[joescrivens]

My feeling on this is that landlords should have had the choice based on their own knowledge of their regular clientele. I don't want smoking in restaurants or food areas, despite being a smoker but in straightforward bar areas, each to their own. Many had already split areas anyway and some had already voluntarily gone down the smoke free route. I think that could have been much more actively encouraged to give everyone choice. Yes, I do think he recession has also affected pubs, especially with the supermarket alcohol battles meaning booze is no longer just a bit cheaper there, but substantially cheaper. However, when both factors are taken into account, many pubs didn't stand a chance!

well, i like to go into the normal bar area and i don't want to have to breathe in smoke. Plus why should the workers have to suffer it day in and day out behind the bar. The smokers choose to smoke and they can continue to smoke, just not inside - i don't see it as a big deal. If pubs can create good outdoor ares for the smokers then thats good too, i don't want to force you to stop doing what you want to do, i just don't want it to affect my life since the smoker is the one who made the choice in the first place to smoke.

I think the ban was the right thing and whilst it could have lead to some closures, once people forget they used to be able to smoke anywhere they wanted the pub trade will pick up again like it has already started to do. AT least I think so anyway

 

[Flash In The Pan]

seriously now..... are you for real..... i just cant belive such horrible people exist in the country i fought for.

choice its all about choice its what i fought for, .... you dont like smokers..... fair enough YOU have the choice not to be around them and dont give me that sanctimonius crap about breathing in our toxins...you go outside dont you? THEN YOU ARE ALREADY BREATHING IN TOXINS FAR WORSE THAN OUR PASSIVE SMOKE or are you just too thick/stupid/dumb to acknowladge that. :bang:

go do an anyalasis on the ***** that pours out of buses trains planes wagons before moaning on about passive smoke toxins

Perhaps smokers should be fitted with catalytic converters too then

 

[omega63]

Sorry but why should the smokers go outside ? Why not the NON SMOKERS we all have choices.....

 

[yoby]

well, i like to go into the normal bar area and i don't want to have to breathe in smoke. Plus why should the workers have to suffer it day in and day out behind the bar. The smokers choose to smoke and they can continue to smoke, just not inside - i don't see it as a big deal. If pubs can create good outdoor ares for the smokers then thats good too, i don't want to force you to stop doing what you want to do, i just don't want it to affect my life since the smoker is the one who made the choice in the first place to smoke.

I think the ban was the right thing and whilst it could have lead to some closures, once people forget they used to be able to smoke anywhere they wanted the pub trade will pick up again like it has already started to do. AT least I think so anyway

You won't find many smokers arguing this one - most have accepted that that's the way life is in this day and age, though as I said earlier and Yv expanded on more eloquently it should have been more of a choice thing than an outright ban.

But private vehicles is an altogether different thing, I know people that will drive themselves somewhere if they aren't able to smoke in someone else's car - they choose to do this without complaint. Why is it so difficult for non smokers to apply the same consideration and thought the other way?

 

[Marcel]

Smoking should be banned outright. Simple as.

 

[joescrivens]

Sorry but why should the smokers go outside ? Why not the NON SMOKERS we all have choices.....

is that a serious question?

The smoker chooses to pollute the air. It is their choice. therefore they should pollute the air where it has a less damaging effect. i.e. outside. They can then go inside and outside. Inside whilst they don't smoke and outside whilst they do.

The non smoker isn't harming the natural air so they should be given priority to be able to be inside without being harmed.

the smokers choice to smoke means they should suffer the consequences of having to do so in a less polluting environment to those who choose not to.

 

[omega63]

Yea right......

"Smoking should be banned outright. Simple as. "

 

[Splog]

Sorry but why should the smokers go outside ? Why not the NON SMOKERS we all have choices.....

And the diners..... Nothing worse than the smell of food whilst Im drinking Same with the noise they make! ... Its disgusting.

 

[yoby]

Smoking should be banned outright. Simple as.

Marcel you forgot to add that we should all pay an extra 5p in the pound tax to cover the 11 billion revenue shortfall. Plus an additional 5p for enforcement costs and an additional 5p to fight the new criminal activities that spring up around the now illegal tobacco trade.

That's before the corporation tax that the tobacco companies have to cough up

😃😃😃

 

[joescrivens]

You won't find many smokers arguing this one - most have accepted that that's the way life is in this day and age, though as I said earlier and Yv expanded on more eloquently it should have been more of a choice thing than an outright ban.

But private vehicles is an altogether different thing, I know people that will drive themselves somewhere if they aren't able to smoke in someone else's car - they choose to do this without complaint. Why is it so difficult for non smokers to apply the same consideration and thought the other way?

my only desire is for the smoker to not be able to smoke whilst children are in the car. Mostly the child has no choice and shouldn't be punished for doing so. If most smokers are considerate and don't smoke in the car anyway then it won't be a big deal for them, so why would they oppose it.

As for the comment earlier as to whether it is cheaper to educate, i don't know how much it costs to get a law passed but i would imagine passing a law that resulted in fines would cost less that creating an educational program. whether they would be each as effective is another debate altogether

 

[omega63]

is that a serious question?

The smoker chooses to pollute the air. It is their choice. therefore they should pollute the air where it has a less damaging effect. i.e. outside. They can then go inside and outside. Inside whilst they don't smoke and outside whilst they do.

The non smoker isn't harming the natural air so they should be given priority to be able to be inside without being harmed.

the smokers choice to smoke means they should suffer the consequences of having to do so in a less polluting environment to those who choose not to.

YES