UKC

A new proposal to extend the smoking ban to Londons parks and 'public spaces'

Necessary or nanny-stateism?

Seems rather absurd to me but then I live half the year in a country with no ban in or outside so maybe not quite so sensitive as others on this fair isle

In reply to Kimono:

Does seem excessive. I'm a big fan of the ban in pubs and restaurants, but there are clear benefits with regard to passive smoking (and not smelling like an ashtray).

The guy who wrote the report seems to think he has the Mayor's support. I can't see Boris going for it.

In reply to Kimono:

Damned good idea which should be incorporated to include all National Parks where there are mountains and crags.

In reply to Kimono:

I would rather see them ban cigarettes and rolling papers. Make all smokers smoke pipes and then we wouldn't have tab ends littering the place. It would smell nicer too.

In reply to Kimono:
Seems like the first crystal clear evidence that the anti-smoking campaign isn't as aligned with health concerns as it purports to be.

Labeling on packaging - fair enough, doesn't seem to be backed up by any evidence but an attempt at informing smokers and discouraging children
Bans in enclosed places - fair enough, most smokers are happy with this and passive smoking is a genuine health risk
Campaign for plain packaging - again, fairly strong evidence it's ineffective but is at least an attempt to make it less appealing to children
Banning smoking in parks - really? I'm not sure how this will "save lives" and along with the proposed ban on all smoking in vehicles it seems that the anti-smoking brigade have finally got bored of basing their new bans on any kind of pro-health basis at all.

I'm incredibly surprised there hasn't been a ban on smoking within say 500 meters of any school, lest some evil smoker blows their smoke at a child with such velocity that it makes a bee line through the wind and suffocates more innocent children.

In reply to Sharp:

Remember the people most at risk from smoking are smokers. Anything that makes smoking less attractive will have clear benefits to health of the individual, to NHS resources and to those affected by the smoker - not just in terms of secondary smoke but in terms of loss of a parent, carer or economic provider.

Don't think this will happen, but I can see clear objective benefits if it did

In reply to Sharp:

Do you think the dramatic decline in smoking would have occurred without these changes? Generally making smoking difficult and unacceptable seems to make it less prevalent.

I'm a bit torn. On the one hand smoking is serious public health problem so any reduction is a good thing, on the other I don't like people being told what they can and can not do all the time. Personally I think banning smoking in outdoor, open public places is going too far.

In reply to Sharp:


I don't think it is about directly saving lives. It is about change culture. Parks are areas of recreation and health in cities that are often polluted, dirty and noisy. Smoking doesn't really fit into the idea of a park being a healthy place to be. At least that is the idea behind this proposal. Others may disagree but it seems reasonable to me.

In reply to ByEek:

But London parks appear to be places where there already is a strong “fitness culture” ? - perhaps it’s better to encourage rather than ban smokers, as all those fit people running about might make them think about giving up.

In reply to Kimono:

I'm sick of smokers ruining my enjoyment of bus and taxi fumes, sooner they ban it the better

In reply to Kimono:

I'd like to see a ban go further. Every morning I lock my bike at Waterloo and, due to the layout of the racks, you have to squeeze past smokers to get out. It's an 'open' area, so South West trains say that there is nothing they can do.

I don't think you should go as far as parks - but we could certainly go further to identify areas where people congregate in a confined space - regardless of whether it has a roof. Bus stops would be another example.

In reply to toad:

No there's a profound difference between those two things - one is protecting society from the individual, the other is protecting the individual from themselves. There are far greater health risks and if you're worried about NHS resources then the NHS spends far, far more on alcohol and obesity related illnesses. NHS spending for diabetes alone outstrips smoking by a long way.

In reply to ByEek:


That's just what I heard on the news, "this will save lives", although I wasn't paying attention enough to hear who said it.

In reply to Sharp:

Suspect the 'saving lives' there means in the long term it will create a culture where less people will smoke, rather than saving people killed through passive smoking.

In reply to Kimono:

There should be a ban on smoking in places where non-smokers have cause to be, along with proper channels by which non-smokers can appeal for areas to be included in the ban.

Plenty of non-smokers use train stations and, although smoking is banned inside these stations, this does not solve the problem. Non-smokers still have to walk over mounds of fag-ends, through a cloud of smoke and blizzard of ash to enter and exit the station because the first thing anyone does when they step through the doors is light up.

Non-smokers have good reasons to be in public parks and pub gardens and thus smoking should be banned in those locations.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


Maybe. Just this last minute I was sitting under the canopy of the Welsh National Assembly building watching the world go by whilst eating my lunch. A couple of smokers turn up 20m away, but their smoke created a stench that was rather unpleasant. I had to move.

Maybe I am a whining complaining pain? But maybe what they were doing is rather antisocial?

In reply to Xharlie:

My pet hate is outside Leeds station where everyone lights up despite it being under cover and signposted that it's a non-smoking area, meaning walking through clouds of smoke every time you go in/out of the station. I think the station staff have given up enforcing it, and on occasion I have (politely) pointed the signs out to people they've not reacted well - to understate it a bit! IMO it should be banned in cars, parks, and all public places.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


How about allowing smoking in public parks, but only if the smoker is jogging...?

In reply to Kimono: already happened in New York, apparently

In reply to toad:


I thought that got thrown out as illegal?

In reply to Sharp:


The CMO was quoted as saying it set a bad example to children, who might be encouraged to start smoking, so saving future lives.

I notice Boris hasn't committed yet but it's worrying that he thinks it's feasible.

In reply to JayPee630:

Yes, public transport hubs are really bad for this. Transport companies who manage these spaces seem to be slow in cottoning on the fact that if you make non-smokers walk through a wall of smoke before they enter / exit a station, they invariably view the whole travel experience as a negative one.

It's kind of like making me walk through sewage every time I go to the station...(well maybe not that bad...)

In reply to Kimono:

They should ban at Theme Parks and Outdoor concerts...
Nothing worse than standing in a long queue next to someone who is constantly smoking....

Euge

In reply to winhill:


I also heard that that was the reason for it.

Set a bad example to children? WHAT? So the next logical step is banning all setting of bad examples, e.g.:

*Parents eating too much or eating the wrong things
*Parents drinking too much alcohol
*Parents watching too much TV
*Parents shouting at each other
*Parents climbing dangerous rocks.

FFS.

In reply to JMGLondon:

There is, and has been for years, a sign requesting smokers not to crowd round the doors at Euston. It works some of the time but not others.

Neil

In reply to Xharlie:

Yes and can we ban drinking as well because there are sometimes non drinkers about and you know, it makes the floor sticky when they spill it and they piss and puke in the street and litter and make pubs smell like stale beer. So drinkers should really be banned from places where non-drinkers are. And fast food places, I don't eat them but the other day I had to sit eating my spinnach and ricotta tart and the smell just came right at me. Then there's all the rubbish they cause, the health risks and don't get me started on the children, what a bad example. They should be banned from places where people who don't eat fast food might be. Also sometimes I drive, sometimes I cycle, but if I drive cyclists get in my way and if I cycle cars get in my way. Couldn't we have a system where when I'm driving cyclists are banned and when I'm cycling cars are banned, that way the world will revolve completely around me.


I do wonder at what's happening to this country. First it's "Oh yes but it's a health risk to passers by...and the children of course", then it's "a health risk to the smoker themselves" and then it's just blatent "I don't like it so you can all bugger off to places I don't go to because I don't like it". A blizzard of ash, f*ck me.

In reply to Sharp:

These debates are so predictable but, because it hasn't already been said, in this thread: drinking, eating fast food and cycling does not affect the health of others. Being drunk and disorderly in public is not currently permitted, neither is littering.

Smoking does affect the health of others and, for no apparent reason, fag-ends aren't considered litter by the public, despite the modern fines for dropping them. (Fines which I have never seen enforced.)

Walking in and out of Waterloo is the low-point of my every working day and, yes, there are large, obvious no-smoking signs on the wall outside the doors on the upper level. Nobody enforces the rules and nobody follows them.

In reply to Xharlie:
The point is that this legislation isn't about the health of others, that's why it hasn't been said. The reason for the proposed ban isn't that smoking in parks has adverse affects on the health of others, it seems to be the arguments are that it will discourage children from smoking and it's unsightly.


Neither is throwing fag buts down. If you throw a cigarette butt on the ground in front of a policeman you'll be fined just as much as you would for littering (and it's quite visibly enforced imo). None of them are fully enforced and there's fag buts around, drunk people in the streets every night and litter everywhere. You want to ban smoking to stop the former but you're not calling for a ban on the others. To me I would think the logical conclusion of your points would be to find better ways of enforcing the rules, not ban smoking anywhere a non-smoker is.