They've finally done it.

[Wordbender]

Looks to me as if the people abusing alcohol pick the glass up and pour it down their neck, same as everyone else and just as the manufacturers intended.

 

Steve, smoking damages or kills the majority of those that do it. Drinking damages or kills a comparitively small minority of those that do it. There really is a vast difference between them.

[DavyR]

The case for banning public consumption of alcohol on public health grounds is clear.

 

There are quite a few areas now (even in small towns like the one where I live) that have been designated "no alcohol zones", and I think they're a good idea. There's a lot of difference between a crowd of people enjoying a quiet drink in a pub garden and gangs of youths or older drunks boozing on street corners and being generally obnoxious.

[Steve Walker]

Steve, smoking damages or kills the majority of those that do it. Drinking damages or kills a comparitively small minority of those that do it. There really is a vast difference between them.

 

A quantitative difference, not a qualitative one.

 

More than a third of all pedestrians killed in road accidents are over the legal alcohol limit for driving, rising to nearly 3/4 between 10pm and 4am. If they were only allowed to drink alcohol at home most of them wouldn't be on the streets.

 

From Alcohol Concern's website:

 

In 40% of all violent incidents the victim described the assailant as being under the influence of alcohol at the time of the offence. This includes 44% of domestic violence and17% of muggings

 

Alcohol use is associated with:

 

60-70% of homicides

70% of stabbings

70% of beatings

50% of fights or assaults in the home

 

In 2000, 19% of violent incidents took place in and around pubs and clubs, including 33% of assaults by strangers and 22% of assaults by acquaintances. The British Crime Survey also shows that people who visit pubs and clubs are 3 times as likely to experience violent attacks.

 

Screening of assault patients in accident and emergency departments has shown that between 65% and 80% were intoxicated at the time of the injury

 

I think I'm far more likely to be harmed by someone else's drunken violence than by passively inhaling their smoke.

[DavyR]

I think I'm far more likely to be harmed by someone else's drunken violence than by passively inhaling their smoke.

 

Depends very much on where you go and when, Steve. I've been happily going to pubs (including ones in cities) for over 30 years and can truthfully say that I've never once seen any violence or even bad temper.

 

On the other hand, if I was around any of the drinking establishments (I won't call them pubs) in Hanley or Newcastle-under-Lyme, late on a Friday or Saturday night, I would probably be lucky to get home unscathed...

 

I spent my childhood surrounded by a houseful of smokers and I'm pretty sure that contributed to the constant string of heavy colds (always ending in chesty coughs) that marked every October to March. As soon as I left home, my catarrh started to clear and I was never sickly again.

 

Only anecdotal evidence, I know...

[Lid]

I believe there were 34,500 deaths and serious injuries on British roads in 2004. I don't see many calls to ban driving!

[Ken Davison South Wales]

As someone who started smoking in my twenties, finished at thirty two and restarted at sixty I think the law is an ass.

 

The fines for non compliance are higher than you would receive for snorting a line of charlie, infact you might even get a knighthood or a more lucrative contract for the latter if you follow my drift.

 

I realise going into a smoke laden pub can be obnoxious to non smokers but you like smokers have a choice.

 

It is the same with work I have turned down a number of positions due to the risk involved, others have taken them up and to hell with the risk.

 

I honestly think that if tobacco is sold legally then depriving smokers of the oportunity to meet up socially, have a pint and a smoke is an infringement of their personal liberties.

 

Smokers clubs should be allowed and staff working in them should be smokers.

 

It seems to me that all parties have not got the balls to make tobacco illegal and want the income from tax, a very double standard to say the least.

[corydoras]

there will be a rush on outdoor heaters get shares now.

i have no problem (i do smoke) but the laws could be misconstrued if they are made to include a ban on smoking in workplaces ,mr white van man ,lorry drivers and taxi drivers etc could be knicked for a fag end in their ashtry seeing as these are considered work places.

pity foreigners are once more sticking their noses in my business again not that it makes much difference

Daft bit is if you are in a works vehicle on your own, you can smoke. If you have a mate with you, you cannot smoke, even if you are both smokers. At least that is how I think the legislation is framed north of the border.

 

On a personal note, I do smoke but don't really frequent pubs very often so I will not be much affected by this. As I have often posted before I don't really approve of goverments banning things but I think the vote on this went the right way. If you are going to have a ban then it may as well be a comprehensive one.

[gozzer]

As someone who started smoking in my twenties, finished at thirty two and restarted at sixty I think the law is an ass.

 

The fines for non compliance are higher than you would receive for snorting a line of charlie, infact you might even get a knighthood or a more lucrative contract for the latter if you follow my drift.

 

I realise going into a smoke laden pub can be obnoxious to non smokers but you like smokers have a choice.

 

It is the same with work I have turned down a number of positions due to the risk involved, others have taken them up and to hell with the risk.

 

I honestly think that if tobacco is sold legally then depriving smokers of the oportunity to meet up socially, have a pint and a smoke is an infringement of their personal liberties.

 

Smokers clubs should be allowed and staff working in them should be smokers.

 

It seems to me that all parties have not got the balls to make tobacco illegal and want the income from tax, a very double standard to say the least.

 

 

Spot on Ken

[Jim Roper]

We had a portacabin outside, at work, for those who wanted to smoke. Is that still allowed?

 

Didn't the US once try to ban alcohol?

[DavyR]

The fines for non compliance are higher than you would receive for snorting a line of charlie, infact you might even get a knighthood or a more lucrative contract for the latter if you follow my drift.

 

Snow - drift, very good, Ken!