It was going to happen, it really was just a matter of time. Anyway the Executive have now taken the decision and all smoking in clubs, pubs and restaurants will be banned in Scotland as from Spring 2006. This will give the pubs etc plenty of time to adjust and start making changes now. There are quite a few restaurants in Edinburgh that have a no-smoking policy and there are a couple of pubs that have followed suit. Pubs is a difficult one as drink and smoking go hand in hand, and I can understand the smokers being up in arms about it, but coming from a non-smoker I am delighted!!!

I like to be able to go to restaurants where there is no-smoking as even if you get the smoke-free areas, the smoke still wafts over from the smoking area.

Glasgow will suffer though as it really is smoking heaven there, it was quite funny listening to all the smokers last night going on about "their rights" and that they will now have to smoke and drink at home and will probably drink more, hence become alcholics!!!!

This debate has been done before, but let's rekindle it now that Scotland has joined Dublin, New York and I think there are some other countries in Europe that have a no-smoking policy. Would this stop you or encourage you to visit Scotland?

This debate has been done before, but let's rekindle it now that Scotland has joined Dublin, New York and I think there are some other countries in Europe that have a no-smoking policy. Would this stop you or encourage you to visit Scotland?

This would neither stop or encourage me to visit Scotland.

Although I am a non-smoker and always have been most of my friends do smoke, so if I went to a bar with them that was non-smoking so they had to go outside to smoke, I would probably end up going outside with them whilst they had their fag as I wouldn't want to sit on my own being billy no mates.

I do think long term it is a good thing as hopefully it will discourage the young people from taking it up as it will be seen to be what it is, anti-social.

Well, despite being a smoker, I am glad this is happening. I will definately help me cut down on smoking when Im on a night out (that is if I haven't quit by then!)
Also, I don't think it is fair for non-smokers to be breathing in our smoke. I always make sure no one objects to me having a fag if im the pub or something. If they do, I simply don't have one or go outside.

So, Im all for this smoking ban !

I think it's a total disgrace and a gross abrogation of people's rights.

By all means enforce a law that non-smoking areas should be available everywhere, but banning it altogether?? You have more chance of being killed in a road accident that dying from passive smoking (the existence of which is tenuous to say the least - funny how the so called "supporting" evidence only emerges when the Government want to ban it) but I don't see anybody banning us all from using the road. Neither do I see anyone banning factories churning out pollutants in to the atmosphere, or banning us from eating junk food, having sugar in our tea, drinking alcohol etc.

Plenty of people commit violent acts after abusing alcohol but notably we are all allowed to do that!!

I definitely agree that people should be able to sit in a non-smoking area if they wish - no reason why they should breathe in smoke if they don't want to - but to deny smokers a fag when all these other things are going on seems to me to be nothing short of ludicrous.

I think it's a total disgrace and a gross abrogation of people's rights.

By all means enforce a law that non-smoking areas should be available everywhere, but banning it altogether?? You have more chance of being killed in a road accident that dying from passive smoking (the existence of which is tenuous to say the least - funny how the so called "supporting" evidence only emerges when the Government want to ban it) but I don't see anybody banning us all from using the road. Neither do I see anyone banning factories churning out pollutants in to the atmosphere, or banning us from eating junk food, having sugar in our tea, drinking alcohol etc.

Plenty of people commit violent acts after abusing alcohol but notably we are all allowed to do that!!

I definitely agree that people should be able to sit in a non-smoking area if they wish - no reason why they should breathe in smoke if they don't want to - but to deny smokers a fag when all these other things are going on seems to me to be nothing short of ludicrous.

So we won't be seeing you sightseeing in Scotland then, Ceri!!!???

So we won't be seeing you sightseeing in Scotland then, Ceri!!!???

Guess not Bella!!

:laugh:

I do see where you are coming from though, with regards cars, factory pollution etc. Although car drivers have been set on for quite some time now, with increased road-tax, the tolls to enter City centres. the increased parking (it costs 45p for 15 minutes in Edinburgh up until 6.30pm), they are very much anti-car here in Edinburgh.

I do think that restaurants should be non-smoking, I can't stand it when people light up during courses, it is just rude! I mean do people actually do that at home?? Ok, they may not be having 3 courses every day at home, but is it really necessary?

And yes, I am a non-smoker so I have a completely different point of view from Ceri who is a smoker. Of course smokers are going to be annoyed about it, but as has been mentioned before years ago there used to be smoking in cinemas and aeroplanes, it hasn't stopped people going to see a film or go abroad on holiday..............

Trouble is I just don't see the POINT of it. If you have mandatory non-smoking areas, you can sit in one. If you don't like smoking, you don't have to sit with smokers. If smoking is that dangerous, shouldn't it be illegal full stop? How come we can go to the supermarket and buy a vast array of other harmful products (booze, sugary foods, high fat foods, refined carbohydrates etc) and merrily consume them wherever we like, why should smoking be any different?

Like I say, I don't think people should be FORCED to endure smoking, but that could be solved quite simply without resorting to draconian measures.

NB. When are shorts in winter going to be banned, particularly tight fitting lycra ones on male cyclists?

I'm getting me kilt oot o storage me an me wheels will be heading north for breaks soon.

I am so vehemently anti smoking. I can say no more than that sentence. Debate is useless as I am fixed in my belief. Unmoveable uncompromising. I want it banned from everywhere except ones own garden or house or balcony.

Trouble is I just don't see the POINT of it. If you have mandatory non-smoking areas, you can sit in one. If you don't like smoking, you don't have to sit with smokers. If smoking is that dangerous, shouldn't it be illegal full stop?

No, you won't see the point because you are a smoker. Mandatory non-smoking areas, yes all well & good if they are totally seperate, I mean a wall and door seperating from the smoking area. I mean let's be honest here restaurants that offer non-smoking and smoking areas are a help but the smoke does waft over and what happens if you are given the seat on the border of smoking and non-smoking.

The point is I don't like my hair, clothes stinking of smoke but I do enjoy going out when I occassionally get the chance to. It is selfish and anti-social and smokers have had their way for a long time now, it is time that the non-smokers were given a bit of freedom and and for me it is one thing that the Labour Government in Scotland has done right!

Oh and sheoque, I adorn my kilt when you come up and we can do the Highland Fling together to celebrate!!! :wave:
And as for it being made illegal............maybe one day!!

So people that do things you don't like don't have any rights then?

And the publicans that don't want it banned because of the adverse effect it may have on their trade - they don't have the right to run their business the way they choose to?

They are talking about banning smoking in my borough, and I can assure you that a LOT of licensees are going spare about it. They don't want it banned, either because they are smokers themselves or because a lot of their customers are.

At the end of the day they should be allowed to run their business the way they see fit. If publicans wanted a smoking ban and believed it would work, why haven't they banned it already? There's no one stopping them is there? They can impose any rule they like in their own pub.

I am sure that if non smoking pubs were a good idea then most people would have already gone down that route. They still can if they want to - what I object to is the Government dictating that is how you MUST run your business and live your life. They are already telling us we can't smack our children...whatever next? Mandatory five mile runs every morning? A ban on giving your pet a silly name?

So people that do things you don't like don't have any rights then?



I didn't say that.

Your reason for wanting smoking banned is because you don't even like the vague wafting of smoke near you, even though there is no reason to suspect that a tiny bit of smoke in the air in a non-smoking area would cause you any harm. So what is the other reason for banning it?

And the publicans that don't want it banned because of the adverse effect it may have on their trade - they don't have the right to run their business the way they choose to?

They are talking about banning smoking in my borough, and I can assure you that a LOT of licensees are going spare about it. They don't want it banned, either because they are smokers themselves or because a lot of their customers are.

I am sure that if non smoking pubs were a good idea then most people would have already gone down that route. They still can if they want to - what I object to is the Government dictating that is how you MUST run your business and live your life. They are already telling us we can't smack our children...whatever next? Mandatory five mile runs every morning? A ban on giving your pet a silly name?

There are a lot of businesses that do just that though. There are loads of totally non-smoking restaurants in Edinburgh, that are packed day & night. There are now 3 pubs in Edinburgh that are totally non-smoking, one has been like that for almost 6 months and if anything it is busier because of that. The other two haven't reported a down-turn in business and state that everyone now benefits from it.

So what is the other reason for banning it?

The reason it is being banned in Scotland is because there was a vote and there was a huge majority wanting a smoking ban, not just me. It was not just decided in our super-duper new Parliament one day, " oh let's ban smoking in public places" This process has been on-going for a good few years now and it going to take at least 18 months before it is actually implemented.

That is precisely my point - those that don't want to smoke can go to the non-smoking places, and smokers can go to the pubs where smoking is allowed!! What's the problem with that??!

The reason it is being banned in Scotland is because there was a vote and there was a huge majority wanting a smoking ban, not just me. It was not just decided in our super-duper new Parliament one day, " oh let's ban smoking in public places" This process has been on-going for a good few years now and it going to take at least 18 months before it is actually implemented.

A recent poll by my own local authority showed it was a 52-48 split in favour of banning smoking. Hardly a convincing majority I would say.

That is precisely my point - those that don't want to smoke can go to the non-smoking places, and smokers can go to the pubs where smoking is allowed!! What's the problem with that??!

So what happens if a non-smoker wants to go to a pub, but doesn't want to be smoked out by all the smokers?!!! So is a non-smoker denied these rights to go to a pub?!!!

So what happens if a non-smoker wants to go to a pub, but doesn't want to be smoked out by all the smokers?!!! So is a non-smoker denied these rights to go to a pub?!!!

I don't really understand the question - why wouldn't a non-smoker go to a non-smoking pub? If you choose to go somewhere that isn't non-smoking, surely you know that to start with?

I think it's a total disgrace and a gross abrogation of people's rights.

By all means enforce a law that non-smoking areas should be available everywhere, but banning it altogether?? You have more chance of being killed in a road accident that dying from passive smoking (the existence of which is tenuous to say the least - funny how the so called "supporting" evidence only emerges when the Government want to ban it) but I don't see anybody banning us all from using the road. Neither do I see anyone banning factories churning out pollutants in to the atmosphere, or banning us from eating junk food, having sugar in our tea, drinking alcohol etc.

Plenty of people commit violent acts after abusing alcohol but notably we are all allowed to do that!!

I definitely agree that people should be able to sit in a non-smoking area if they wish - no reason why they should breathe in smoke if they don't want to - but to deny smokers a fag when all these other things are going on seems to me to be nothing short of ludicrous.

The point of it is that non-smokers shouldn't have to avoid going places because a few people want to smoke there. Non-smoking and smoking sections just does not work, as the smoke fills the entire restaurant/pub anyways. Truth is, no matter how you put it, smoking nearly always involves affecting others with the smoke that you blow out. Smoking has reached insane heights in many developing countries, in which acute respiratory diseases in children is one of the leading causes of death, which is most often a direct result of second-hand smoke. There is definite supporting evidence of the effects of second-hand smoke. And to say that it causes less deaths than car accidents is pointless when it can be controlled to where it is causing nearly zero deaths at all. I fully believe smoking is a personal choice, but i don't know how smokers can expect it is their right to do in public when it is directly hurting others.

I still maintain that individual premises are more than capable of banning it if they want to, but for some reason they don't. I can't say I would ever agree to it being banned everywhere, so as it's time for my tea now perhaps we had better agree to differ on that one!!

As an ex smoker I quietly rejoice in the banning of smoking.

But my biggest bone of contention is smokers who walk down the street waving their fags around (I never did this), having small children who's faces are at fag dangling height enrages me. :boxing:

But as said, I smoked for over 25 years so I tend to keep my views to myself.

Don't tell anyone will you?

But my biggest bone of contention is smokers who walk down the street waving their fags around (I never did this), having small children who's faces are at fag dangling height enrages me. :boxing:


I agree Cat - I would much rather if smoking is to be banned that it is banned in the street purely for the above reason. If you are walking in a crowded street more often or not it is really luck that you don't get burnt by a fag because the smoker is not looking what they are doing. At least you can avoid taking a child into a pub or restaurant if you know smoking is allowed there.

Smokers prattle on about how they won't be dictated to or controlled, when funnily enough they are being controlled and dictated to (in a sense) by FAGS!! Having never smoked I am not aware of the addiction, but know people who have tried and wanted to give up, but it is the addiction that stops them. And I am pretty sure that the tobacco companies will be shaking in their shoes because smoking is seen as anti-social, so obviously they are going to up the nicotine level in fags to get you hooked. I do find it sad that there are a lot of young people, especially girls smoking. I am sorry, but I just do not find the attraction in puffing away at something that is seriously going to harm you. It is not a pretty sight seeing smoke coming out of someone's nose and mouth....yuck, yuck, yuck! :sick:

I've never smoked, unless you count about five that I had when I was about 13 - and was vey very sick afterwards :sick: . Even so i find I agree more with Ceridwen's point of view than Bella's.

When the government bans or controls something that really affects people's lives in a multitude of ways, such as drinking alcohol to excess in public, then maybe it will be doing something brave. But picking on smokers is cowardly as it's an easy agrument to stir up and and an easy one to win. A lot of smokers know they should give up, but haven't got the willpower or incentive to and banning it appeals to their sense of guilt that they smoking, so that perhaps even some smokers agree with a smoking ban to help them quit.

I pick on drinking alcohol to excess even though I do enjoy a good drink myself. But it wrecks people's lives and not just the drinker's life but all those around him/her.

The point of it is that non-smokers shouldn't have to avoid going places because a few people want to smoke there. Non-smoking and smoking sections just does not work, as the smoke fills the entire restaurant/pub anyways. Truth is, no matter how you put it, smoking nearly always involves affecting others with the smoke that you blow out. Smoking has reached insane heights in many developing countries, in which acute respiratory diseases in children is one of the leading causes of death, which is most often a direct result of second-hand smoke. There is definite supporting evidence of the effects of second-hand smoke. And to say that it causes less deaths than car accidents is pointless when it can be controlled to where it is causing nearly zero deaths at all. I fully believe smoking is a personal choice, but i don't know how smokers can expect it is their right to do in public when it is directly hurting others.


Excellent Islandman. I couldn't have put it better myself.

The difference between pollution from a car and cigarette smoke, is that a car provides a service, whereas cigarettes are just a choice. The purpose doesn't really benefit anyone, only maybe the smoker superficially.

If you think about it, the smoker's rights are not being affected. They still have the right to have a cigarette, all they have to do is step outside. Smoking kills people and I, as a non-smoker, should be entitled to go into any place without putting my health at risk.

The sooner smoking is banned in all public places the better as far as I'm concerned.

According to the American College of Allergies, 50% of all illness is aggravated or caused by polluted indoor air.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) themselves declare that indoor air is anywhere from 2 to 10 times more hazardous than outdoor air.
The EPA also warns us that the indoor air quality is the United States' number one environmental health problem.
Today's homes and buildings are built air-tight, and contain a long list of pollution sources (see list). As a result, natural air-cleansing agents such as ozone and negative ions are kept out, while contaminants are kept in.
A recent study found that the allergen level in super-insulated homes is 200% higher than it is in ordinary homes.
According to Scientific America, a baby crawling on the floor inhales the equivalent of 4 cigarettes a day, as a result of the outgassing of carpets, molds, mildews, fungi, dust mites, etc.
Most people spend well over 90% of their time indoors. In which case, indoor air is going to impact our health far more than outdoor air.
The EPA informs us that 6 out of 10 homes and buildings are "sick", meaning they are hazardous to your health to occupy as a result of airborne pollutants.
Ban carpets, I say.

I heard this on the radio this morning as well. It looks like England is going to follow Scotland with a ban in the next few years.


Story here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4014597.stm

I've just been reading pretty much the same report in my local paper.

Most of you know I do smoke. But I prefer to eat meals in restaurants where there is no smoking. I can't stand a smokey atmosphere. We don't smoke in our house.
So a ban in places that are serving food I totally agree with.
As for the pubs and clubs I'm not so sure.
IMO pubs should have smoking and non-smoking rooms. A real ale pub I used to visit in Sheffield had been doing this for years and it worked. Smokers were in the rooms upstairs and non-smokers were in the rooms downstairs.
I think when the clubs get involved there is going to be problems. I really feel the owners of clubs have to decide for themselves. Again maybe smoking and non-smoking rooms might work.