Smoking outside should be banned too

You have lost me Englishman, please explain? (Other page)

Nice to see Blobet up to his usual mockery. The other page too much for you ?

They are entitled to abuse their bodies if that is their wish. It pays taxes. I am entitled to not to have to smell them poisoning themselves, however. I wouldn't fart where other people would be forced to endure the stench, so it's just polite for them to go away from others when they want to do it.

Just in from the Dirty Duck Legcan. You now have me at a loss. what is your point? I seem to have missed it. You can find so called facts to agree with any argument you like on the Internet. Have you not realised that?
For your own edification look up the Flat Earth society these lunes actually exist.

Yes, you are entitled to breaks. If your working day is longer than 6 consecutive hours you are entitled by law to a break of 20 minutes which can be designated as a lunch break,coffee break or whatever.

Most employers allow their workers longer than that for lunch but many offices no longer allow coffee or tea breaks and, as most cigarette breaks are in addition to lunch, smokers who go outside to puff are costing their employers money.

@ANON
Actually, breaks are designated by law. You are not supposed to work at your desk for prologned periods without breaks - fact, so whether it be for smoking or drinking coffee, your argument is 'flawed'.
@Boblet
My argument is based on fact. Read it again, do some research on the world wide web and you will see for yourself.
Whilst I sympathise with you for being mislead, it has been common knowledge for a very long time that smoking is indeed harmful. Back in the 60's, oil companies ran propaganda campaigns in which they claimed that sea life thrived when contaminated with oil - did you fall for that one too?

Well in anon very fair comments in my opinion. As for you "LEG CAN".
I used to smoke, I loved it, I have smoked a pipe, cigars, cigarettes, tailor made & rollups. I enjoyed it immensely. The tobacco industry & popular medical sources insisted it wasn't habit forming even my GP smoked. He also died of cancer. They totally refuted the fact that it was habit forming or injurious to health when I was smoking. Can you clear one thing up for me? Is your argument based on the flat earth principal or sound medical fact?

PS I have had a by-pass.

No, these are facts. Most offices don't allow coffee breaks any more by the way. Mine doesn't. You can make coffee but you drink it at your desk while working.

If you are going to call people retarded , a phrase that only the very stupid use, then learn how to spell "flawed".

@anon
That's ridiculous! 'loss of productivity due to smoking breaks'???!!! 'absenteeism'???!!! - your counter argument is completely floored. What about tea and coffee breaks? absenteeism as a result of smoking?! 'Loss of economic output from deaths of smokers'???!! - now you are getting desperate. The fact is, today more people are dying as a result of eating too much than are dying as a result of smoking. You have stolen somebody elses floored argument - you are retarded.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/archive/cancernews/2010-03-22-Tobacco-duty-must-rise-to-reflect-cost-of-smoking-to-society

"the cost of smoking is made up of the cost of treating smokers on the NHS (2.7 billion); loss in productivity due to smoking breaks (2.9 billion); increased absenteeism (2.9 billion); the cost of cleaning up cigarette butts (342 million); the cost of smoking-related fires (507 million); and the loss in economic output from the deaths of smokers and passive smokers (4.1 billion and 713 million respectively)."

@Nikki
You're completely wrong. In 2006 the cost for treating smoking related illnesses was 2.8billion. The same year the income generated from tax on cigarettes alone was in excess of 10.2billion pounds. Since then, the increases in tax have mean't that the revenue has increased, and the reduction in numbers of smokers has mean't that the cost of treatment has steadily fallen. The tax equivilates to approximately 4x the cost of treatment. 8billion pounds is a lot of revenue to make up, that combined with longer life expectancy would mean that a ban on smoking would actually cost the NHS a lot more money over the long term.

My parents smoked around me when I was younger. Because I stank so much I was always being picked on by people for being smelly. Later on in life I started to smoke - it was a natural progression. Well, a few years later on my whole family was diagnosed with Brain Cancer which the doctors at Holby General diagnosed was caused by passive smoking. Yes, ironically, although everybody smoked they actually contracted cancer through each others second hand smoke. Everybody is dead now except me. I still smoke because I am a helpless addict. Obviously what I really need is to be told what to do by other people who don't smoke because they know best and my mind is unable to make an informed choice. After I lost everybody to brain cancer I decided to start taking drugs. I am now heavily into crack and smack. This is probably because I smoked. Now, worst of all, when I smoke other people around me have to withstand the horrific smell of smoke. There is a very big possibility that I might infect everybody else with brain cancer. I know because the good people on this forum have opened my eyes to the fact that smoking is indeed the most heinous of crimes, at least on par with genocide. I am a bad person. Thank the good lord, or allah, or the monkey thing that there are good people like you non-smokers out there protecting your right not to smell or contract brain cancer. I will now go and kill myself out of respect for you all.

Like I said earlier....if it is purely about the smoke then anything that produces smoke needs to be banned as well...ie, bonfires, fireworks, steam engines and the good old barbie.

OK, the smokers could move if they are beginning to be a major nuisance,but other than that,I don't see what the big problem is about moving somewhere else.

DSG, I tend to agree with you. If these people choose to smoke, them let them suffer the consequences. As for your point about passive smoking, the health risk has never been the prime factor for me, rather the sheer irritation, stench, inconsideration of smokers. It's not for the non-smokers to have to move, but rather that smokers should be severely restricted to designated areas if they are to insist on smoking outside their own homes. It's ridiculous to suggest that smokers should stay put and non-smokers move so that smokers don't have to put up with the complaints of the non-smokers. Smokers should choose carefully their 'spot' to smoke, away from others, as simple as that!

To be honest,I don't see what all the big hoo-ha is about people smoking. These people already know the risks of smoking,so why bother to wean them off it? Leave them alone and let them die a cancer-related death,for could not give a d*mn about them. They chose to smoke,so let them.
Another thing that winds me up is the myth that passive smoking kills. Let me repeat this message to any anti-smokers out there: There has NEVER been a recorded case of ANYONE dying from passive smoking,OK? And if you don't like being around smokers,move somewhere else,like your house,or the library,or if you're really desperate,move to Antarctica,where NO-ONE will have to cope with your anti-smoking bile.

Smoking bans make sense, to a point. I won't argue, as some do, that the seriousness of secondhand smoke has been exaggerated. And as someone who hacks butts on a semi-regular basis, and who'd love to kick the habit, I gladly agree with common-sense rules. In airplanes, of course. Shopping malls. Even restaurants. But bars? Sorry. Smoking and boozing go together like Dean and Frank. To my mind, one of life's great pleasures is sitting in some quiet pub, a paper and a pint before me, the whorls from a cigarette playing in the late-afternoon sunlight. These days, one has to travel to Providence to be that decadent. Or actually, no. As of March 1, smoking is verboten there, too.

I walked passed a Argos worker today smoking on her fag, sucking the fumes in as if there were no tomorrow, desperate for the maximum nicotine hit, surrounded by a cloud of stench and filth, her dried-up looking, hollow-cheeked, 'poisoned' smokers face taking on a look of desperation. I walked right up to the edge of the pavement to avoid the pollution as much as possible, fighting the urge to 'vomit' at the sight and stench.

That shut you up, I M Wrong!!

Anonymous - you intimate that the world is such a horrible place that it doesn't matter if people smoke.

I totally disagree with you - why not try and make it a better place? I don't know whether you throw your fag butts on the ground, but I am guessing that you do.

I M Wright, smokers most certainly do NOT generate 3 x the revenue, that is absolute bunkum. The cost to society as a whole, not just the NHS, is astronomical, and as you rightly point out, obesity is climbing up the scale. My comments are NOT based on hearsay, I work in a general hospital as a medical secretary, but prior to that I was working for the Directors in General Management - I most certainly know a lot more about it that you clearly do.