The overall rating of a review is different from a simple average of all individual ratings.
Share this review on
I have been a smoker on and off since the age of 21 and whilst I agree that passive smoking should definitely not be pushed onto the non-smokers of the world and in particular children and babies, I do not agree with the 'nanny' state way this has been dealt with.
My thoughts when the ban first came in is, yes when it comes to the workplace in general it should be banned but smokers should be allowed to continue their addiction outside the premises and have facilities to place their cigarette butts in so as not to litter the pavements. As long as they are not taking the mickey they should be allowed to have a couple of fag breaks during the working day and, I could be wrong, but back when I was working, I believe that you were legally entitled to two breaks a day. After all, some people break off from work several times a day to make themselves tea or coffee or merely to stretch their legs and it is advisable to get away from your computer screen if that is a large part of what you do.
As far as workplaces such as pubs, restaurants and clubs go, I don't see why we couldn't have had smoking pubs, restaurants and clubs and non-smoking ones. I don't think there would have been trouble finding employees who smoke and didn't mind being in a smoky environment and then the non-smokers could choose which type of premises they wanted to be in. Not all non-smokers mind sitting with smokers but for those that do there would be the option of a non-smoking environment too.
Yes, all smokers know it is terribly bad for them, but for the majority, they continue regardless and just feel peed off by the rules that increasingly govern them. After all drinking is bad for you too but this is not (as yet) governed so strictly and drinking too often has very negative consequences to other people around the consumer albeit in a different way it can be just as damaging if not lethal in certain circumstances.
As for going on to bann it in public places, I don't know statistically just how much passive smoke you are going to inhale in the fresh air. I would wager no more than the fumes and poisons you breathe in from cars and factories etc. The only good point would be that there wouldn't be fag butts on the ground but if there are enough facilities for the disposal of cigarette butts, that is the main criteria for me with regard to this issue.
So to recap - I do believe that non-smokers should be protected but I also believe that smokers should be able to maintain their human rights and have the choice to smoke in environments of their choice (when it comes to leisure time, not work time) as long as it does not infringe the rights of non-smokers not to breathe in their smoke!
Thanks for reading. x
Addendum: I am currently a non-smoker of five months (following a bad bout of pnuemonia) but this fact has not changed my views as written above. x
I'm a smoker and I agree with your view points!
If I did not smoke-I wouldn't want to be subjected to it. But we live in a free country and if people choose to smoke it is their right to be allowed to do so!
Ryanellaxx 15.12.2010 09:02
I did not say it was to do with the human rights ACT but I do think it is a human right not to breathe someone else's smoke! xx
wigglylittleworm 15.12.2010 03:31
smoking has nothing to do with the human rights act, apart from that you express your opinion well