Quote# 132860

We don't believe that smokers have the right to light up whenever and wherever they want. We urge smokers to be considerate to those around them, especially children. We do however believe that smokers – who represent almost a quarter of the adult population – should be accommodated where it's possible to do so without inconveniencing non-smokers. Why does smoking have to be banned in ALL enclosed public places? What's wrong with well-ventilated, designated smoking rooms or, better still, pubs and bars that are licensed to allow adults to smoke so smokers and non-smokers can socialise together, if that's what they choose to do? This is about freedom of choice, which is why so many non-smokers support our work.


Good health is very important, but it's not the only factor in the pursuit of happiness. We accept the health risks associated with smoking and other tobacco products and we accept that government has a role to play educating people about those risks, but in a free society freedom of choice and market forces are equally important. The anti-smoking culture that has developed in Britain is profoundly unhealthy because it encourages some people – employers and politicians, for example – to openly discriminate against a significant minority of the population. What next? Is government going to target fat people or those who, in the eyes of evangelical health campaigners, drink too much? Oh, sorry, that's already happening, isn't it?


Of course we encourage smokers to be considerate to those around them, but many of us live and work in an urban or industrial environment full of car fumes and other pollutants, so why make such a fuss about a tiny bit of tobacco smoke that is massively diluted in the surrounding air? In the real world we all have our likes and dislikes and we have to be tolerant of other people's habits, one of which is smoking.

FOREST, FOREST 14 Comments [10/11/2017 1:01:04 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Katie

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom


Let me debunk these statements:

Because smoking also endagers the people around the smokers. You can't guarantee me that non-smokers will be perfectly healthy when they come into contact with smokers.


Smoking violates consent of the users, because they don't have as much free will when they try to opt out as back when they started. Also, free markets mean that we can give everyone drugs without prescription. I'd like to see how long smokers will still smoke when heroin is just around the corner waiting to be injected in its next victim.


Just because you're better than something that's worse doesn't mean that it's good. Unless your funding goes directly to stopping the pollution mafia I don't see why your claim should hold.

In my mind, you're definitely nothing more and nothing less than one of the many Tobacco advocates that try to keep poison legal.

10/11/2017 1:34:51 PM

Because smoking is a disgusting dangerous habit and why should I have to be forced to be around that gross smoke smell.

10/11/2017 2:56:21 PM


@hydrolythe oh, they'll still smoke. It's more addictive

10/11/2017 3:05:30 PM


Ex-smoker here. Succinctly, go fuck yourselves FOREST.

10/11/2017 3:08:46 PM


I won`t fling verbal shit at him since tbh it would be nice to see some smoker dedicated pubs but it`s as far as I`ll go with it, any actual public space should be smoke free and as a smoker I do not only accept that, I would campaign for it myself if it wasn`t on the agenda already.

10/11/2017 4:09:30 PM

Citizen Justin

I don't personally mind people smoking, but many people want to puke when they smell it. (In my experience it's recent ex-smokers who get the most nauseous.)

Like Skide it would be nice to see some pubs allowing it back, at least it might distract from the ever present smell of piss in my local Rose & Crown.

10/11/2017 4:46:13 PM


Multi-talented entertainer Roy Castle.

Never smoked so much as once in his life.

Yet, it was he performing at all those smoke-filled working men's clubs in the past which resulted in him ultimately dying of Lung Cancer.

(From Wiki link):

His widow Fiona worked with the charity after her husband's death, and campaigned for the British smoking ban which came into effect in 2006 and 2007, banning smoking in virtually all enclosed public places

The Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation takes a chainsaw to you, FOREST.

...besides, he supported Liverpool, not the team from Nottingham.

10/11/2017 6:46:25 PM


" We accept the health risks associated with smoking ..."

Well, whoopee-doo for you, but if you smoke in public places you impose that risk on others who will no longer be quiet and "accept" it.

10/11/2017 7:23:42 PM


I kinda agree with the first paragraph, at least. The state I'm in banned smoking in public places back in 2010. I can understand banning it in restaurants, but think bars, at least, should have a choice. The fact is, though, when you get a bunch of people smoking in a building, it's often more than a "tiny bit of tobacco smoke that is massively diluted in the surrounding air".

10/11/2017 7:27:23 PM


Because I can smell the smoke on them when they come back from break.

10/11/2017 9:55:27 PM



This isn't really fundie. I disagree, but the arguments here are reasonable. They aren't denying that smoking causes health problems. They're just suggesting that allowing some places to allow smoking is OK, the implied idea being that nonsmokers are consenting to the health risks by choosing to come in.

It's a fair point. If I don't want second-hand smoke then I shouldn't go into places that allow people to smoke. My only objection is that people need to earn a living and the workers who choose to take a job there may be making a desperate economically-influenced 'choice' in some cases.

If people want to smoke in a private social club (with no minors and no paid employees who are on shift at any time while smoking is allowed) then I have no problem with that. If universal basic income ever becomes a reality then I would have no problem if governments lifted the ban on smoking in commercial establishments (restricted to adults only) as economic coercion would no longer negate consent.

10/11/2017 10:29:11 PM

Shepard Solus

I agree that private businesses shouldn't be forbidden by the state to cater their business to smokers. That's the extent of my agreement.

10/12/2017 1:42:34 AM

Yossarian Lives

When a habit affects the health of others and costs the taxpayer money through treatment of the negative side effects of the habit, there will be campaigns against the habit and laws passed to prevent others not wanting to participate in the habit from being harmed.

10/12/2017 3:36:36 AM

Thinking Allowed

Smoking is a choice, but it's not my choice. As FOREST said "a quarter of the adult population" are smokers. Why should the other 75 percent put up with your smelly unhealthy habit. That isn't fair on me.

10/13/2017 8:25:45 AM

1 | top: comments page