digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at dailymail.co.uk

Smoking ban 'helps 400,000 to quit'

dailymail.co.uk — More than 400,000 people in England have given up smoking thanks to the ban on lighting up in public introduced a year ago tomorrow, a study claims.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • gavinhudson, on 06/30/2008, -57/+70Awesome! Hopefully that's 400,000 mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters who will live longer, happier lives.
    • PeppermintPig, on 06/30/2008, -25/+60I bet people could also live healthier lives by banning fatty foods. Get to it, UK.

      The wonderful reign of fascism.
      • Conwaysb0718, on 06/30/2008, -8/+24How long is it before we "unclean ones" have to retreat underground and become the bogeymen of the future?
      • shinelikeitdoes, on 06/30/2008, -17/+6as long as people are allowed to frivolously sue places like mcdonalds for making them fat, it really isnt a bad idea, some people NEED to be directed.
      • TheLD, on 06/30/2008, -16/+33When people buy fatty foods, they are not forcing it down everyone within a few metres' throat.
      • zerhynn, on 06/30/2008, -12/+8meter? whatchya talkin' bout? ya mean 1.09 yards? we don't take kindly to meters around here.
      • parax, on 06/30/2008, -4/+25@TheLD

        The law shouldn't be the go-to answer. Stores and restaurants have always been free to ban smoking from their own establishments. When you start banning things with the law, it gives the government power over you that it shouldn't have. Governments should not be giant watchers that monitor everyone's behavior. Governments have a very narrow purpose, in spite of all the tasks that modern society has tasked them with.

        You might be happy living a government mandated life, but some of us find our personal liberties more important. Telling restaurants that they can't allow people to smoke there is just like telling a you that you can't allow your guests to smoke in your house. It's your house, you should be the one making the rules there. It's a matter of choice, and when we make laws, we take away choice.
      • PeppermintPig, on 06/30/2008, -1/+11"How long is it before we "unclean ones" have to retreat underground and become the bogeymen of the future?"

        Which future? The one where we become Morlocks and eat other humans to survive? Or the future where people living above ground are all pussies and the only burgers you can get are black market rat burgers down in the sewers? (The Time Machine, Demolition Man)

        /I'm a veteran of the franchise wars.
    • kuantan97, on 06/30/2008, -8/+27If governments can legislate against cigarettes because of health issues, then there is literally nothing it cannot do in the name of "safety."

      The case for government smoking bans is so loaded with fallacies one doesn't know where to begin.
      • ausfahrt, on 06/30/2008, -11/+2This is not a new thing for governments to do so i don't think that things are going to rapidly slide into the mud after this oh so horribly encroaching on your freedoms ban comes into place. Drinking and being drunk in public has been banned for many years as well as selling sex, crack, and babies on the street corner. Governments regulating "unhealthy" things is not all that horrible ... get a grip. In your world it would be ok to congregate and ***** giant turds outside restaurants so patrons could enjoy the lovely smell of yesterdays big mac as it steams in the sun.
      • PeppermintPig, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5"In your world it would be ok to congregate and ***** giant turds outside restaurants so patrons could enjoy the lovely smell of yesterdays big mac as it steams in the sun."

        If we didn't have government, people would be ***** all over the place! LOL.. funniest ***** I've heard all day. So you're saying convention has nothing to do with it?

        Selling sex shouldn't be a crime, nor selling drugs or babies. Government monopolies and prohibitions suck. Self imposed systems of regulation work. It only requires that people demand better service from the companies they patronize.
      • ausfahrt, on 06/30/2008, -3/+2Convention sure lets adopt a new convention that smoking in public is not allowed because it's disgusting to non smokers. Is that better? The reason that ***** in public isn't accepted mirror that of smoking. I find it quite odd that we allow people to light something on fire in the sidewalk and blow disgusting smoke all over numerous people who are probably hoping to breathe in air and not nicotine and tar filled smoke.

        I happen to agree with your views on selling sex and drugs but that is beside the point I was making. The point was that this is not new and the suggestion that this legislation shows a scary fascist trend and that in some way we are now in more danger of being controlled by our government is silly.
      • kuantan97, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4"...the suggestion that this legislation shows a scary fascist trend and that in some way we are now in more danger of being controlled by our government is silly."

        A certain 20th century dictator would disagree:

        http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-lefti ...

        You might want to fact check a little before you open up.
    • spyd3rweb, on 06/30/2008, -7/+24I will not live a happier life knowing a government is telling me I can't do what I want to.
      • REBELinBLUE, on 06/30/2008, -11/+10Yeah damn government, who do they think they are telling me that I can't poison other people so my own pleasure!

        No one is stopping you smoking it is just making the system a little more considerate to those who didn't make a choice to inhale that crap.

        I am not for an outright ban on smoking, nor a lot of things, but I think this system is mostly fair, there are a few bits that need fine tuning but it doesn't stop you from smoking if you so wish, it just forces you to think about the people around you.
      • Conwaysb0718, on 06/30/2008, -5/+8but you'll supposedly live a much, much longer and unhappy life. one in which you can keep working to pay taxes to support the source of your unhappiness.
      • aristotle0dude, on 06/30/2008, -5/+3What makes you think it's all about you anyway? Did you stop to consider that they might be concerned about protecting the health of the general public which include non-smoking customers and to protect the health of the wait staff of restaurants?
      • PeppermintPig, on 06/30/2008, -1/+6This is what you get with public property. Smokers are tax payers too. I support the smokers if only to encourage you to consider supporting private solutions. And no I don't smoke and I really don't care for it.
      • kuantan97, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Exactly. Public property creates a sort of intellectual chaos, where literally anything goes, but not. The property is "public," meaning all consume, but of course the arbitrary state must regulate the consumption. The government, not the "public," is the de facto owner. The issue really isn't smoking in public, but rather the legitimacy of public property.
    • max1018, on 06/30/2008, -15/+27Who the ***** is digging you down. I can't agree more. Smoking is disgusting.
      • freakydingo, on 06/30/2008, -7/+15That would be the smelly smokers.
      • specialK16, on 06/30/2008, -3/+12Smoking IS disgusting. This comes from a smoker that is trying to quit.
      • kuantan97, on 06/30/2008, -10/+8More disgusting is using violence, murder if necessary, to coerce others to fall in line with your idea of what is not "disgusting."

        Now that is perverse.
      • ausfahrt, on 06/30/2008, -4/+5@kuantan97 are you suggesting that the penalty for smoking in public is to be murdered or have some other sort of violent act comited against you?
      • sonnybobiche, on 06/30/2008, -3/+8Nobody likes a quitter.
      • Juntistik, on 06/30/2008, -4/+13Disgusting or not just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be banned... And don't give me that its harming others and myself *****. If you can't withstand walking by someone with a smoke OUTSIDE. Man the ***** up and hold your breath for 2 seconds. You will not get lung cancer from second hand smoke unless you live with a smoker. People blow this crap way out of proportion.

        I don't smoke.
      • max1018, on 06/30/2008, -6/+3@Juntistik We mean when we had to sit in stinky pubs where we had no choice.
      • badfrog, on 06/30/2008, -1/+8I think some perfumes and colognes are disgusting. They should ban them too.
      • senatorpjt, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5People used to think pubs stank when people were smoking in them, now they just smell like stale beer and body odor.
      • kuantan97, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3"@kuantan97 are you suggesting that the penalty for smoking in public is to be murdered or have some other sort of violent act comited against you?"

        Why, yes, I am. All government is agressive violence. Nothing more. Government is not Robin Hood, the tooth fairy, or some cool equalizer. It only takes but a simple thought experiment.

        Imagine some unassuming fellow walking down the street with a lit cigarette in his mouth. Some cop sees him and orders him to put it out.

        "Why sir," he says "what is the problem? Why should I do that?" "Because it is the law. Put out your cigarette or I'll arrest you." The peaceful fellow refuses; the cop then attempts to arrest him. The man tries to resist. A scuffle ensues. The cop then shoots him.

        And what was the man's crime? Smoking a cigarette in a place government deemed inappropriate. For this he has been murdered.
      • Flamekebab, on 07/01/2008, -4/+1Because a great many people are shot every year in the UK by police officers detaining people. Happens all the time!
        Maybe in the US, but here in the UK I'm fairly sure that most officers don't even carry a firearm.
      • kuantan97, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4"Because a great many people are shot every year in the UK by police officers detaining people. Happens all the time!
        Maybe in the US, but here in the UK I'm fairly sure that most officers don't even carry a firearm."

        Friend, of course it doesn't "happen all the time." Because everyone intuitively understands the consequences of such an action. Obey or die. The denial of such an obvious fact is disturbing.

        Oh, by the way, weasel attempts to appeal to a childish sense of patriotism are for naught. I am as a great man once said of himself, "a citizen of no country under the sun."
    • AuriniDMJ, on 06/30/2008, -5/+15You're entitled to that opinion, but it's not what we're discussing. I think oral sex and crocs are disgusting - so what? Oh, that's right - get a lobby and a ban together. Can't trust people to think for themselves.
      • Conwaysb0718, on 06/30/2008, -0/+16i agree, reptillian fellatio is disgusting.
      • moomincharlie, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1Oh my god! You find oral sex disgusting? Would you not have it performed on you, or do you just not like doing it?

        Crocs are horrible though, that was a given :)
      • kuantan97, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3Right. This is the crucial error that most non-libertarians make--simply because one doesn't advocate legislating against a "vice," doesn't mean he endorses it.
    • illustrick, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3I was able to quit and I am loving it. only thing that sucks.....is a smoke even more weed now -.-;;
    • benhiler, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1nah i bet there just all doing smokeless tobacco now easier to do anyways
  • Disarticulate, on 06/30/2008, -32/+51Even this ban couldn't stop me smoking. When I go out to the pub I just spend the evening outside, regardless of the weather, it's sad but at least I don't feel guilty for making people breathe in my smoke. I wish I could stop, but there are people out there like me who are so addicted nothing can stop them.
    • creole, on 06/30/2008, -10/+46No offense, but that's a copout. I've never had an addiction as in depth as it sounds like yours is, but you're selling yourself short. It's about believing in yourself enough, and caring enough about your body and your friends and family.
      • max1018, on 06/30/2008, -5/+20Yeah I agree. The guy sounds like he is just trying to make up some reason so he can smoke.
      • sychodelix, on 06/30/2008, -13/+4***** both of you morons. You probably have never smoked, let alone try to quit. For some people it's damn near impossible. The only reason I was able to stop smoking is by switching to Swedish snus. It's a whole lot less of an evil, doesn't hurt anyone else, and likely won't even hurt the person using it. The EU is even having to consider unbanning it (an idiotic thing to ban in the first place) since the health effects compared to smoking and nearly ZERO.
      • Lazydriver, on 06/30/2008, -3/+2Uhm, it's bad on your nose. Like, really bad, tears holes and *****, cause of the fiberglass? Or is that chewing tobacco?
      • TheSexyGeek, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Easy for you to say. I'm trying to quit too.
    • lcmatt, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1Sadly it didn't stop me smoking either. My willpower is next to nothing and I can't use any patches or tablets to help as I'm allergic to them.
    • krait, on 06/30/2008, -3/+3I hate it when I walk out of a pub and into a cloud of smoke. Those guys always hang right outside.
      • keymanjim2, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1By "those guys" do you mean buses, trucks and automobiles?
    • ThatzCrazyTalk, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2It comes down to one thing: Do you really want to quit? If the answer to that is "Yes" you will be able to do it. Otherwise, don't even put yourself through it. I quit, but it was one of the hardest things I ever did, but also the absolute best thing I ever did. In January I was nearly in the hospital because I couldn't breathe, and today I ran a 5k in under 30 minutes. I feel great! BUT you have to WANT to do it, really truly deeply want to want to do it.
    • ep53, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1I was in the exact same boat as you then i bought one of these http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Gamucci-MICRO-Full-Starter-K ...
      from ebay, "smoke" which is only water vapour and nicotine comes out, and it actually feels like you are smoking but without the health side effects.
  • smitas, on 06/30/2008, -24/+9No Smoking, Happy Living
  • Jonjonjonny, on 06/30/2008, -4/+41I'm in the process of quitting. It's pure hell. On top if this many of my friends who've been non smoking for a few years tell me the craving hardly ever goes away! Sigh.
    • scottnash, on 06/30/2008, -6/+3Allen Carr's The Easy Way to Quit Smoking. Look for it on Amazon or in your local bookstore.
    • kuantan97, on 06/30/2008, -3/+10I am a social smoker. I smoke at will, that is, when I want, e.g. while drinking, after sex, after a good meal. I can quit, as I have on numerous occasions, at any time.

      What is your theory on me?
      • scottnash, on 06/30/2008, -1/+16You know what Mark Twain said? "Quitting is easy. I've done it thousands of times."
      • kuantan97, on 06/30/2008, -10/+1'You know what Mark Twain said? "Quitting is easy. I've done it thousands of times."'

        That's a new one.
      • lisaawesome, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3I'm a social smoker now. I was a pack a day regular smoker for years and then decided I was tired of being sick all the time and thought quitting smoking would help. Quitting was no problem for me (I guess I am a freak?) but after a few months I was like you know what I still like to smoke and if I want one I'm not going to stop myself. Now I only smoke if I'm gettin high or gettin drunk and it's not a problem. I go through a pack maybe every 2 weeks and don't get cravings or anything but I can breath much more easily now and haven't gotten horribly sick. I still have never experienced the horrible withdrawal symptoms I hear about and sometimes wonder if some of it just comes down to psychology. If you think quitting is going to be hell then you experience hellish symptoms but if you think it's going to be no big deal then it isn't. Just a thought. I know I'll get a lot of responses saying it is much harder than I make it out to be but this is just my experience which obviously is not a common one.
    • stewartgorman, on 06/30/2008, -1/+8The craving gets weaker and weaker as time goes on. It's been four months for me, and it's not that bad anymore. And I gotta give a shout to Chantix. No bad side effects*, took eight days to quit, haven't touched one since.

      * but crazy vivid dreams, oh yeah!
      • Conwaysb0718, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1and then once you hit five months, BAM! One morning you wake up with the taste of shoe polish in your mouth, your butt is bleeding and there's a dollar pinned to your shirt. that quitting smoking, shes a dark mistress... beware.
    • Remy_LeBeau, on 06/30/2008, -2/+8I smoked heavily (1-2 packs per day) for five years or so, and now haven't touched a cigarette for 9+ years and never think about them. Trust me, the craving goes away.
    • xenuxenuts, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2The cravings mostly go away, however, once every 3 or 4 months I'll get a craving. I just don't give in to them.
    • marx2k, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1I smoked a pack a day for 14 years. Quit 5 years ago, cold turkey. Wasn't that big of a deal. For the first 2 weeks the craving to smoke is always in the back of your mind. After 2 weeks you have hours without any cravings. After a while you just end up not craving it any more except for once a month or something like that you want one pretty bad, but the craving lasts for a minute or so.

      I started smoking again as my friends were mixing weed into their hookahs and I was smoking a lot of it. Quitting the second time was easier than the first and at this point I never seem to get cravings anymore. I do, however, sometimes get dreams where I am smoking again and I get all depressed thinking I have to quit all over again.

      My mom, on the other hand, can't quit at all. Won't even entertain trying.
  • PeTeRZz, on 06/30/2008, -31/+23smoke weed instead
  • Hercules, on 06/30/2008, -10/+46I wish I could get my mom to quit.

    She is winded after she walks up the stairs. She's been doing this almost 30 years now. It's disgusting. And she refuses to even try.
    • AeroSquid, on 06/30/2008, -2/+4I helped my mom quit after 35 years. Keep encouraging her and help her find a program that will work. There is a book by Allen Carr that helped my mom- http://books.google.com/books?id=XcE8QFUobb4C&dq=t ...

      She also did Chantix for 2 months. It's been almost a year since she quit and even though my dad continues to smoke she is smoke free.
    • dancehallhips, on 06/30/2008, -3/+9I get winded just walking up the stairs, too...

      ...because I'm out of shape. :-p
    • Conwaysb0718, on 06/30/2008, -6/+14maybe your mom doesnt want to quit...
    • jotate, on 06/30/2008, -5/+2As terrible of advice as it might be, the guilt trip is a pretty decent method in this situation. "Mom, all I want for my birthday/Christmas/*fill in gift giving occasion* is for you to stop smoking. No presents, no cakes, no parties. Just for you to quit." Worked on my mom.

      Of course, I didn't get any birthday presents that year. But ohhh, I suppose it was worth it.

      (Just kidding! I love you, mommy!)
  • mustang460, on 06/30/2008, -4/+15Hardest part of quitting is being around other smokers, this doesn't surprise me at all
  • saxreturns, on 06/30/2008, -11/+35Subtract me from that number, I've taken up smoking since the ban. All my smoking friends leave the pub every 5 minutes for a smoke and I started joining them.
    • max1018, on 06/30/2008, -23/+16Then you are a sad, sad person.
      • cnot3, on 06/30/2008, -2/+7Yeah, why the ***** do you want to be with your friends?! Get outta here you dirty tar-lung. Embrace the fascist health-nazi ideology! You love big brother, don't you?
    • tacklebox, on 06/30/2008, -5/+10Agreed Sax. I smoke more because I have to go out with this person then that person, etc.
      • lisaawesome, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2I've noticed a lot of my friends do that when we are somewhere that doesn't allow indoor smoking, One person wants to go out to smoke so several others all go out and everyone smokes but then someone else 10 minutes later wants to go smoke and everyone who just went out will go out and smoke again. Then everyone complains they are smoking too much. I think it's silly. I'll go out with the folks but I don't have any desire to smoke each and every time we go outside. I even understand how seeing one person smokes starts to make you want to smoke but come on you've got to have some tiny bit of willpower. If you can't even do that why not just ask to split a cigarette with a friend? It's an easy way to cut back if you have to smoke every time someone else does.
    • alanr19, on 06/30/2008, -16/+9Weak willed moron. You seem a little desperate for acceptance too. Maybe they were leaving the table and go outside because they don't like you, or you smell (worse than you do now with the smoking)
      • saxreturns, on 06/30/2008, -1/+7Yeah, insulting me will help me change my mind about my decision. At least I'm just smoking and not going around condescending to strangers as if I know anything at all about them.
      • cnot3, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4We're all weak willed morons for accepting such a fascist law. Revolutions were started over less.
    • murdockat, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1well, that was smart.
  • seanmx, on 06/30/2008, -23/+6I hate that tobacco companies get rich murdering people.
    • chrisfnet, on 06/30/2008, -1/+15It's only murder if they force you to smoke the lit cigarette. I think you mean that you hate that tobacco companies get rich in assisting suicide.
      • maley, on 06/30/2008, -2/+2People that are elderly now were mislead into using the products. It could be called murder for them. Younger generations have had lots of information though.
    • Hetman, on 06/30/2008, -1/+10I hate the pork industry. Getting rich off of murdering people. Ban pork in the UK.
    • Renton, on 06/30/2008, -2/+6Tobacco companies don't get rich murdering people. Blackwater gets rich murdering people. The military industrial complex gets rich murdering people.

      Tobacco companies just make and distribute harmful drugs.
    • DaDrake, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4And what about people who enjoy a nice, fine, aged cigar?
      • PopcornDave, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2You're wealthy so you're automatically demonized.

        Think of all those poor people who have to roll their own tobacco leaves and smoke them right away you heartless bastard.
  • DDMX, on 06/30/2008, -11/+5Why do tobacco companies sell a product that kills their customers?
    • SauceSpot, on 06/30/2008, -1/+8because they can always get 10 more to replace the one that died.
    • Sisko41, on 06/30/2008, -2/+4money....
    • MattNF, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6Money?
    • ZimbuTheMonkey, on 06/30/2008, -2/+20Why stop at cigarettes? We can ban alcohol, fast cars, junk food, unusually heavy hats, you name it.

      I'm a non-smoker by the way, it's a disgusting habit.
    • BabaRamDass, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6Because there's a demand for the product.
    • PopcornDave, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Because it's legal?
    • xexx, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Because people are stupid and weak.
  • Genrre, on 06/30/2008, -12/+112I will be dugg down, but I feel like I have to remind people that this isn't an excuse to have the government ban every unhealthy behavior.
    • luke16, on 06/30/2008, -1/+9*please don't ban twinkies*
      • 0Xonox0, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Hasn't New York banned trans fats already?
    • Technohamster, on 06/30/2008, -10/+2Yeah, just the ones that kill waiters.
      • Conwaysb0718, on 06/30/2008, -0/+13tis a harsh existence be born a waiter.
      • saxreturns, on 06/30/2008, -0/+7Cigarettes don't kill waiters, waiters kill waiters!
      • PeppermintPig, on 06/30/2008, -0/+10So don't be a waiter then if you don't like the environment, or work for a restaurant which prohibits smoking on their property.
      • Juntistik, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Or you could quit or ask to work in the non-smoking section?
    • tman84, on 06/30/2008, -5/+26You're actually dead on, we need less government interference in our lives, especially for private business owners, they should be allowed to run their business the way they see fit, thats called freedom.
      • plingboot, on 06/30/2008, -8/+3Actually the smoking ban is more to do with employment law health & safety and protecting workers. If you work in a chemical factory for instance there are h&s laws laid down to protect the workers from deadly chemicals etc. etc. This smoking ban is no different. Private business owners employ people, the ban is primarily about protecting those workers, its not just an arbitary ban. although of course the ban benefits everyone.
      • jmccgod, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5If the employees are really that worried about their health, they will find an employer that has banned smoking on the premises.
      • plingboot, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2You could have this argument about any health and safety issue, but I think we'd agree (actually maybe you wouldnt) that workers in risky jobs need protection against unscrupulous employers. There are basic health and safety regulations laid down to stop employers skimping on safety and taking advantage of vulnerable workers.
    • badenglishihave, on 06/30/2008, -1/+11Same feeling... love that lives are being saved, hate that some people think government intervention is the only solution.
    • NecroDigg, on 06/30/2008, -15/+10***** moron, shut up for one second.
      They banned it in PUBLIC PLACES, because the rest of us NON smokers dont want to breath that dirty ***** in.
      • PeppermintPig, on 06/30/2008, -4/+11[childish insult]
        [plea for public tyranny]

        Tragedy of the commons.
      • deadbaby, on 06/30/2008, -5/+13I don't want to breath in your car's dirty CO2 emissions. Do I get to ban your car?
      • PopcornDave, on 06/30/2008, -2/+8Putting one group of people ahead of another is never a solution - no matter what the cause.

        Would you have a problem with a fully smoking establishment that you didn't have to go in to?

        And what happens when the zealots finish with tobacco products and move on to alcohol? What then?
      • Tob3z, on 06/30/2008, -2/+6In the UK we have to have a MOT test every year and Co2 emissions are tested. So actually if the car doesn't pass this... it's off the road "banned".
      • plingboot, on 06/30/2008, -7/+3>Would you have a problem with a fully smoking >establishment that you didn't have to go in.

        But people have to work there, low paid bar staff and whoever else. The ban is there to protect them.
      • tony23, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4You know, in my city, we had one bar that was crammed to overflowing every night. It was so busy, it was almost impossible to get in anytime after 7pm on Friday or Saturday. None of the other bars in town were anywhere near as busy.

        What was different? This one bar was the ONLY non-smoking bar in town.

        Then, the smoking ban passed. Now, that bar is practically deserted. The other bars, however, are doing quite well.

        And @pingboot - sorry, nobody FORCES you to go and apply for a job at a bar. That is a very old and tired argument.

        But I shouldn't be surprised. People are never responsible for their own actions anymore.
      • plingboot, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Er... It's not a tired old argument, its the only reason the ban was put in place. It's an employment health and safety law! Smoke is just another working hazzard for many people.

        Vulnerable people would take the job nomatter what. And it's these people are protected by health and safety laws to stop dodgy employers from taking advantage.. It's basic employee protection, nothing new or controversial there.

        You could have the same argument against employers that dont provide safety helmets for constructions workers... you could whinge 'well if they dont like it why not get a job elsewhere.' thankfully in my country at least this is not allowed to happen.
    • JFallon126, on 06/30/2008, -13/+5Normally I would agree with you right away. Less government is almost always a good idea. However, smoking is a rather large exception. It's true IMO that the government isn't there to nanny you because smoking will kill you. However, smoking (second-hand smoke) kills people around you whether they want to smoke or not. As some Supreme Court Justice said: "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." Your right to smoke ends once it enters my lungs...so in that spirit I fully support smoking bans.
      • PeppermintPig, on 06/30/2008, -0/+9It's a rather tricky issue, but bans aren't the way to solve it.

        There's going to be someone out there who uses your same logic to say 'less government is almost always a good idea, but x is the exception', and the subject of their concern can lead to more destruction of liberty.

        Smoking isn't yet illegal, but there are high taxes imposed against it, and a black market is forming around this, which is a reflection of what would happen if it were completely outlawed.
    • wexmajor, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3I almost feel like digging you down for saying "I will be dugg down". Why do so many people say ***** like this? You think holding a libertarian opinion on Digg is going to make you unpopular?

      I dug you up by the way.
    • murdockat, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2the government shouldn't be allowed to ban a habit for which it ends up paying millions of dollars in healthcare years down the road?
      • Laughsatyou, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2this is a good reason to be against government run healthcare.
      • keymanjim2, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1How long until they ban EVERYTHING that they deem to be bad for you? Salt, red meat, alcohol. driving, etc.
        We put these people in place to run our day to day business that we as citizens don't have time to do ourselves. NOT to perform social engineering.
  • salamanderdave, on 06/30/2008, -4/+7You sure people aren't just smoking in their homes and stuff? I just went out for an hour or two and forgot my ciggs and didn't smoke in public.
    • ZenMojo, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2I doubt they count people on the street as they walk past to see if they're smoking.
  • PIPBoy2000, on 06/30/2008, -5/+3If this was controlled more properly, such as not being allowed to smoke in populated areas, i wouldn't mind this. I live in the south, and with that being said everything is spread far apart so how would this type of law come into effect? I'm a smoker (1 pack per 48 hours)
  • RyanOC, on 06/30/2008, -1/+12Quitting smoking is like any other learning experience. Learn why you failed at quitting and remember it for the next time you try. I tried for 10 years until I finally did. I haven't had a cigarette in almost 10 years now, and I'm so glad I did. The social part of it is hard to change from too. Some of your friends are not the same with you I believe as well. Its like smoking is some culture that if your not smoking people look at you different. Ive had a few bosses that specifically said they wouldn't hire smokers also. Not saying its right, but its reality.
    • koft, on 06/30/2008, -4/+4Yea, smoking at work is really dumb anyway. It didn't used to be a big deal but these days being "the guy that smokes" leaves you out of favor with the co workers and especially the bosses. Going out for a smoke every hour or so just makes you look like a fiend who has no self control. People can't stand sitting near you and don't want you riding in the car with them when going out for lunch, etc.
  • DickMasterson2, on 06/30/2008, -18/+5FIRST!!!
  • ender7074, on 06/30/2008, -15/+24Other studies show that this study is *****. Studies show that 95% of studies bias their information to the solution that they want and 75% of them are not conducted in a scientific manner. 99.9% of Digg users believe 85% of anything with the word "study" in the title even though the article is only about 20% true.
  • SQLserver, on 06/30/2008, -19/+2Good, UK.
    Now it's our turn, America.
    There are plenty of fun things to do besides smoke.
  • ShitStainedBall, on 06/30/2008, -2/+21"With a hidy lighty lighty ho and a hidy lighty hey"

    "Who the hell wants to be 90 any wayyyyyyy"
    • UltamateAddict, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4For those of you who didn't get the reference, it's from southpark.
  • itsthemechanic, on 06/30/2008, -6/+24Good for those 400,000 people, I still like a cigarette with my coffee.
  • scubachef11, on 06/30/2008, -14/+14I'm probably playing dumb here but... the UK has a law against lighting up in public? That's insane...
    • max1018, on 06/30/2008, -11/+13No, that's a step forward.
    • welshie, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4To clarify, in the UK, it's illegal to smoke in any enclosed public place. I think it was originally going to be any enclosed workplace, but since people work in pubs, restaurants, shops, buses, trains, delivery vans, they got it to include any enclosed workplace too, so delivery van drivers, if it's a company owned van, smoking is technically forbidden there too.

      Broadly similar legislation is in Republic of Ireland, and quite a few other European countries, even in France, you can now go into a bar and not be subjected to the smell of Gaulloises.
    • marillion, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2So does Ohio.
      I was constitutional amendment put to a public vote. It passed overwhelmingly.
      The ban is all public buildings and the first 15 feet from any entrance.
      This includes bars and restaurants.
      I love being able to go to a bar and breath freely.
  • dystra, on 06/30/2008, -6/+29not trying to be negative but thats a pretty small percentage for such an aggressive law. Before they put in these laws every business had the right to ban smoking on their own. thats the way it should be.

    • matt2012, on 06/30/2008, -5/+3disagree - enormous suffering will be removed with the ban - smokers are in the habit of chain smoking in pubs while they drink as alcohol disinhibits there behaviour - now we smoke much less all the time.

      every time they ban smoking somewhere after a while it seems strange that you used to be able to smoke there at all i.e. busses, trains, tubes, planes.. smoking is not like other 'freedoms' it is a poisonous addiction that ruins lives I wouldnt make it illegal - I wouldnt make anything illegal but nor would I allow crack to be used in schools..
      • PopcornDave, on 06/30/2008, -1/+9So where do you stand on banning alcohol given all the problems it produces for the people that abuse it and the second hand problems it produces? Or would you leave that up to the people to decide if they want to drink or not since it's a legal product.. oh wait so are cigarettes.
      • matt2012, on 06/30/2008, -7/+1Id put the price of alcohol up so that shops were as expensive as pubs, make it obligtory to offer snacks (tapas) and a glass of water with each pint. Make the alcohol industry pay damages to wives/husbands, children of alcoholics, victims of road accidents.

        legality is a red herring I should be able to do anything I want to myself. But government can shape behaviour otherwise shaped by the market. The idea that a 'free market' = individual freedom is an odd one.
      • blazes816, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2You're the ***** odd one. Why do you think the government should tell people what they can and can't do?
  • Amadeus2490, on 06/30/2008, -8/+7I'll bet you that at least 50,000 people start smoking again; nicotine is supposedly more addictive than heroine.
  • Hetman, on 06/30/2008, -17/+12BAN pork, beef, and I high fat foods. They kill way more people than smoking does. No eating meat in Public.
    • Conwaysb0718, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5whoa whoa whoa, lets not go crazy here.
    • daxsymbiont, on 06/30/2008, -3/+5meat doesn't kill moron.
      • jonnyfatman, on 06/30/2008, -2/+15Meat no kill moron? What kill moron then?
    • toastjam, on 06/30/2008, -5/+9It doesn't affect me if you eat meat next to me. If you smoke near me, on the other hand, I have to breathe it and suffer the consequences.
      • MaynardJK, on 06/30/2008, -1/+10If you live in the UK then it does indeed affect you. Who do you think has to pay to take care of heart attack victims?
      • Lazydriver, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Half the people in the world die of heart attacks, the other half from cancers and assorted diseases.
    • Hetman, on 06/30/2008, -2/+11Lets ban cars then. I hate inhaling those nasty pollutants.
      • rohanch, on 06/30/2008, -4/+3You don't tend to sit within a few feet of a car exhaust, breathing the fumes in an enclosed public space for a few hours at a time. And walking down a busy street past cars doesn't leave you smelling like an ashtray.

        Plus cars are at least useful. There are no good reasons to smoke at all.
    • DaDrake, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5Yet, if everyone was a vegetarian ... there would be other health risks (mostly because of the need to closely watch what you consume, so you know you have enough nutriets). Everything is a balance and neither extreme is good.
  • mshtml, on 06/30/2008, -8/+42In related news a smoking ban study promoting government interference over freedom and personal responsibility was discovered to be funded by the government.
    • REBELinBLUE, on 06/30/2008, -7/+2Hey guess what, the government doesn't give a damn about whether you smoke or not, they aren't trying to stop you smoking, if they wanted to do that they'd just ban the damn things (but of course they money they make would make that impossible, hence why they don't want people to stop) they just want people to be considerate of non-smokers.
      • Conwaysb0718, on 06/30/2008, -0/+8why does the government have the right to legislate consideration?
      • xexx, on 06/30/2008, -4/+2@Conwaysb0718

        Why don't they have a right? gtfo of society if you want to do stupid ***** that negatively affects others without their consent.
      • cnot3, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Its the ***** business' right to choose whether they allow smoking or not. Sorry that we all don't bow to your every whim! I bet you do plenty of ***** that pisses me off, but you don't hear me complaining, I have my tobacco to calm me down.
      • REBELinBLUE, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1The government is elected by the people, things like the ban on smoking and ban on blood sports are done because they are vote winners it is as simple as that.

        Now I agree to a certain extent that it is the business' owners right, places like pubs should be able to decide themselves (although I think there should possibly be incentives for businesses who do so it), but there are certain businesses that are vital public services which I think it should be banned in/on outright, train stations for example.

        Frankly after years of putting up with inconsiderate smokers I am a bit torn over whether the ban is right or not, but based on my own experience of the last year I think it has been a good thing, if not a little over the top.

        I too am sure I do things that pisses you off, difference being that it doesn't have potential health implications for you or make you stink.
    • Nudar, on 07/01/2008, -4/+2This is good government interference. Smokers are not just putting their own lives at risk but the lives of the ones they smoke around.
  • fakekevinrose, on 06/30/2008, -5/+14farting in public will be banned next
  • shadowspawn, on 06/30/2008, -7/+25My friend's father quit after everyone told him that doing something he liked to do was bad for him. He didn't understand why he was thought of as a "bad person". He was always upset that the government, the same body that he fought for and watched other family members die for, was so concerned about his own welfare after he had shrapnel in his chest from Korea, and couldn't even get proper disability because it wasn't "a war".

    He was hit by a bus. Who tried to evade someone jaywalking. Dragged 30 feet, torn in half. In public. His guts were everywhere, his son said he saw pieces of him left and right.

    He was on his way to a non-smoking therapy class he had to pay out of his own pocket because my friend's sister and mother wanted him to live longer. His mom had breast cancer due to some weird operation. His sister had cancer because of some drug that was prescribed. His father was healthy regardless of his wounds and "balls of steel".

    The word irony doesn't apply correctly, of course.
    • bumcheekcity, on 06/30/2008, -9/+7Did you have some kind of point?
      • Juntistik, on 06/30/2008, -1/+6His point is he was force fed to quit smoking to "benefit his health" when it really all went to waste. If people like to smoke, leave them the ***** alone. They know the risks, some smokers can lead completely healthy lives (my dad for example)
    • koft, on 06/30/2008, -5/+12LOL, you just made that ***** up.
    • RoadDoggFL, on 06/30/2008, -4/+2I take it his son was a smoker too? Or was he just along for the ride to non-smoking therapy?

      As for the disability, not that it's impossible but my MGySgt's father was shot through the elbow in Korea and gets full disability (full current Cpl's pay, which will be almost as much as my MGySgt's pension after 30 years of service). Now, if you're not full of ***** and disability really was never granted for injuries from Korea, I might go and see if I have some things mixed up (It honestly could've been Vietnam). Until then, I can't believe you're getting dugg.
    • metalpres, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1whats that smell??? oh right, *****. get a life, you can make anything sound bad if your going to make ***** up.

      This one time I was playing with a balloon, it was lots of fun but then it popped and hit me in the eye, now im blind for the rest of my life... balloons are evil, evil i say...

      lying isnt any more believable just because your typing
  • BabaRamDass, on 06/30/2008, -8/+32While we're at it, let's ban bad career decisions, loud music, and gambling.

    Jesus, is Digg turning into a Nanny State also?
    • rohanch, on 06/30/2008, -11/+3Other people's bad career decisions, loud music and gambling do not have any affect on my health.
      Having no choice but to breathe other people's smoke if I want to go out somewhere at night does.
      • Juntistik, on 06/30/2008, -2/+9Smokers DO NOT affect your health when you are passing them by on the street. If its a restaurant, don't go if you're really that much of a hypochondriac because you think you have cancer for spending an hour or two in a well ventilated building. (ever hear of a separated smoking/non-smoking section?)
      • sgtpppr, on 06/30/2008, -1/+10Unfortunately, your fascist ideas do have an effect on me and they are still ok.
      • Lazydriver, on 06/30/2008, -5/+1Righton.
    • xsquirrel378x, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071008-the- ...
      • BabaRamDass, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1I dugg you because that article is so comical.
    • PopcornDave, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5Thank god you didn't include loose women in that ban.
  • nick123pig, on 06/30/2008, -7/+19Under this logic - Drinking alcohol kills people as well, why not ban that too?
    • daxsymbiont, on 06/30/2008, -9/+3limited alcohol doesn't kill. it's in fact healthy according to several studies.

      limited nicotine is harmful.
      • xsquirrel378x, on 06/30/2008, -2/+8Smoking can only harm yourself, Alcohol is responsible for how many fatal car accidents every year?
      • metalpres, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1how many children develop asthma and respiratory problems because their parents smoke around them and the child has no choice because they have to live with their parents? But your right, it only affects yourself.
    • Conwaysb0718, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6they're working on it...
    • toastjam, on 06/30/2008, -7/+13There's no such thing as second-hand alcohol, at least not in the same sense as second-hand smoke.

      That's why.
    • max1018, on 06/30/2008, -8/+9Alcohol doesn't travel though the air and affect everyone else as well. I don't want to breath someone's cancer sticks.
      • AuriniDMJ, on 06/30/2008, -2/+11Then don't go to the bar! Nobody forced you to.
      • xsquirrel378x, on 06/30/2008, -2/+6Suck it up. I dont drink so when I go out its not my ideal choice to hang around people getting drunk so at least I would be able to smoke cigarettes and I cant even do that now!
        Also I dont like going home smelling like beer after some drunk ***** spilled his on me and I'm not a huge fan of driving on the same roads at night with people who just got wasted.
        Cut your holier than thou *****
      • Tyorant, on 06/30/2008, -4/+3No, i'm not going to avoid having a good night out because some one is selfish enough to breath cancer stick-juice all over my oxygen when they could just as well do it outside.

        Those who knowingly harm others, when it could easily be avoided, should be the people who chose not to go into the bars.
    • CCmachined, on 06/30/2008, -9/+31.alcohol is only addictive in excess, bad habits
      2.alcohol doesnt contain toxic chemicals
      3.when you drink, you arent forcing it down other people's throats around you, aswell
      4.only those that drink too much kills
      5.alcohol is healthy in small doses according to many studies
      6.booze definitely helps social lives.
      whereas:
      1.smoking is addictive as hell, and will make you waste your money on yet more death sticks you may or may not want
      2.smoking contains thousands of different nasty chemicals including tar
      3.when you smoke, others breathe it too, completely outside of their choice
      4.any smoker is going to suffer and die earlier than if they hadn't and cause others' deaths
      5.smoking is never healthy
      6.smoking may help social lives [encouraging you to hang out with the wrong sort of people]

      so, you really believe smokes and booze both deserve to be banned huh?
      • nick123pig, on 06/30/2008, -0/+7IF smoking is banned for causing deaths THEN alcohol (which causes even more deaths -- DWI, etc.) should be banned as well.

        And... drinking is also "addictive as hell"

        Personally, I don't think the government should regulate either.
    • AgeingMH, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1If it wasn't for alcohol, how would Geeks procreate with a member of the opposite sex...
    • Gizza, on 07/01/2008, -4/+1Since when did drinking alcohol kill people?

      Drinking too much alcohol kills people, but serving people that are too drunk is already illegal. Drunk people attacking each other kills people, but that's already illegal drunk or not. Drunk driving kills people, but wait, that's already illegal too. Even drinking outside of bars or private establishments is illegal (here anyways).

      Pretty much every possible way that drinking kills is already illegal, so what's the point you're trying to make?
  • aguynamedjoe36, on 06/30/2008, -5/+33I think a ban on smoking is just another invasion of personal privacy. Smoking is bad for you, granted. That's not to say that a proprietor of a privately owned restaurant should have to force people not to smoke. No one has to go there. No one has to work there. If someone wants to have a smoke, that is there choice. And if someone wants to own a bar where you can smoke, that should be there choice as well.
    I am a non smoker by the way.
    • creole, on 06/30/2008, -13/+8Problem is that it's a proven fact that second-hand smoke is more deadly than first-hand smoke:
      http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=3 ...

      So smokers are killing people around them faster than they kill themselves. That includes friends, family, children, coworkers, etc. Others in this thread have compared smoking to drinking, and why we don't also ban that. The difference is that just drinking only affects the drinker whereas smoking affects everyone around you. It's also a horrible environment pollutant.

      Not to mention that smokers increase health-care costs for everyone, throw their cigarette butts everywhere, and are in many cases extremely rude about "their right to smoke".

      I say good riddance...there's plenty of other terrible habits that people can hook themselves on should they want...like watching soap operas, or square dancing, or something.
      • skipdog172, on 06/30/2008, -0/+7I'm sorry but if the WORLD would ever read the details of so many of these "second-hand smoking" studies you would find that they are really just *****.

        I'm sure I'll get insta-dug down very very fast yet I doubt anybody will actually go read some of the studies.
      • trutek, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5i call *****.
        consider the source and it's donors. the science involved in every bullet point is questionable at best, and in some cases the actual clinical data is simply sited but the studies never happened.
        http://www.smokingaloud.com/ets.html
      • ShugNinx21, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1The logic behind second hand smoke is such BS. Here are some examples.

        Smokers breathe in both first and second hand smoke but they make it sound like the people who don't smoke are at more risk because the second hand smoke they get with no first hand smoke is deadlier.

        Going by second hand smoke being more is deadly than first hand smoke means that if you were in a crowded room full of smokers it would be healthier to light one up yourself then to breath in the secondhand smoke...

        But I suppose common sense goes out the window when you don't like something that others do.
    • xexx, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6I know second hand smoke is bad but I can't possibly see how it's worse than smoking yourself... that doesn't make any sense as the smoker is smoking AND breathing second hand smoke as well, and more of it likely because it's originating from him/her.
    • Crabsinmypants, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1I always thought it was funny how everyone says smoking is bad for you, but never says what quantity a person has to have before it becomes bad for you.

      It's like saying red meat is terrible for you, fruits will give you diarrhea, chocolate will destroy you, and food in general will give you heart disease. Of course anytime you have to much of one thing you will start seeing health risk and maybe instead we should try to educate people into smoking only socially instead of seeing it as a stress relief.
    • Gizza, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Yeah, we should get rid of the ban on drunk driving too. No ones forcing anyone to be driving down the same stretch of road as someone who has downed 15 beers.
  • dhaugen, on 06/30/2008, -2/+25im all for quitting smoking but its the persons choice not the governments
    • loopyloopy, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3id should be my choice to be able to breathe clean air when i go out in public too
      • dhaugen, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2i highly doubt your breathing is affected that much by being outside when someones smoking
      • loopyloopy, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1it is if they're walking in front of me or sitting right next to me. i have an allergy to cigarette smoke.
  • daxsymbiont, on 06/30/2008, -3/+5Main substance that addicts due to nicotine is dopamine created by the body as a response, dopamine is also generated due to alcohol.
    • marx2k, on 06/30/2008, -1/+0So why does smoking hook more people than alcohol? Why is it more addictive than heroin?
      • UltX, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Smoking is more addictive than heroin?

        Have you ever ***** seen a heroin addict?

      • marx2k, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0Smoking hooks more first time users than heroin.I've seen heroin addicts. What you're seeing is the physical withdrawal symptoms.
  • Averytingwong, on 06/30/2008, -10/+5Also 1400 pubs closed last year compared to 200 pubs which closed the year before. Most likely due to the smoking ban.

    I'm completely for a smoking ban in America though :)
    • Conwaysb0718, on 06/30/2008, -0/+10Why are you for a smoking ban in america? shouldnt that decision be left up to the owner/operators of the businesses to see if they want a smoking crowd or not? i fail to see why exactly its the job of the government to mandate what people can and cant do to their own bodies. You dont like an establishment that allows smoking? then dont go there.
  • Sqlawl, on 06/30/2008, -1/+28Did it help 400k people, or did it force 400k people?

    My computer habits are far from healthy (exercise = walking to car), but do people ban me from them? No, they send me to college to study in Computer Science.
    • sgtpppr, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5This is my problem with this whole study. I'm sure if you make jaywalking punishable by death and place cameras every 5 feet to find jaywalkers, then there'd be a 99% drop in jaywalking. Unfortunately, the ends justifies the means with many of today's governments.
    • hiteshsharma, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1"Its easy to quit smoking, I have done it Many times"
  • reaper527, on 06/30/2008, -1/+15this isn't the governments decision to make. it is a personal decision, and no governing body has the right to impose their belief on people. this is as asinine as the war on drugs here in the us.
    • rohanch, on 06/30/2008, -4/+3"No governing body has the right to impose their belief on people", yet smokers have the right to impose their cancer-causing passive smoke on the rest of us just because we want to go out in public?
      • Recidivus, on 06/30/2008, -2/+2Yet drivers have the right to impose their cancer-causing passive exhaust on the rest of us just because we want to go out in public?
      • rohanch, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2Cars are completely different.

        You are (much) further from the exhaust.
        They are not in an enclosed space.
        You don't sit there breathing the fumes for hours at a time.
        The exhaust is less harmful for health than smoke (no tar, for a start).

        And probably most importantly, cars are useful. There are absolutely no good reasons to smoke at all. It's just a money-wasting addiction.
      • reaper527, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5yes, actually they do if the establishment you go to says they do. this should be left up to the business owners, not the government. if a business owner decides that smokers are hurting the business by driving away non smokers, and decides to ban smoking in his establishment, thats cool. likewise, if a business owner decides that smokers are coming in and helping his bottom line, and he wants to allow it, more power to him.

        if the government wants to ban smoking in government facilities, thats cool too. their building their rules.

        also worth mentioning, i am a non smoker. i gain nothing from condemning a ban, i just feel its not the governments right to ban smoking.
      • DraxusD, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4reaper wins
      • metalpres, on 07/01/2008, -2/+0Its illegal to walk into a resteraunt and wave a gun around too, whether the owner has a problem with it or not, so what the hell, just because you dont have any concern for other people around you doesnt mean it should be legal do it.
  • DiggGeek24, on 06/30/2008, -14/+12Gotta love fascism whats next poor england.
  • j4ckdotcom, on 06/30/2008, -3/+27Let smokers smoke, and nonsmokers not.
  • whatthehell9, on 06/30/2008, -2/+23I don't care for smoking myself, but I'm tired of the Governments telling people what they can or cannot do.
    If people want to smoke, it is their choice to smoke. They know the risks and consequences. Above all, Liberty.
    • daxsymbiont, on 06/30/2008, -10/+7second hand smoking kills, it's not big brother.
  • daxsymbiont, on 06/30/2008, -2/+3The easiest way to quit is to remember that withdrawal symptoms peak at around 48 hours. With very limited and careful consumption of alcohol, (e.g. a beer a day or 2) you can fight the main substance that causes withdrawal, dopamine. It's created by the body as a response to nicotine but also the same happens with alcohol even if it's limited.
  • kotatsu, on 06/30/2008, -4/+5Here we go again with a story from The Daily Hail front paging on DIGG. FFS people, stop driving traffic to this racist, hateful rag of a 'newspaper'.
  • j4ckdotcom, on 06/30/2008, -3/+19So 400,000 people aren't cool anymore?

    This is the beginning of Global Laming.
    • marx2k, on 06/30/2008, -3/+0i'm being completely serious when I ask this question... does anyone still consider smoking to be cool?
  • kinerry, on 06/30/2008, -1/+10Taking away freedom in the name of the government doing what it thinks is best for us....not exactly worth celebrating
  • Hetman, on 06/30/2008, -2/+14I am not going to be happy until everyone has a specific diet from the government. Specific clothing designed to decrease anger and increase productivity. "probably white." A ban on all drugs. A ban on motorcycles. A ban on any extreme sport that may cause injury. A ban on swords, guns, knives "the government can pre cut our food for us. hell they might even pre chew it for us" and any sharp objects. We will live to be at least 150 years old. We will be bored out of our fuking mind, but hey living to be 150 is a great accomplishment.
  • daxsymbiont, on 06/30/2008, -4/+1same thing. limited nicotine comes also from second hand smoking.
  • DaDrake, on 06/30/2008, -5/+12Thank god we have government making decisions for us. Now, if only they could tell me if I should wear boxers or briefs.

    Seriously, what happened to personal accountability?
  • ToxNub, on 06/30/2008, -4/+15What a joke. This ban didn't "help" 400k to quit, it "forced" 400k to quit. Or at least made their lives difficult enough that they could no longer continue.
    • marx2k, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3Are you being sarcastic? Getting up from the bar stool and walking outside to have a 3 minute cig? Dude, if that's too difficult for a smoker, that person was not really a smoker to begin with.
  • xsquirrel378x, on 06/30/2008, -6/+8So lame. Why stop at smoking? All you sheep will eat up the next thing the gov't deems unfit for you as well.
  • everlast88, on 06/30/2008, -3/+5smoking ban starts in iowa tomorrow, its gonna suck, no more smoker's break room at work, they're gonna force us outside like we're livestock
    • koft, on 06/30/2008, -4/+4No, they'll expect you to not smoke at work.
    • papercupped, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0on the upside, smoking areas at clubs & pubs.... excellent way to meet girls

  • macattak420, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3i do agree when people say it invades some peoples privacy but it can help them in the end since they are ridding themselves of a bad habit. But it is wrong to force people to quit. people should have freedom but this may have taken away some of that.
  • fxu1989, on 06/30/2008, -7/+8As long as what you're doing doesn't affect me somehow, I don't care if you like to kill yourself.

    The smell of cigarettes [smoke] doesn't let me breathe, it's like if my respiratory system closes up, to the point that I'm barely grasping for some air...
    • tacklebox, on 06/30/2008, -2/+4wuss
    • Hetman, on 06/30/2008, -3/+10There are more carcinogen's coming from cars than cigarette smoke. Are you able to go outside?
      • sgtpppr, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Of course, but neurotics love to rationalize their neuroses.
      • xexx, on 06/30/2008, -2/+2You people are ***** retarded. No one parks running cars in enclosed buildings 3 feet from everyone.

        And when it's economically viable, you can bet your ass we'll ban combustion engines that run on fossil fuels as well.
      • marx2k, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1outside != enclosed room where you're sitting around with 50+ cars running the whole time.
      • loopyloopy, on 07/01/2008, -0/+12 wrongs don't make a right.

        I cant sit down in my local (outdoor) mall without someone sitting next to me and lighting up, giving me a face full of smoke.

        do what you like in your own homes.
  • peterzuni, on 06/30/2008, -2/+18brb Digg, I gotta step outside to smoke.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.