We all know that cigarettes are not an option if you want to keep healthy. But it should be an option to quit smoking or not.
The decision of keeping smokers away from closed spaces, including clubs, pubs and restaurants resulted in two different discussions that have been almost forgotten since the 1st of July, date when London went smoke-free.
On one hand, there are the non-smokers and the non-smokers’ defenders. On the other hand, there are the ones most affected with this new law: the smokers. It might sound as a musical band’s name, but this concept is as simple as ‘the people that smoke’. So if smokers and non-smokers are both people, why should one group have more privileges than the other?
It is truly unfair to non-smokers having to bear with cigarette’s effects: absolutely true. But all this arguing about protecting people from tobacco has reached a ridiculous level. Most restaurants, pubs, clubs and airports, as other public and closed spaces, used to have an area for smokers and another one for non-smokers (that was, in most cases, much bigger). If these places had special areas for smokers, the decision of banning smokers from those same places just doesn’t seem very logical. There are ventilation systems that can be perfectly be used (and in some cases already were!) in smoking areas. What was the point of creating a whole smoke-free area?
Packs of cigarettes cost more than £3. Now, you can only smoke them at home or in the street (as long as you don’t throw them on the floor). You pay for the cigarettes and for smoking them (remember to check the fees for smoking inside closed places or for missing the ashtray). Is that all, folks?
The decision of keeping smokers away from closed spaces, including clubs, pubs and restaurants resulted in two different discussions that have been almost forgotten since the 1st of July, date when London went smoke-free.
On one hand, there are the non-smokers and the non-smokers’ defenders. On the other hand, there are the ones most affected with this new law: the smokers. It might sound as a musical band’s name, but this concept is as simple as ‘the people that smoke’. So if smokers and non-smokers are both people, why should one group have more privileges than the other?
It is truly unfair to non-smokers having to bear with cigarette’s effects: absolutely true. But all this arguing about protecting people from tobacco has reached a ridiculous level. Most restaurants, pubs, clubs and airports, as other public and closed spaces, used to have an area for smokers and another one for non-smokers (that was, in most cases, much bigger). If these places had special areas for smokers, the decision of banning smokers from those same places just doesn’t seem very logical. There are ventilation systems that can be perfectly be used (and in some cases already were!) in smoking areas. What was the point of creating a whole smoke-free area?
Packs of cigarettes cost more than £3. Now, you can only smoke them at home or in the street (as long as you don’t throw them on the floor). You pay for the cigarettes and for smoking them (remember to check the fees for smoking inside closed places or for missing the ashtray). Is that all, folks?
