absolutely NO sympathy for smokers in airport
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: London
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TightSlot,
as always a moderate reply
I think that society is slowly changing in its attitudes to both alcohol and smoking. 25 years ago (or slightly longer) it was almost accepted to have one for the road before driving home, and people caught drink driving were treated by friends and colleagues as being the victim of bad luck. Now they are treated with disdain. The same thing is now happening with speeding - see the comments on some forums about Anne Robinson yesterday.
Five years ago the big 4x4 was seen to be aspirational, now the owners are pariahs, especially those blocking up my commute to work with the school run. There are other examples such as attittudes to fur coats.
The attitudes to smoking are also changing slowly, just look at how many films / TV programmes show people smoking. I have no objection to people smoking on their own territory, but when it impinges on me, then I object. As an example I recently spent 4 days in Kangerlussauq (using SAS air miles), and couldn't go to the bar because my eyes started watering when I got near it. Even on an xmas holiday in Switzerland this year it was noticable how many people smoked in bars, and that's after only 6 months of the ban.
If it were possible to stop the smell of smoke from reaching me, with excellent ventillation and use of separate areas, then there's no problem.
As for alcohol, I fully appreciate your point, and will try to be less leary in future
as always a moderate reply
I think that society is slowly changing in its attitudes to both alcohol and smoking. 25 years ago (or slightly longer) it was almost accepted to have one for the road before driving home, and people caught drink driving were treated by friends and colleagues as being the victim of bad luck. Now they are treated with disdain. The same thing is now happening with speeding - see the comments on some forums about Anne Robinson yesterday.
Five years ago the big 4x4 was seen to be aspirational, now the owners are pariahs, especially those blocking up my commute to work with the school run. There are other examples such as attittudes to fur coats.
The attitudes to smoking are also changing slowly, just look at how many films / TV programmes show people smoking. I have no objection to people smoking on their own territory, but when it impinges on me, then I object. As an example I recently spent 4 days in Kangerlussauq (using SAS air miles), and couldn't go to the bar because my eyes started watering when I got near it. Even on an xmas holiday in Switzerland this year it was noticable how many people smoked in bars, and that's after only 6 months of the ban.
If it were possible to stop the smell of smoke from reaching me, with excellent ventillation and use of separate areas, then there's no problem.
As for alcohol, I fully appreciate your point, and will try to be less leary in future
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Devon
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No the real reason for the smoking ban and publicity is very simply one of litigation.
I disagree – since the Government proposed the ban and they would never get sued.
I used to fly in a smoky aircraft. I didn't particularly notice the smell but when I got home and stripped off sweaty, smoke saturated underwear Mrs Wader used to make me strip off in the garage.
You flew in your underwear! Seriously though I don’t see the relevance of that in the context of supplying air tight smoking rooms. Nobody is suggesting smoking in areas with non-smokers around so all the “used to come home smelling like an ashtray” stories are irrelevant to the issue.
I have noticed that threads where it is suggested that smokers have their own rooms – without bothering anyone else always seem to degenerate into comments related to the old pre-ban days of open areas and smoking in pubs. That is history and cannot be used as a justification to continue the ban on smoking rooms. If you do object then please frame your objection in the context of adults indulging in a pastime that would not affect you (apart from the subject of bad breath – which comes down to an issue of tolerance of bad breath rather than smoking).
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As it stands the government needs all the cash it can get so to a point, yes they want the tax revenue.
Lets assume they enforce a very strict non-smoking policy and tax them to high heaven to force smokers out of the habit.
The real question is: If we assume the money spent on smoking related health problems increases proportionally to the people smoking (therefore tax revenue), can we assume that (given a enough time of course) a reduction in number of smokers, and therefore tax revenue lost, will be proportional to a reduction in NHS costs?
In other words, will we have a short term deficit in tax terms or will it all even out in the end?
An if this is the case, and due to the long time periods involved in the effects of smoking (10, 20 years??), how will we fill this gap?
Lots of questions, I'm afraid I don't have answers though!
Lets assume they enforce a very strict non-smoking policy and tax them to high heaven to force smokers out of the habit.
The real question is: If we assume the money spent on smoking related health problems increases proportionally to the people smoking (therefore tax revenue), can we assume that (given a enough time of course) a reduction in number of smokers, and therefore tax revenue lost, will be proportional to a reduction in NHS costs?
In other words, will we have a short term deficit in tax terms or will it all even out in the end?
An if this is the case, and due to the long time periods involved in the effects of smoking (10, 20 years??), how will we fill this gap?
Lots of questions, I'm afraid I don't have answers though!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Five Juliet 8th July......
Well, I never knew that there was one law for the SNN passengers and another for everyone else! Makes an ass of the smoking ban in all other ROI airports doesn't it?
If what you say is true - that anyone, including US army personnel can use a smoking area in SNN then all I can say is the law is really an ass! If it is allowed in SNN why not in all other ROI airports? Ahhhhhhh yes, to keep the US traffic coming through and the revenue that brings. Sure God help them, they wouldn't have had a ciggie for 6 hours, and then they have to go to onwards to Iraq where they might not even get a beer.
And I am not a cynic - Yet....
Any views on this anomaly, if true.
Well, I never knew that there was one law for the SNN passengers and another for everyone else! Makes an ass of the smoking ban in all other ROI airports doesn't it?
If what you say is true - that anyone, including US army personnel can use a smoking area in SNN then all I can say is the law is really an ass! If it is allowed in SNN why not in all other ROI airports? Ahhhhhhh yes, to keep the US traffic coming through and the revenue that brings. Sure God help them, they wouldn't have had a ciggie for 6 hours, and then they have to go to onwards to Iraq where they might not even get a beer.
And I am not a cynic - Yet....
Any views on this anomaly, if true.
