Scottish businesses prepare to go smoke free

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

Smokers still have a civil right to smoke. Unfortunately they don't have a civil right to force others to do the same through passive smoking.
In the same context it is legal to buy a knife, but illegal to carry it about in your pocket.
Wear surgical masks, this would be classed as Personal Protective Equipment under law and as such the onus is on the duty holder to eliminate the hazard where this is reasonably practicable. By banning smoking in public places the duty has been met and we don't have to rely on one of the last control measures i.e. the PPE.
I think it is time that smokers realised the damage they not only do to themselves but others through their addiction. They should also realise the ban is law in place and will not be amended to suit their cry of "Civil Rights".

If people want to self harm and spend loads of money doing it, fine. But as an individual their choice should not be imposed on me just because I'd like to be able to go out and enjoy life in pubs and clubs. Let people smoke in their own homes and gardens.
Alcohol can be enjoyed in reasonable quantities and their r laws about being drunk (and disorderly) or driving/operating machinery, etc under the influence. If I have some one with a very loud personal stereo next to me I ask them to turn it down.
The same isn't possible with smokers who consider their habit a human right.
Ban smoking in all public places.
John J Bert

The difference between the health issues involved with smoking compared to those causing obesity and the like is that smoking harms bystanders. If someone eats too much chocolate and pizza in the same room as me, it wont harm me will it?

If someone wants to undertake activities which put their welfare in jeopardy that's fine, as long as they don't affect other people in doing it.

Smoking has been harming bystanders for too long and is a very real reason why I don't socialise much. The ban is great - I will be out on the town more these days.

I agree with the person who says that banning smoking in public places is part of the political agenda. True, there are recognisable health issues involved, but what about those health issues concerned with obesity, alcohol and stress caused by people and their addiction to mobile phones with their various irritating downloaded tunes, not to mention the risk of RSI (or possible mutation!) from constant texting. However, to introduce bans or partial bans on those issues would be a political nightmare, whereas the smoking issue is a hot potato and an easy one for the government to score a few brownie points with the electorate. Just call me cynical!
Kim Santana

I am a smoker but fully aware that other are not and that they do not wish to breath in my smoke and I respect that and make an effort to not smoke in their presents and go to a designated smoking area such as our smoke room at work.

My objection is that under this law we will lose our smoke room and not be allowed to smoke even out side the building (it looks untidy we are told) That is what I object to!!
Wait until they BAN Alcohol, after all that?s the next big killer and costs the NHS and Police much more to deal with. And as I?m not a drinker I will support that one.

Living and working in Edinburgh I hear and will coninue to hear both sides of teh arguement. I don't believe that anyones rights have been infringed- you are still allowed to smoke just not inside!!! They banned smoking on the London Underground, buses - no-one seemed to mind so why now!!!

ver the last few weeks and since the ban has come into effect I have heard more people say that they will attempt to give up the habit and only once seen anyone pushing the boundaries of the new law and he was carried away- literally for other reasons than just smoking in a pub. It was 2.30 though!!

If its a civil right to smoke, then its also a civil right not to, or at least not to do so via secondary means?

Civil rights, civil rights - is there anything that is not considered to be a "civil right" for someone, or some group, these days?

There should be a choice about smoking but by the same token that it is the "civil right" of smokers to smoke it is the "civil right" of a non-smoker not to have his or her air polluted by a smoker.

Smoking is not entirely a political agenda item; there is sufficient evidence to prove that smoking is a serious contributor to ill health and early death.

The government won't ban tobacco since the revenue raised in tax from its sale is a seriously large sum - which they can ill afford to be without.

Smoking is a civil right, since it is legal to buy and sell tobacco.

Pubs and clubs are recreational places, therefore people should have a choice; and nowadays there are no such thing as second class human beings under the human rights law.

Staff members could wear surgical masks for heath & safety reasons, just the same as in labs or construction sites which have high health risks. People still could choose not to work or socialise in these areas. In this way, nobody?s human rights has been violated.

Alternatively, ban tobacco once and for all just like any other items which could cause cancer.

Smoking ban is only a political agenda not a health agenda. The fact is that the government still allow tobacco to be in the legal market although medically tobacco has proven to have no health benefits at all.