Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Banning smoking is the best thing Labour have done for the gay community

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I agree, can’t wait until the ban starts!

  2. I haven’t excpected such a comment! I thought the editor or someone would say: “all gay-bars will go down, how can they do this, its our own decision, sales will puff away, going in clubs goes hand in hand with smoking, and so on”, but congratulation for this liberal opinion!Despite some interolant smokers and uninformed business-owners no one will miss the smoke and in 1-2 years no one ever can imagine that smoking was allowed at indoor workplaces.

  3. I can’t wait for it too happen. There is nothing worse than going out for the night and coming in smelling of smoke. I hate the smell and there is nothing worse than some ignorant moron blowing it in your face!!It might actually be worth going out come next summer.

  4. What a self-righteous little burst of spleen! I was sold cigarettes as a 12 year old, got hooked and have failed at giving up. The habit costs me thousands, but I pay more in cig tax than the average wage earner does in income tax! (24 times as much as it costs the NHS to treat smoking illness) I try to act courteously – not smoking in restaurants, etc. I loved going to the cinema but that is now a misery. As I approach retirement, my great pleasure is to spend time with friends at my local pub. Why on earth can there not be pubs for smokers and pubs for non-smokers? Maybe even pubs for the sanctimonious? I tolerate car-drivers who spew their filth into my basement flat, but tolerance it seems is expected only of smokers.

  5. Is it more self righteous to state your opinion on a habit that everyone agrees kills thousands directly and indirectly or to post a vindictive comment on a website about an article.I would love to know how a car can spew its pollutants into your flat more than a smoker standing right by you in a bar can. At least you can shut your windows

  6. And without cars, buses, planes etc….how the hell would we transport things now? And a vast mojority of people have to commute to get to work.If there were trains from the town I live in to where I work (I start nearly every shift at 7.30, the first buses are just after 7) I would quite happily get rid of my car.It’s not really an argument is it?

  7. And still no attempt to answer my simple, central question. Why not let smokers have a few pubs of their own?

  8. Nicholas T. 17 Feb 2006, 6:40pm

    This issue is one of those incredibly difficult social debates, because it is so difficult to pin down the ethical matters that are so widely debated. Despite being a smoker, I wholeheartedly defend the right of non-smokers not to breathe smoke if they do not wish to; just as smokers have the choice to smoke, and choose to take it, so those who choose not to smoke should be entitled to remain entirely free of smoke. The onus has been placed on smokers because of course smoking is risky, and has been widely proven so.However, I don’t agree with completely banning smoking in all enclosed public spaces for the simple reason that the choice should be there, and that if people wish to mutually kill themselves with tobacco smoke they should be entitled to do so provided they do not impinge on non-smokers who do not wish to come into contact with smoke. Consequently I think a better choice of legislative enforcement would be to only allow smoking in specially designated smoking rooms, shut off from the non-smoking area or alternatively shielded by adequate air cleaning (although I’m not sure whether technology exists to do this sufficiently). I don’t agree with the concept of smoking and non-smoking establishments, however, because that in itself creates two camps of separate people and excludes the opposite party. I just think the best answer is to implement proper sections – not just designated areas in one room – for smokers and non-smokers. In summary I think the choice should be there, without excluding either party of the smoking vs. non-smoking debate.

  9. Thomas Laprade 18 Feb 2006, 7:46am

    Dear Editor, Feb. 18/06If the public was honestly and truthfully informed about the effects of second-hand smoke, there would be fewer no-smoking laws in this country.A little smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is going to harm or kill you?If anyone believes that, then I have a bridge I would like to sell them.There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills or harms anyone.As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology.Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking.Thomas LapradeThunder Bay, Ont.Canada

  10. jenny hynes 10 Mar 2006, 4:30pm

    I don’t like stinking to high heaven after a night out. I don’t like choking on other peoples nicotine either. Oddly perhaps given my views, all my mates smoke, the only one that doesn’t is a gay man.Smoking kills. The smokers and those around them. It kills more people globally than heroin use; it kills more people globally than even AIDS! That’s enough to have it banned in my book. Add to that the issue of smokers stinking, and I can’t see how anyone can defend it.It isn’t a case of freedom of choice, its highly addictive and it kills. Simple as that.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all