In the news

British people love banning shit.

But are renowned for taking the piss

The've banned smoking on a lot of beaches in the south of France. It's great. The beaches can get quite crowded, with people sat right next to you (much like pub beer gardens) and it was always awful when you are enjoying the sun and fresh air and then someone sat right next to you lights up a smoke.

We should ban more stuff.

I don't think many spoons have beer gardens

Ramsgate Royal Victoria Pavilion Spoons has a beer beach .

I've just spent a week there - the massive amount of smoking everywhere was really noticeable, and that included the beaches, and the outside seating areas of bars/restaurants while you're trying to have a family meal that doesn't taste of Gitanes. Ban away.

It also seems a bit weird that the Conservatives (and now Labour) planned to ban smoking outright and forever to anyone currently under 18, which everyone agreed was a sensible policy, but banning smoking in pub gardens is a step too far

Literally their MO. It’s like they’re gaslighting society writ large, but idiots are more than happy to take whatever scraps of rage bait they’re tossed.

It's political correctness gone mad.

while you're trying to have a family meal that doesn't taste of Gitanes

You could seek out a table next to Gauloises smokers instead?

Ha, Ian Dunt has gone on a mega rant about French ashtrays being "objects of beauty" that clearly comes from someone who really fucking misses smoking himself, which seems to be the problem with all the commentators who can't comprehend the world has moved on and generally think cigarettes are disgusting.

https://iandunt.substack.com/p/leave-smokers-alone-and-mind-your

Tbf that's different because it only applies to other people.

Parents smoking in the children's playground at the zoo de jurques in Caens was a bit of an eye opener.

Disgust itself isn't a good metric for whether something should be banned. The fact that smoking impacts others is the key thing.

This is part of labours long term plan to replace all bungalows with ultra dense micro estates of multistory town houses.

The fact that smoking impacts others is the key thing.

In so many ways. People are still dying directly and indirectly from second hand smoke, lives shortened, children developing athsma, people with athsma and other respiratory conditions aren't safe in alot of spaces. Then the huge cost, which has been mentioned, on the nhs and the taking up of capacity by people with easily preventable conditions. People will whine about anything, seatbelts, speed limits, solid fuel ban in urban areas, sugar tax, banning hitting kids, which cause obvious harm and death and sensible governments just need to ride out the bullshit until it becomes normal, which it always does, people move on and forget. Cigarettes have been widespread for about a century, which is nothing and easily reversible. To suggest its somehow vital to our ability to socialise or enjoy alcohol or have a thriving hospitality sector is really thick.

Alcohol is a bit different; ale was invented many centuries ago literally as a way of re-hydrating without risking dirty water. I think we will always have beer and places to drink it. Fags will be forgotten and in another century we will be astonished they existed, like asbestos or lead in make up.

Fun fact even the Inccas had an equivalent of near beer.

Tastes worst than West Country scrumpy. actually no it doesn't. But it's quite textured and not exactly tasty.

It's not rationale but is probably a common sentiment that banning smoking for kids makes sense/ is desirable, banning smoking outdoors feels like nanny state

I agree with all of that, the question is whether the level of harm to others of sitting in an open air space with someone smoking a few yards away is sufficient to justify banning it there. I dislike the smell of cigarette smoke, but I dislike the smell of Lynx too, so if it's just an unpleasant smell...

Banning smoking in any home with kids in it would seem like a bigger win in terms of harm reduction.

Be honest though, no one's aftershave / deodorant smells as much as smoke.

Bigger point is surely that if people can't smoke in beer gardens etc they'll just stand on the street, unless that is banned too?

Banning smoking is a quick win for the NHS and people lives in general. As was said up thread. Smokers will be annoyed and then they’ll get over it and start being annoyed at something else.

Exactly, plenty of pubs without beer gardens and you can see the smokers all huddled around the door, nearest space with a bit of shelter

I agree with all of that, the question is whether the level of harm to others of sitting in an open air space with someone smoking a few yards away is sufficient to justify banning it there.

It definitely is, but added to that is the impact on society of smokers themselves creating a massive unnescessary burden on health services. I say all this as someone who has been trying to give up for a long time, and enjoyed smoking alot for over 20 years. My life would have been longer, healthier and happier if fags had never existed, and the current ban is one more positive step towards that for the next generation.

Yes, one day it will be illegal to smoke in your own home, but seems to make sense we address enforceable public areas first.

"They'll get over it" isn't a justification for banning something (or for introducing any legislation for that matter). We shouldn't use it against others because we don't ever want it used against us. The whole point of Dunt's piece is that there is a liberal principle that we should apply to any such suggestion i.e. that we should be free to do what we like if it doesn't cause harm to others.

The extent to which govt should legislate / regulate to protect people against themselves is an interesting debate.

I don't think there is an absolute right to engage in behaviour just because it doesn't harm others, either directly or indirectly.

Otoh concerns about govt overreach are also legitimate.

To provide some context Singapore just legislated that the maximum number of cats you can have in a house is 3.

But, this total of 3 applies to dogs also. So- if you have a dog, 2 cats only.