Road Ban Paved With Good Intentions

Kerry Howley | October 12, 2006

Because the most deadly thing about standing in the street is secondhand smoke, the UK is considering banning street smoking. No surprise there. But, according to this marginally comprehensible Telegraph article, the street ban's biggest supporters are against the ban on smoking in public places:

The authority is opposed to the smoking ban, but has said it should include pavements because large numbers of drinkers gathering outside to smoke would be potentially noisy, abusive or anti-social.

"It's very easy for the Government to evangelise how this will be good for public health," said a council spokesman. "The reality is it will cause major problems. This is the only sensible solution to the problem besides removing the draconian ban."

Comments

|10.12.06 @ 12:28PM|#

Aren't British roads already dangerous enough with the cars coming from the wrong direction?

|10.12.06 @ 12:31PM|#

Aren't British roads already dangerous enough with the cars coming from the wrong direction?

|10.12.06 @ 12:44PM|#

Car exhaust is fine because I drive a car. Cigarette smoke is bad because I don't smoke cigarettes.

|10.12.06 @ 12:46PM|#

Wouldn't people who are gathering on the sidewalks in front of business for a quick puff and a chat be social, not anti-social?

I can't imagine how wretched it would be to live in a damp climate like the UK, and have to go outside for smoking. At least here in LA, you're not gonna catch pneumonia if you step outside for a smoke. Heatstroke, maybe, but not pneumonia.

|10.12.06 @ 12:51PM|#

I like the smoking ban because it gives me an excuse to ditch my lame friends and hang out with the rebels. The ban is totally wrong, but practically speaking, it actually makes me happy.

|10.12.06 @ 12:57PM|#

As usual, smoking is hated like it's the number one problem in the world. All unreasonable excuses to ban it are acceptable.

Why don't we just get it over with and ban life itself. Then there will be no abuse, anti-social behavior, noise, cancer, discrimination or anything else to bitch about.

|10.12.06 @ 1:11PM|#

Why don't we just get it over with and ban life itself. Then there will be no abuse, anti-social behavior, noise, cancer, discrimination or anything else to bitch about.

And apparently endangered species would immediately recover, too!

|10.12.06 @ 1:33PM|#

Why don't we just get it over with and ban life itself. Then there will be no abuse, anti-social behavior, noise, cancer, discrimination or anything else to bitch about.

They aren't going to ban life, they are just going to ban the parts that people enjoy. The right wing knows pleasure is sinful, and the left knows that that pleasure is exploitive.

Seriously, they need to order police to shoot on sight anyone with a cigarette. I am bored with the health nazis not using some good old fashion nazi brutality.

Michael Hampton|10.12.06 @ 1:58PM|#

British "pavement" == American "sidewalk".

|10.12.06 @ 3:43PM|#

I like the smoking ban. It lets the bars that are known to "allow" smoking attact a more fun loving crowd, and if anyone drops a dime on them we can feel good about beating the living shit out of the blue nosed asshole.

Joining together in criminality gives one a rush, I guess it is sort of similar to going to a speakeasy in the 20s.

Robert Goodman|10.12.06 @ 9:51PM|#

"Pavement" is British and Pittsburghese for sidewalk. But Kerry Howley's right; other than that, I don't understand the article.

Patrick|10.13.06 @ 11:20AM|#

Anyone else notice the absurdity of this sentence:

"This is the only sensible solution to the problem besides removing the draconian ban.�

In that one sentence the pro-ban politician admits that the indoor ban is �draconian� and acknowledges that removing it is a �sensible solution.�

What an idiot!