Don’t like the smoking ban? You know where the door is.

Other countries have much more freedom than Britain.

Clearly the government intends to ignore ideas submitted to this site.

So why not offer bursaries so that people can move abroad to enjoy more freedom:

1. Freedom to smoke: other European countries are much more relaxed about smoking.

2. Freedom to breathe: traffic pollution is much less severe in Europe and they allow smoking rooms so you can choose which smoke you want to be exposed to.

3. Freedom from tax: Britain now has the highest overall burden of tax in the western world.

4. Freedom to work: mass immigration and offshoring of jobs are much less prevalent in other countries.

5. Freedom to study: most other European countries offer student grants and waive tuition fees for poorer students.

6. Freedom to recover: Britain has some of the worst figures in Europe for recovery from cancer and other serious diseases.

7. Freedom to personal space: Britain is now the most densely populated country in Europe (supermarkets estimate, from the sale of staple items like bread and milk, that the population of Britain is around 95 million)

8. Freedom to own a home: it's almost impossible to enter the property market in Britain.

9. Freedom of movement: British people must now sign the e-borders register to take a holiday.

10. Freedom of assembly: in Britain is it illegal to dance to repetitive music, play live music unlicensed at a village fete and hold a political protest without permission from the police.

11. Freedom from noise: despite the previous point Britain offers no protection against neighbourhood noise unlike most other European countries.

12. Freedom from violence: Britain has the highest violent crime figures in Europe and most people are afraid to walk around their own communities after dark.

13. Freedom of the Internet: only Britain, China and North Korea will block Websites and imprison people whom contradict the will of the digital oligarchs.

14. Freedom to have a stake: in America one third of the population has two thirds of the wealth. However in Britain, comparable to a tin-pot dictatorship, just 5% of the population has 95% of the wealth.

I could go on but you get the picture.

Why is this idea important?

Other countries have much more freedom than Britain.

Clearly the government intends to ignore ideas submitted to this site.

So why not offer bursaries so that people can move abroad to enjoy more freedom:

1. Freedom to smoke: other European countries are much more relaxed about smoking.

2. Freedom to breathe: traffic pollution is much less severe in Europe and they allow smoking rooms so you can choose which smoke you want to be exposed to.

3. Freedom from tax: Britain now has the highest overall burden of tax in the western world.

4. Freedom to work: mass immigration and offshoring of jobs are much less prevalent in other countries.

5. Freedom to study: most other European countries offer student grants and waive tuition fees for poorer students.

6. Freedom to recover: Britain has some of the worst figures in Europe for recovery from cancer and other serious diseases.

7. Freedom to personal space: Britain is now the most densely populated country in Europe (supermarkets estimate, from the sale of staple items like bread and milk, that the population of Britain is around 95 million)

8. Freedom to own a home: it's almost impossible to enter the property market in Britain.

9. Freedom of movement: British people must now sign the e-borders register to take a holiday.

10. Freedom of assembly: in Britain is it illegal to dance to repetitive music, play live music unlicensed at a village fete and hold a political protest without permission from the police.

11. Freedom from noise: despite the previous point Britain offers no protection against neighbourhood noise unlike most other European countries.

12. Freedom from violence: Britain has the highest violent crime figures in Europe and most people are afraid to walk around their own communities after dark.

13. Freedom of the Internet: only Britain, China and North Korea will block Websites and imprison people whom contradict the will of the digital oligarchs.

14. Freedom to have a stake: in America one third of the population has two thirds of the wealth. However in Britain, comparable to a tin-pot dictatorship, just 5% of the population has 95% of the wealth.

I could go on but you get the picture.

Lets lift the smoking ban it’s killing England

PUBS CLOSING THE TRADE IS DYING. WE SHOULD HAVE A CHOICE US THE BRITISH PEOPLE NOT TO BE DICTATED TO AND TOLD WHAT WE CAN AND NOT DO FREEDOM OF CHOICE PLEASE. A FAG AND A PINT NOT STANDING IN THE COLD

Why is this idea important?

PUBS CLOSING THE TRADE IS DYING. WE SHOULD HAVE A CHOICE US THE BRITISH PEOPLE NOT TO BE DICTATED TO AND TOLD WHAT WE CAN AND NOT DO FREEDOM OF CHOICE PLEASE. A FAG AND A PINT NOT STANDING IN THE COLD

Repeal the smoking ban IN ITS CURRENT FORM

Smokers are now the most persecuted minority in the country.  Most smokers just want a degree of tolerance for them to pursue their vice without causing offence to other people.  The trouble is that the anti smoking stasi expect their rights to trounce all others, regardless of how minor the offence to them is. The result is that smokers have no rights.  They are unable to have an enjoyable drink in a pub or hotel, having to slink out like criminals in the cold and wet; they are generally denied a room in a hotel, where they can enjoy a cigarette, without having to burgle their way out at night.  In short, their right to enjoyment is denied them, so that all others can be spared so much as a whiff.   For this they are the most highly taxed group of people in the country – the government doesn't deem it so bad that it bans the habit.  Heaven forbid that all those taxes be lost.  What happened to no taxation without representation?  Smokers know what they are doing to their health.  They don't need Nanny to tell them.  They are probably going to DIE younger, thus saving the nation a fortune;  less cost in pensions, less chance of living long enough to get dementia; less chance of  requiring care (in a home where they will be sent outside to smoke)  The NHS is quids in – for Heaven's sake we PAY for it.

I have always been a considerate smoker.  Why, oh why can't smokers be given a little consideration?  Why can't there be smoking areas?  Even if you accept that secondary smoke can cause illnesses, this is much more likely to be where the smoker lives with or is in constant contact with others.  The occasionally puff isn't going to kill anyone,  unlike drunkards, who can cause immeasurable harm to others, so why do we have 24 hour drinking – Smokers don't binge smoke or kill people when they've been on a tobacco bender.

How about banning all manner of other behaviour that people find unpleasant and which are equally damaging to health.  Make it a punishable offence to sneeze or cough without a hanky, a hefty fine for not washing hands after using public conveniences; smelling of BO or perfume in a crowded place.   The list could be endless. 

Why is this idea important?

Smokers are now the most persecuted minority in the country.  Most smokers just want a degree of tolerance for them to pursue their vice without causing offence to other people.  The trouble is that the anti smoking stasi expect their rights to trounce all others, regardless of how minor the offence to them is. The result is that smokers have no rights.  They are unable to have an enjoyable drink in a pub or hotel, having to slink out like criminals in the cold and wet; they are generally denied a room in a hotel, where they can enjoy a cigarette, without having to burgle their way out at night.  In short, their right to enjoyment is denied them, so that all others can be spared so much as a whiff.   For this they are the most highly taxed group of people in the country – the government doesn't deem it so bad that it bans the habit.  Heaven forbid that all those taxes be lost.  What happened to no taxation without representation?  Smokers know what they are doing to their health.  They don't need Nanny to tell them.  They are probably going to DIE younger, thus saving the nation a fortune;  less cost in pensions, less chance of living long enough to get dementia; less chance of  requiring care (in a home where they will be sent outside to smoke)  The NHS is quids in – for Heaven's sake we PAY for it.

I have always been a considerate smoker.  Why, oh why can't smokers be given a little consideration?  Why can't there be smoking areas?  Even if you accept that secondary smoke can cause illnesses, this is much more likely to be where the smoker lives with or is in constant contact with others.  The occasionally puff isn't going to kill anyone,  unlike drunkards, who can cause immeasurable harm to others, so why do we have 24 hour drinking – Smokers don't binge smoke or kill people when they've been on a tobacco bender.

How about banning all manner of other behaviour that people find unpleasant and which are equally damaging to health.  Make it a punishable offence to sneeze or cough without a hanky, a hefty fine for not washing hands after using public conveniences; smelling of BO or perfume in a crowded place.   The list could be endless. 

Create two classes of pubs – Smoking and Non-smoking

Create two types of pubs – Smoking Pubs and Non-smoking Pubs, so customers could vote with their feet and the rights of both groups of citizens would be restored.  Pub category would probably need to be taken into account when choosing Landlords and Staff.

Why is this idea important?

Create two types of pubs – Smoking Pubs and Non-smoking Pubs, so customers could vote with their feet and the rights of both groups of citizens would be restored.  Pub category would probably need to be taken into account when choosing Landlords and Staff.

Freedom to smoke in certain places.

I do think public houses should be able to set aside an area (preferably air conditioned) so that customers can enjoy a  cigarette with a drink and not have to go outside to do this.  I am convinced that the reason so many Pubs have closed is because of the smoking ban. 

Why is this idea important?

I do think public houses should be able to set aside an area (preferably air conditioned) so that customers can enjoy a  cigarette with a drink and not have to go outside to do this.  I am convinced that the reason so many Pubs have closed is because of the smoking ban. 

Ms Ann Williamson – Smoking ban

Let everyone choose if they want  there  pubs to be smoke zones or not , but bigger ones should have seperate designated rooms for either smoking or none smoking, and for all pubs to have it clearly stated outside there premises if they are a smoking or none smoking pub, then it is up to the individual if they want to go into these premises. I do think that all pubs should  have proper venilation to take as much of the smoke as possible

Why is this idea important?

Let everyone choose if they want  there  pubs to be smoke zones or not , but bigger ones should have seperate designated rooms for either smoking or none smoking, and for all pubs to have it clearly stated outside there premises if they are a smoking or none smoking pub, then it is up to the individual if they want to go into these premises. I do think that all pubs should  have proper venilation to take as much of the smoke as possible

Smoking Ban

i for one feel that the smoking ban has damaged the pub industry aswell as other companies. But most of all i think that people should have a choice on whether they are to smoke in public places, fair enough i know some people dislike the idea of smoking and think it is a horrible habit, but its all a matter of the persona of the individual.

 

So there for i suggest that the government does the best for both smokers and non-smokers, by introducing a  Smoking Licence for Companies that wish for people to be able to smoke on there land if they want to. But with the icence it must come with a sign to be put up saying that it is a smoking property (Companies only) and people can then choose whether they would like to go in or not

Why is this idea important?

i for one feel that the smoking ban has damaged the pub industry aswell as other companies. But most of all i think that people should have a choice on whether they are to smoke in public places, fair enough i know some people dislike the idea of smoking and think it is a horrible habit, but its all a matter of the persona of the individual.

 

So there for i suggest that the government does the best for both smokers and non-smokers, by introducing a  Smoking Licence for Companies that wish for people to be able to smoke on there land if they want to. But with the icence it must come with a sign to be put up saying that it is a smoking property (Companies only) and people can then choose whether they would like to go in or not

Amend the Health Act 2006 (smoking ban in public places)

The blanket ban on smoking in public places should be repealed and replaced by legislation which provides for the right of publicans, management committees and all other internal regulatory persons or bodies to choose whether or not smoking should be permissible in THEIR premises.

Why is this idea important?

The blanket ban on smoking in public places should be repealed and replaced by legislation which provides for the right of publicans, management committees and all other internal regulatory persons or bodies to choose whether or not smoking should be permissible in THEIR premises.

reinstate smoking laws

The laws of abolishing smoking in public places is have an small in pack on pubs and clubs around the united kingdom, I find it stupid that our government gets revenue per pack of cigarettes and they understandable would be in favour too stop smaoking and drinking but my problem is that if it's going to hurt our governments spending then banding smoking where would the government get revenue from, at the presant they get aroung 60-65% revenue from smokers and drinkers so where's the money going to come from if these revenue's stops. so I'm in favour to allow the public to smoke hwere they choose because we are paying towards the governments revene's

Why is this idea important?

The laws of abolishing smoking in public places is have an small in pack on pubs and clubs around the united kingdom, I find it stupid that our government gets revenue per pack of cigarettes and they understandable would be in favour too stop smaoking and drinking but my problem is that if it's going to hurt our governments spending then banding smoking where would the government get revenue from, at the presant they get aroung 60-65% revenue from smokers and drinkers so where's the money going to come from if these revenue's stops. so I'm in favour to allow the public to smoke hwere they choose because we are paying towards the governments revene's

Repeal the smoking ban

The current smoking ban is far too restrictive. Smokers will be happy to be segregated from non-smokers in pubs, restaurants etc, but under the current law they are forced to smoke outside in all weather.

Some people will continue to smoke no matter how high the price of tabacco and how many restrictions are forced upon them.

The smoking ban has had a direct effect on the closure of pubs and bars throughout the country.

Most of these establishments had an inside smoking area that had extractor fans in use before the total ban of smoking in a public area. These can be used again, as I said most smokers would be happy to be segregated.

Why is this idea important?

The current smoking ban is far too restrictive. Smokers will be happy to be segregated from non-smokers in pubs, restaurants etc, but under the current law they are forced to smoke outside in all weather.

Some people will continue to smoke no matter how high the price of tabacco and how many restrictions are forced upon them.

The smoking ban has had a direct effect on the closure of pubs and bars throughout the country.

Most of these establishments had an inside smoking area that had extractor fans in use before the total ban of smoking in a public area. These can be used again, as I said most smokers would be happy to be segregated.

‘Ban’ smoking ban in pubs. Give the Landlord/Landlady the choice.

Pubs have been hammered by the smoking ban financialy. Many traditional British pubs have been closed because of a lack of punters, who would rather stay in to enjoy a cigarette in the warmth with their drink. Also, with rising prices of alcohol on top of this, it has caused many pubs to struggle making money and many across the U.K have had to close their doors forever. Even after hundreds of years of being a functional pub in some cases.

I see sense only in giving the landlord/landlady a choice in whether 'his' pub should be a Non-Smoking pub or not. If the pub is serving food he should be able to have the choice in whether he wants a completely smoke free pub or a split pub with one smoking zone and one non smoking zone.

Why is this idea important?

Pubs have been hammered by the smoking ban financialy. Many traditional British pubs have been closed because of a lack of punters, who would rather stay in to enjoy a cigarette in the warmth with their drink. Also, with rising prices of alcohol on top of this, it has caused many pubs to struggle making money and many across the U.K have had to close their doors forever. Even after hundreds of years of being a functional pub in some cases.

I see sense only in giving the landlord/landlady a choice in whether 'his' pub should be a Non-Smoking pub or not. If the pub is serving food he should be able to have the choice in whether he wants a completely smoke free pub or a split pub with one smoking zone and one non smoking zone.