Don't we have the right to breathe in clean, uncontaminated air? Should 'passing breathing' be banned

Question

In Britain, smoking is now banned by law in public meeting places e.g. pubs. Polcorists (political correctness fanatics) call it 'passive smoking'.

So why don't the dingdongs go one step further and ban 'passive breathing'? After all, people are breathing out germs and infections (some of these can cause serious illness to others) and the rest of us have to breathe them in.

Don't we have the right to breathe in clean, uncontaminated air?

Answer 1

i suppose a kiss is out of the question then,,,

Answer 2

Although your wording has incensed Rebel F, I can see your point.  It has been reported that certain people entering this country are carrying the TB virus.  Having eradicated this some years ago, I for one do not want it back in my country.  Therefore, anyone entering should be tested. As for smoking Rebel F - yes I am a smoker and have obeyed all the 'rules' imposed on me and now only smoke at home - although no doubt it won't be long before the cigarette 'police' will be peering through my window and banning that too!  Would Rebel F like to answer this question:  When on a plane recently for a 5 hour flight, I obviously adhered to the the no-smoking rule.  However, the couple in front of me were most definitely out of their mind on booze, and caused complete mayhem which resulted in the captain and crew having to restrain them for the safety of the passengers.  Who posed the greater threat to your health and safety?  The smoker who may light up in your presence, or the numbskulls who are out of their brain and could have brought the plane down?  When people are mugged and attacked is it by someone high on cigarettes - no usually high on drugs or booze.  Hit-and-runs are usually DUI's.  Time to get a grip Rebel F and realise where the real dangers in society are!  Next time you are sitting next to a smoker remember that the 'guy' next to you could be 'carrying' something more deadly!!

Answer 3

..yeah!..and pssive eating and passive drinking..u might get fat or drunk just sitting next to the guy with the burger and bud!

Answer 4

In my current state of mind, after having been ill for two weeks with the flu that was developing into pneumonia, I would appreciate that people in future kept their flu germs to themselves.

Cover up your mouth when you sneeze or cough, wash your hands alot.

Answer 5

Well, I don't know about your country, but here people who are carry deadly contagious diseases ARE quarantined, i.e., their freedom is taken away for the health and safety of others.

I know it's hard for some to grasp, but "your" rights end where someone else's begin. It's like drunk driving. You can get as stinking drunk as you like, to the point of having to go to the hospital, or DYING, but you don't have the right to get behind the wheel and put other people's life in jeopardy. That's not "political correctness," that what the fabric of our society is founded on.

I take it you're a smoker?

EDIT-ALBA, since when has TB been eradicated in our country, or any country? This simply isn't true. Nor is it true that people who have it are allowed in ANY country. People who have TB and are trying to enter another country are quarantined. That's a fact. And Rebel F is exactly right, just because there are "greater" dangers doesn't mean that public smoking should "pass," since we know that second hand smoke can cause all sorts of ills, from mild allergies to emphysema.

Answer 6

You could always invest in a gas mask or perhaps the NHS could provide them free of charge to anyone with an infectious disease.

Answer 7

Most people in the UK support the smoking bans. Going out to bars and clubs no longer results in coming home smelling like a cigarette. Hundreds of thousands of people have now given up smoking and it is estimated that this will help save thousands of lives in the next few years. Having seen what a horrible death lung cancer is I wouldn't wish that on anyone (well, almost anyone). However I agree that there are several more measures the government could take to make our country a safer and more pleasant place.

Answer 8

Me thinks that one would have to travel a great many ~ many many miles to find any 'uncontaminated air' anywhere.

And, even if you found that place, what are you going to do with the old / ex air you've used then?  Take it with you! And then do what with it?  

I'm almost convinced you are having a good laugh!  But then again, the creepy thought comes ....'Maybe he ain't!!'

[ I actually doubt that there is anything such as 'uncontaminated air' ~ anywhere as, like water, it has likely ALL passed through the animal system to be scrubbed clean by foliage and the sea ~ many times ]

Now that's worrying.

Sash.

Answer 9

Well, don't blame the feminists for this one.

THIS feminist misses having a pint and a smoke in a bar like mad.

There are still a few U.S. states where you can smoke in bars. Sadly, not mine, nor any of the surrounding ones.

Answer 10

Yes, I agree. Your question simply underlines the absurdity of obsessing about so called 'passive smoking'. I have yet to be rendered ill by passive smoking, and don't expect to be anytime soon, but I have been rendered very ill on many occasions by the germs/viruses that have come out of peoples g-bs.

Just to correct one of your respondents. We did eradicate TB in this country for a long time, (FACT) until we relaxed the immigration laws out of existence. I am also sure that there will be many other viruses that will be entering the country that we don't have natural immunity to.

There is a final irony. Cigarette smoke has been found to kill many types of germs and viruses. Lets spread that around.

Answer 11

What a ridiculous question.  

Obviously, "passive breathing" cannot be banned because everyone must breathe to survive.  The reason why it's acceptable to ban smoking is because smoking is absolutely NOT necessary and the harm and annoyance done to non-smokers (as well as the non-smoker's right to breathe tolerable air) outweighs the smoker's "right" to smoke.

ETA:  

Alba:  

You don't really have a point.  If you are trying to say that less significant dangers should be overlooked for the sake of more significant dangers, that's pretty silly.  That's like saying it should be illegal to shoot people in the head but it shouldn't be illegal to shoot people in the knees.  

Obviously someone drunk on a plane and causing serious harm to other passengers is more serious than someone smoking a cigarette.  But, cracking down on smoking in public places does not mean that other, more serious dangers are getting ignored.  It's not an either-or issue where we have to choose one particular type of danger and only remove it, whereas another danger can run rampant.  We live in a world where we can deal with MULTIPLE different types of dangers...from extremely serious ones like people sneaking AK-47s on planes to more minor ones like smoking in public places.  

Of course I know that someone with a gun or a knife is more dangerous than someone who is smoking in public.  But, that doesn't mean that smoking in public isn't ALSO dangerous to the health of others, or at the very least, a major nuisance that nobody should have to deal with, especially when smoking is completely unnecessary.  

And FYI, I am not "incensed" in the least.  I am telling it like it is.