Vote on smoking ban in public places

It really seems quite simple to me.

The 'norm' is not smoking - it is a conscious choice to both begin and continue smoking.

Therefore the 'norm' should be catered for, and when the choice is made to start smoking the disadvantages should be weighed up as part of that choice.
 
LordSplodge said:
Citizens arrests then.
Click to expand...

I know you said it in jest but you wouldn't be able to do a citizens arrest. A CA is only allowed if the crime being committed carries a pentaly over 5 years. :eek:

Beer? Sex? Extreme sports? The same argument for banning stuff is what applies to civil liberties. People say "If I haven't done anything wrong what have I to hide?" well the goverment can chnage the goal posts. SO it's smoking that is the big bad wolf but what if the next thing they ban is something you enjoy?

Makes you think.
Click to expand...

I love it when people say 'If you've done notihng wrong you have nothing to hide'.

I just say 'so you would support the abolishion of search warrants then? After all, if you've done nothing wrong what do you have to hide'?

They usually go quiet.
 
LordSplodge said:
What Tony Blair and his Cronies are doing is just pandering to the whim of the media.
Click to expand...

Lol, I love it how Tony blair gets blamed for everything. Are you forgetting that most of the conservatives and lib dems voted for this, and the official labour line was that they wanted a partial ban?!

Pandering to the whim of the media, well, that and the general pubilc.

I have not read the rest of your post due to the fact that from this line alone you will probably be blaming the government for everyting wrong in the world.
 
Vote on Drinking Ban in Public Places

Rich_L said:
It really seems quite simple to me.

The 'norm' is not smoking - it is a conscious choice to both begin and continue smoking.

Therefore the 'norm' should be catered for, and when the choice is made to start smoking the disadvantages should be weighed up as part of that choice.
Click to expand...
It really seems quite simple to me.

The 'norm' is not boozing - it is a conscious choice to both begin and continue boozing.

Therefore the 'norm' should be catered for, and when the choice is made to start boozing the disadvantages should be weighed up as part of that choice.

BBCi
Surge in alcohol-related deaths

The number of alcohol-related deaths has increased by nearly a fifth in four years, figures show. The Office for National Statistics data revealed deaths in England and Wales rose by from 5,525 in 2000 to 6,544 in 2004 - an 18.4% increase.
Click to expand...
 
LordSplodge said:
I don't smoke. I will never smoke.

However, the Government has stopped doing its job and has started to decide what we can do. Next comes what we can say, oh hang on, they are starting to do that now aren't they?

What Tony Blair and his Cronies are doing is just pandering to the whim of the media.

Nasty terrorists? No problem ID Cards will stop that!
Fox hunting? Let's stop that is is so cruel!
Smoking. So, so bad let's take that away as well.

See where this is going? We know smoking is bad for you. It causes cancer amongst other nasties. Hey laser printer toner is a carcinogen as well, sahll we band that? Or what about EMR? That can cause cancer? Mobile phones? Cars?

Smoking is bad for you. Smoking is expensive and makes you smell. So? Exposure to passive smoke is bad, but how bad compared to the world of nasty chemicals and cancer causing elements we live in?

But the smokers have a right to enjoy a pint, pie and a fag. Non smokers have the same right to enjoy clean air. One pub can cater for the smokers, and if non smokers don't like it go to a pub where the landlord has banned smoking.

Who is going to police this ban? Not the police they can't keep up with proper crime. Citizens arrests then.

Listening to the unclued up swallow what the media says without question Joe Public is a bad idea. Full stop.

So we have soon-to-be mandatory ID cards at great cost to us and of no use in stopping terrorists. We have a ban on smoking that has been over hyped. What is next?

Beer? Sex? Extreme sports? The same argument for banning stuff is what applies to civil liberties. People say "If I haven't done anything wrong what have I to hide?" well the goverment can chnage the goal posts. SO it's smoking that is the big bad wolf but what if the next thing they ban is something you enjoy?

Makes you think.

Oh and if they could do the Thought Police from 1984 then Labour probably would!!!

I now need to calm down before I go to bed :mad:
Click to expand...

Sit yourself down with a mug of Horlicks.

That was some rant and quite right too.

This government seem to be taking whatever issues are popular at any given time and turning them into legislation in an effort to kid the voters that they are governing with our best interests in mind. Will it win them the next election? - Probably - but they will be found out eventually and will be voted out and then the Tories will have a go - Oh ****.

Stan :)
 
Boozing isn't the same as smoking though, is it. Certainly in terms of directly attributable secondary effects anyway.

And isn't it something like 85,000 smoking-related deaths a year?

Not to mention that if/when alcohol was banned in public places, then that would be something to take into consideration when starting to drink.

Hell, it isn't as if smoking has been banned full stop, although a lot of reactions would seem to indicate that. The places where smoking can occur has been curtailed but there are still ample places in which smokers can indulge their habit.

Tbh arguing about this seems a bit moot now, the vast majority of non-smokers are very happy with this ruling, as are a number of smokers who feel this will help them give up. The legislation was passed with a large majority with cross-party support so it's pretty much guaranteed to go through as well.

I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of smokers will value their social lives more than their smoking habit so will not boycott pubs & clubs but will either change their habit or nip outside for a smoke, as such I think it's incredibly unlikely that smoking will come back to pubs & clubs.

Re: enforcement - it'll be done in the same way that serving under-18s is done - if smoking is allowed then the licence can be revoked or the owner fined. It's not exactly hard to prove that a publican is allowing smoking on their premises after all..!

Re: the alcohol comparison I think there's also an issue of the ease with which smokers can make a room uncomfortable. A pack of 20 cigarrettes costs £5, the equivalent in alcohol is 2 pints. Someone smoking 20 cigarettes can make a room very uncomfortable for a non-smoker, 2 pints will barely affect the drinker, let alone the other people in the room.

Perhaps putting a pack of 20 up to £20 would be a better way of dealing with the issue :)
 
Last edited:
Rich_L said:
Boozing isn't the same as smoking though, is it. Certainly in terms of directly attributable secondary effects anyway.
Click to expand...
No cos smoking isn't linked to murder, rape, assault, domestic and child abuse, drink driving related deaths ...
 
Brum Man said:
Lol, I love it how Tony blair gets blamed for everything. Are you forgetting that most of the conservatives and lib dems voted for this, and the official labour line was that they wanted a partial ban?!

Pandering to the whim of the media, well, that and the general pubilc.

I have not read the rest of your post due to the fact that from this line alone you will probably be blaming the government for everyting wrong in the world.
Click to expand...

Actually, I give equal parts blame to the media for jumping on whatever bandwagon is popular and the politicians.

Voting either of the other parties wont help as they all spout the same rubbish.

Had you taken time to read my post you would have found the main point was "Who defines what is wrong and right" and how one minute we can do something we take for granted and the next we cant because somebody has decided so.

Look at the trouble booze is causing? Is that next?
 
Bigstan said:
Sit yourself down with a mug of Horlicks.
Stan :)
Click to expand...

Thanks Stan, I just have!

Oh can I roll out the Ben Franlin quote? Can I? Aww go on...

"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary saftey and security deserve neither"

I think this applies to the government at the moment...

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problems looks like a nail."

:EDIT: Oh dear Spie is on the non smokers side! :(
 
Sleepy said:
No cos smoking isn't linked to murder, rape, assault, domestic and child abuse, drink driving related deaths ...
Click to expand...
All of which are already illegal :confused: Is alcohol a valid defence for any of those crimes - No.

I don't see how it's comparable I'm afraid.

That said, I've already said I'm in favour for child abuse charges to be brought against smokers who smoke in the presence of their children, as there is a huge body of evidence that it can be very harmful to children.

I wonder if someone could bring a private prosecution of assault if someone deliberately blew smoke in someone's face after they asked them to stop. I would think it would have a chance of suceeding.

"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary saftey and security deserve neither"
Click to expand...
Smoking an essential liberty? Pull the other one.
 
As I think I said earlier, IMO being able to smoke in the presence of others is in fact a privilege afforded as a result of non-smokers giving up their liberty to enjoy air free of smoke, rather than a right or liberty enjoyed by the smoker.
 
Rich_L said:
As I think I said earlier, IMO being able to smoke in the presence of others is in fact a privilege afforded as a result of non-smokers giving up their liberty to enjoy air free of smoke, rather than a right or liberty enjoyed by the smoker.
Click to expand...

Yes, maybe in the streets, or amongst your friends, etc. You can tell someone to get away from you.

....but would you sit in a smoker friends house and say 'you know what Pete, being able to smoke in the presence of me is in fact a privilege afforded as a result of me giving up my liberty to enjoy air free of smoke, by the way, what's on channel 4?'
 
I'm actually not that bothered about the lives to be honest. My position is laid out just above, smoking in the presence of others has always been a privilege. If non-smokers wish to revoke that privilege then that is their prerogative - smokers do not have an inalienable right to smoke in the presence of others.

The important bit is *in the presence of others* - I would strongly object to any legislation banning smoking outright.

Vanilla said:
....but would you sit in a smoker friends house and say 'you know what Pete, being able to smoke in the presence of me is in fact a privilege afforded as a result of me giving up my liberty to enjoy air free of smoke, by the way, what's on channel 4?'
Click to expand...
Despite apparent assertions to the contrary, a pub or club is not someone's house and is governed by legislation and licensing laws so I don't see how that is relevant.
 
Last edited:
Rich_L said:
All of which are already illegal :confused: Is alcohol a valid defence for any of those crimes - No.

I don't see how it's comparable I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

Being an invalid defence for those crimes does nothing to remove the known link between drinking and those crimes. Drinking pays a very large part in rapes and beatings. IMO, banning drink which would stop a lot of the beatins a raping is a much better idea than banning smoking so somebody doesnt slowing kill themselfs. however, since drinking is sociably acceptable, who'd want to ban it?

That said, I've already said I'm in favour for child abuse charges to be brought against smokers who smoke in the presence of their children, as there is a huge body of evidence that it can be very harmful to children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom