Vote on smoking ban in public places
- Thread starter benjo plz.
- Start date
Chronos-X said:
Playing really loud music is anti-social behaviour if it is in a residential area.
However at a Club where it only affects those who choose to be there it is fine.
There is no need for a total ban as the market is providing and will provide non smoking pubs/clubs.
I don't smoke and avoid smoking pubs, no problem.
I see some people comparing smoking to drinking and others saying it's not right that smokers are told where they can or can't smoke. What seperates smoking from drinking is the fact that smoke travels and other people are forced in to smoking! and what about there rights not to smoke?
This is absolutely the right decision and i would hope when they say it's banned from all public places that will mean beer gardens etc. If people want to smoke then thats there right just don't impose it on me or others like me (none smokers) and do it at home or at least a respectable distance from people who don't smoke.
This is absolutely the right decision and i would hope when they say it's banned from all public places that will mean beer gardens etc. If people want to smoke then thats there right just don't impose it on me or others like me (none smokers) and do it at home or at least a respectable distance from people who don't smoke.
HEADRAT said:
I can't think of one that does. Both for security and practicality reasons. Especially as it would involve them searching you as you go back in.
Then there are bars that have late licenses but they can't admit people after a certain time. I.e only those who stay in can stay late. As soon as you leave the premises they legally can't let yo back in.
Sure, the odd person often goes out to their car, or to a cash point - the doormen are reasonable.....but smokers every few seconds?
HEADRAT said:
Does that also mean that man non-smokers also delude themselves? I'm a non smoker and I believe passive smoking is hyped up. There are conflicting reports from all corners on the effects of passive smoking.
Bad for you? Yes. To the level that people try to claim? No.
One of the worlds biggest passive smoking studies carried out by the British Medical Institute. It spanned 44 years and 120,000 people.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
The researchers chose this subgroup of nonsmokers because they reasoned that being married to smokers meant that this group was exposed to secondhand smoke. According to their analysis of this group, passive smoking (by inhaling a spouse's cigarette smoke) wasn't significantly associated with an increased risk of death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time or at any level of exposure. From this finding, the study's authors, suggest that passive smoking cannot cause the 30 per cent increased risk of coronary heart disease that it is currently believed to cause. Instead, they argue that it might cause a much smaller effect.
I firmly believe that passive smoking is bad to you but not to the levels that people try and claim.
As for Roy Castle - there are people who have lived in the Scottish highlands their whole lives and died of Lung cancer. It's not always cigarettes, it could be any pollutant in our atmosphere. Car, industry. We are all exposed to these pollutants against our will, when we walk down the street, when we sleep. At least in a bar you have the choice to walk out or not be exposed to it at all.
For clubs maybe the will rope off a section outside which the bouncers can keep an eye on, for bars/pubs most have an outside area or beer garden. To be honest I don't really care, I have had a family member die through a smoking related illness and I've seen the misery and upset it can cause.
Yeah yeah, its your right to have a fag, your god given right... .. lets see if you feel so ebullient when your coughing up a lung with you family watching you die.
I do have very stong view on smoking, having my Grandad die when I was about 8 was a huge shock, he died when he was 58 leaving his family behind and dying a pretty slow and painful death.
So why exactly are they banning it then, just because they can, why would the government do themselves out of all the TAX revenue, what is the motivation?
HEADRAT
Yeah yeah, its your right to have a fag, your god given right... .. lets see if you feel so ebullient when your coughing up a lung with you family watching you die.
I do have very stong view on smoking, having my Grandad die when I was about 8 was a huge shock, he died when he was 58 leaving his family behind and dying a pretty slow and painful death.
Vanilla said:
So why exactly are they banning it then, just because they can, why would the government do themselves out of all the TAX revenue, what is the motivation?
HEADRAT
Last edited:
Vanilla said:
So you think he died of lung cancer caused by something other than passive smoking, obviously it's your right to have this view, isn't it just a likely that it could have been passive smoking?
We live in a democracy if the majority of people that feel smoking should be banned (and MP's get a free vote) for whatever reason then I'm afraid thats pretty much it. The principle that a minority of people should be given free reign to pollute the atmosphere of the majority is just wrong.
The case for passive smoking may indeed be weaker than originally thought, if this ban saves one person from a passive smoking illness then I'm for it. While I don't think the government should always do what the majority wishes I think with a issue like this which is basically in the "public interest" then I don't really see they had too much choice.
The majority have spoken, viva democracy
HEADRAT
Last edited:
HEADRAT said:
I think his cancer may have been caused by many factors, even simple gentics. To put it down to one factor is short sighted.
We live in a democracy if the majority of people that feel smoking should be banned (and MP's get a free vote) for whatever reason then I'm afraid thats pretty much it. The principle that a minority of people should be given free reign to pollute the atmosphere of the majority is just wrong.
The case for passive smoking may indeed be weaker than originally thought, if this ban saves one person from a passive smoking illness then I'm for it. While I don't think the government should always do what the majority wishes I think with a issue like this which is basically in the "public interest" then I don't really see they had too much choice.
The majority have spoken, viva democracy
HEADRAT
Not really, see my post before about the majority. The government should not always do as the majority wishes. If they did so we would have mob rule. Minorities would have no say and chaos would reign (we all saw what happened to Piggy in Lord of the Flies!).
The majority of people don't want ID cards, we're still gtting them. The majority of people wanted out of the EU, we're still in it. The majority of people want lower taxes, yet they still rise. The majority of people want out of Iraq, we're still there.
Governments should not make up their law based on the majority. They should make the law based on factual, accurate and coherent information. The topic of smoking in bars, clubs and pubs is has none of these. We know more about rare plants in the amazon than we do passive smoking. We still have some of the top health organisations producing conflicting information. We then have the issue of private property and civil rights.
This bill was nothing more than a vote winner in which the public have lost civil liberties and free choice.
I wouldn't be prepared to ban anything if it saved a single life. This leads to the concept of nanny state, ban after ban constantly brought in using poor or inaccurate data helped along by those 'who are all for it if it saves a single life'.
If the case for passive smoking is indeed weaker than previously thought doesn't this show a flaw in data? Incoherent information? lack of conclusive data?
Would you be all for the abolishion of search warrants if it saved a single life? i.e if police could storm houses as they wish then they'd be able to get torrorists faster and save a life. Good idea right??!
pumaz said:
I understand your point mate but I disagree. Alcohol can and does have terrible effects on people other than the 'drinker'. How many assaults take place due to people consuming too much alcohol? How many fathers get drunk and beat their children? How many innocent bystanders are killed by drunk drivers? I could go on and on...
The victims of these crimes were forced to suffer because of another persons habit. I really don't see that much difference at all. Maybe my viewpoint is biased since I have been a victim of another persons alcoholism, my fathers. I would give anything to have had my father constantly blow smoke in to my face if it meant he hadn't been an alcoholic throughout my childhood. Whatever small amount of damage my lungs would have taken would have been far less than the damage his drinking did to me.
Last edited:
I have a question about the ban (I'm a non smoker btw) Do clubs count as public places? You have to pay to enter them and not everyone is allowed into them. So doesn't that make them a private place?
I don't think that the total ban in pubs and clubs is fair. I don't like it when people smoke near me, however doing something like this with out some sore of refurendum doesn't seem right. Since it is a major change. Also I don't like the way that the government has gone back on its work on working men's clubs. They promised that they would be exempt from a ban and they're not.
Jim
I don't think that the total ban in pubs and clubs is fair. I don't like it when people smoke near me, however doing something like this with out some sore of refurendum doesn't seem right. Since it is a major change. Also I don't like the way that the government has gone back on its work on working men's clubs. They promised that they would be exempt from a ban and they're not.
Jim