I dont smoke, my concern with the ban is the fact that the government is trying to control every aspect of our lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by BodwadUK
Printable View
I dont smoke, my concern with the ban is the fact that the government is trying to control every aspect of our lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by BodwadUK
What are laws??? :)
Control is required for society to work without revolution :afrog:
You start with smoking (the ban - which I don't really object to) but onward bound to every other aspect of your life.
I, for one, will resist it. I can't do anything - but I will make my voice heard.
Whether or not someone threatens violence because they're too ill-equipped to argue in a coherent or intelligent manner is totally irrelevant
I know it's sad; but people who consider violence within a civil society should bury themselves alive to hide the shame they bring on the community at large: I mean: COME ON: as if >2.0 litre engines are eco-friendly. The guy lives in a dreamworld; and is fortunate to be hiding behind an IP address that is leased to him daily.
fortunate? Not really, I'm paying for it. Besides, if you were stood in front of me I'd say exactly the same and do exactly the same.
Oh and I'm a fervent supporter of clean energy, of hydrogen engines and propulsion system who don't pollute as much as we do. I'm a strong supporter of the polluter-pays-the-cleanup-bill doctrine etc... our cars are more eco-friendly than those 10 years ago, I seriously doubt if they would be if no-one then gave a toss about the environment. If you doubt that then it is not I who lives in a dream world. Today they pollute, today factories pollute but there's a growing consensus that pollution is a big no-no if we're to survive the next 3 generations so legislation is in place to reduce it.
Only when it comes to smoking everybody is allowed to go their own merry way. There's a public smoking ban in every government building which very few people observe (and, incidentally, complain about when they have to go outside in cold weather) despite penalties and high cigarette prices. So don't talk to me about rights when several of them are not willing to follow legislation in the first place. If you must smoke do it in your own home, designated areas or out in the street. Is that so hard to understand?
Or must the majority always listen to a minority?
I want to reply - really - I do.
But I can't stand the childishness of it all. The unreasoned argument (if I can call it that)
I give up.
We could just make cigs illegal and really annoy them :afrog:
See I'm not commenting ;)
Childisness? That's rich coming from someone so rigid in thinking you could use him as a flagpole... anyway
:lol: Calm down dear its only a commercial :afrog:
No comment: :bigyello:
Everything should be powered by coal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
That WOULD take care of the second hand smoke issue :D
Hey, people are getting a bit testy here. There's not much consensus, but it seems like people arguing that the government shouldn't be allowed to control them to this extent versus others (including myself) saying that we don't much want to participate in the actions of smokers by breathing second hand smoke.
There are some things the government should but out of, but it also seems that there are a few things they should not. If my neighbor has something particularly nice, I could wait till he was away and just take it. Does the government have the right to prosecute me in this case (or even investigate), should it be left up to my neighbor and a civil suit? Or is that too much as well?
To non-smokers, this is similar. Smokers are not doing just to themselves (which would be fine with me), they are doing to those around them. If I'm one of them there those, I do object, but how? Should I tell them to put out there smokes? Ask them to put out there smokes? Shove their smokes up their noses? Take them to court? The first and third would be rude, the last would hardly solve the problem when it occurs. As for the second, what if they were to refuse, what is the proper course at that time? There certainly is no law against it....oh, but wait, now there will be!
Indeed. However,Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
One presumes you need a ban on smoking because it infringes your right to clean air, or because the breathing of second hand smoke prevents you from going somewhere where you would like to go (a pub, for instance)
I do not want asbestosis. I avoid places where there is asbestos. I do not want pneumoconiosis - so I avoid coal mines. Each of these comes about by human activities. I can choose to become a coal miner; I can choose to become an asbestos clearence guy.
I can also choose the restaurant where smokers are banned, and the pubs that smokers are banned. There are plenty about - and I use them, as a smoker, all the time.
The question is - why legislate? I can understand why smoking should be banned in all work places. You could mention that pub's are work places - but then so is the coal mine - you start the job knowing the risks.
The legislation should enable an employee (or union of the same) to force an employer to provide a smoke-free environment in which to work. The law should not arbitrarily rule on a subject which has connotations (sp?) that far extend the specific remit of the legislation. The ban on smoking - or rather a law that prohibits people doing what might be harmful to others (passive smokers do not necessarily have ill-health later - it's just more likely) will have connotations (sp? again!) that will end up creating caselaw (in the UK, anyway) which will end up being particularly harmful to society.
I would like to ask all those 100% in favour to tell me what is right about a ban. Not why it is not wrong.
While we're talking about banning stuff and what's good for society, let's ban beer, ale, vodka, and just about every other alcohol available on the planet. One drink leads to two, to three and before you know it, you can't think straight. We then cause disruptions, get into fights, or start bothering people we don't even know. Oh, and it's smelly too. :)
I wonder, when was the last time a group of smoking football fans started a fight... "or some smoker had a few too many cigarettes, went home, and beat up his wife."
Shop owners will have to get rid of offenders, if they have a public restaurant. If the smokers provide enough revenue, then a public place may become private. What will happen to those caught smoking? Will they go to a smoker rehab for 3 weeks, and be allowed to drink as much as they want, as long as they don't smoke? We the inurance companies pay for it?
It doesn't take criminals long to figure that they're above the law, and start breaking all kinds of laws that law-abiding citizens obey. Criminals commit crimes, even though they know that they are breaking the law.
Guns are illegal, but more people have them than ever before.
It's human nature to get what you want. I see no good of smoking bans.
The shop owners should voluntarily ban smoking in sections that are expected to be used by non-smokers. If more did, the law would be un-necessary.
Man, I need a smoke! :D
I am surprised nobody has sewed someone over smoking next to them :)
The ban protects non smokers as well as children. We must also remember that smoking is causing a massive crisis in the health services (yes cigs pay taxes) but it is still and issue that the government needs to sort out. The only way to prevent it being an increasing issue and to protect the next generations from the habit is to remove it from view. We are responsible for the protection of the next generation and if you have kids I am sure you would agree that they deserve the right to live a long and healthy life. Damage them when they are young and it will have massive effects on the rest of their lives. Like all anti-smoker people here have said we dont mind if you smoke where it doesnt effect others which is what this ban is aimed at. I dont run over you just because I am in a car and you shouldnt be on the road as a pedestrian. I go around you or slow down (I might try and hit mendhak though) :afrog:
Smells like prohibition to me; and look how that turned out!Quote:
Originally Posted by BodwadUK
Prohibition? If it was banned outright then yes it would be, but smoking is not being banned. It is only being banned in public places to protect those that do not smoke.
As to ventilation systems, most pubs have air-con units and so they wouldn't exactly want to spend a fortune on these only to have a ventilation system sucking it back out again. Not exaclty cost efficient :lol:
The only crisis there is the dichotomy that an action that causes ill-health (smoker) is a significant financial contributor to the same.Quote:
We must also remember that smoking is causing a massive crisis in the health services
Ironic or what.
If all smokers gave up the UK (yeah right!) then the general population would pay around 1.5p extra on standard rate income tax.
So as I've said before just say thanks - I'm paying for your public services by shortening my life ;)
Your shortening everyones lives until you stop smoking in public :p
Hmmmm ?
I'd gladly pay a little extra tax if it meant a ban on smoking in public places :afrog:
Me too :lol:
:thumb: :D Bring on the ban :bigyello: :thumb:
Then he saving even more money for the government!Quote:
Originally Posted by BodwadUK
:eek2:
There are clearly British dimensions to this that I am unaware of. We tax tobacco products, but the revenue is fairly trivial. I take it that it is otherwise over there? What is the tax on a pack of cigs? Are there more smokers over there than there are here?
:bigyello:
Big money in NY and other places $3.00 of tax on pack up there I think.
:eek2:
Down south it 30 cent plus sales tax. Here a cartoon of premiums is $23, 10 packs.
:thumb: :D
*time to light one*
Bodwad the one time you drove round the corner to the shops rather than walking produced more deadly fumes than a smoker ever would.
Never have done that :afrog:
I am not talking global warming I am talking lung cancer :lol:
Maybe this will bring back chewing tobacco?
Instead of ashtrays in the pubs we'll have spitoons :afrog:
Attractive :bigyello:
has anyone got an idea when this will actually become law? :confused:
Me walking around the corner to the shops might produce some deadly fumes as well :blush:Quote:
Originally Posted by davebat
I believe in NY State, if someone is caught smoking in a Bar or Restaurant By the cops, then The owner of the establishment is fined 1000 dollars.Quote:
Originally Posted by dglienna
However, in NYS, if an establishment can prove they've lost 30 % in revenue due to the ban, they can apply for exception status.
Another thing.
Of Course, the ban in NYS also includes smoking in any business.
The kicker is if you are a 1 man business, private, no off the street clients, well, you STILL can't smoke inyour place of business.
Oh, AND ALSO:::
This ban does NOT apply to certain Government officials in Govt Buildings like City Hall.
The Mayer's can, and still do, light up.
:wave:
You should charge the mayors off 1000 for every time he has lit up :afrog:
What about workers at home?Quote:
Of Course, the ban in NYS also includes smoking in any business.
The kicker is if you are a 1 man business, private, no off the street clients, well, you STILL can't smoke inyour place of business.
The mayor can do anything that he wants.
Don't they fine the offenders?
What about fast-food restaurants?
Around here they are non-smoking, but people still light up in the washrooms, especially when the weather gets cold.
NOTE: The newest thing around here, to combat people being hit by trains, is that the cops (plainclothes) are ticketing people that cross the tracks when the gates are down. Pedestrians! I've seen people get nabbed running for a train, and also, getting off of a train.
I would think it would apply only to building registered as offices
If you get fined for smoking in a non smoking place, do you have to put out your f a g or have you just paid for the privilige of smoking it?
You Avater has the answer to where it will go :afrog:
A pack of cigs here is between £4.00 and £5.00 nearer the £5 quid mark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
With the dollar depreciating so fast I can't tell you how much it is in dollars - but I would guess at just under $10 a pack.
Pack of cigs £4, pint of lager £2.....Hmmmmmm......think I'll have the pint thank you very much :afrog:Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Thanks for the little dig about our dollar. Maybe we can deficit spend our way back to fiscal responsibility.....or maybe not.
You kidding, your tourist industry is thriving because of the weakness of the dollar at the moment.
It's been a stroke of genius by the Federal government to keep it weak as now everyone is flocking to the US for a holiday. Although why I'd want to subject myself to the humilation of being photographed, fingerprint ID'd, and generally have everything else but have me strip naked....for a holiday is totally beyond me. :confused:
I am thinking of getting Gamespace while the pound is so good against the Dollar :D
* Yes, some amount, I think < 100 $Quote:
Originally Posted by dglienna
** The Funny thing about FFR's, before the ban, I believe most of them decided that they'd make more money if you get in and get out as fast as possible. Therefore, if you're sitting around smoking, then They're losing money. So they determined that their FFR's would not allow smoking.
Its a funny concept, a private establishment setting their own smoking preferances instead of being forced by the Gov't, isn't it?
And the idea that people have free will to choose to decide to go to restaurants or bars that don't allow smoking if it offends them is just so Radical! Why should an establishement have the right to decide if they should allow smoking or not on their own is beyond me. Isn't great that the Gov'ts are taking away those freedoms for private businesses? No one should have the freedom to partake in any activity involving legal substances without the Gov't deciding for you exactly where you are allowed to do so.
I mean, when they decided to force establishments that allowed smoking to have smoking and non-smoking areas, I just knew someone screwed up big time making those laws.
***Not even in Washrooms can they light up. Public yet enclosed, dontcha know.
**** I hope they at least wait until the Pedestrian makes it across!
:wave:
-Lou
The only worry is that USD is the only reserve currency at the moment - the GBP was once and that put Britain in a downward trend when it depreciated post war for 30 years. But Britain didn't and still doesn't have that much influence on thesematters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
The US - well that's a different matter - even oil prices are given in USD.
There will be trouble ahead
(no matter how many tourists go to Florida)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4113989.stm
I hope we ban mobile phones in public places too.
You speaking into your mobile phone does not harm the DNA of someone standing 5 foot away from you. Smoking five foot from someone does harm them.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Big difference
:D
Perhaps - if you're in a five foot square cupboard. One also assumes you know the intensity of the microwave (OK just sub-microwave which makes it radio) of a mobile phone at five feet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
I'd like to see your calculations.
By Michael CrichtonQuote:
In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults," and that it " impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% coinfidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen.
This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that "Second-hand smoke is the nation's third-leading preventable cause of death." The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent.
In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had "committed to a conclusion before research had begun", and had "disregarded information and made findings on selective information." The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our science?.there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings?a whole host of health problems." Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn't even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It's the consensus of the American people.
Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke.
everyone i speak to in pubs, including smokers welcome the ban. The non-smokers because they simply don't like breathing it in and smelling of smoke at the end of the night.
The smokers want the ban because it will help them to have a better night out and help them to quit.
The ban is coming because the majority (who happen to be non-smokers) want it to happen
I think you're right. It has nothing to do with risks, health-wise or otherwise. It is simply that non-smokers do not like the smell. :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Dam right I hate the smell but it does concern me when it comes down to health issues :afrog:
What known health risks are there? Sources would be helpful, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by BodwadUK
If it turns out it is just the smell - then can I legislate against your deodorant?
If so many are in favour of a smoking ban, why are there so few establishments that are smoke free?
Nobody knows the risk of mobile phones although we are warned we still use them! Why because it would remove a valuable asset from those addicted to them.
I cant see how standing in a smoky environment can be healthy. I dont know if its backed up yet
if I wore deodorant you could ;) :lol:
Its seems that you have only spoken to people who don't smoke and don't really want to smoke? What about the people who want to smoke, even though they know its bad for them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Two of my friends are somkers who don't want to quit but they appreciate our side of the story and know they'd save a fortune every weekend.Quote:
Originally Posted by john tindell
They would probably be a massive minority anyway, so would probably be overruled.
With the success of California, New York and Ireland I can't see it not happening
What success? Do you mean legislating against a free people is a success? I suspect you mean that non-smokers no longer have to deal with second-hand smoke . . . which is fair enough (I do not smoke in the company of non-smokers)
What I object to is the legislating against a free people engaged in a fully legal action.
In order to philosophically resolve this (in my mind) it must lead to the following: Do NOT ban smoking in public places, or make the action of smoking illegal. I have argued that smoking is a fiscal necessity in the UK so without major financial and economic turmoil, a complete ban will never happen.
It is therefore with regret I have to conclude that this action is a political spin gesture in order to secure the votes of those 'who just don't like the smell'
Don't forget that pubs and clubs will be exempt from this legislation which is when most people smoke. The only times you cannot smoke in a pub is when the pub is serving food.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
The whole Ban smoking thing is just part of the governments long term plans to dictate every aspect of how we live our lives. I heard a rumour that there is going to be a bill passed that will mean a 5 year sentence if you don't eat your Brussell Sprouts, with an additional 2 years if this happens at Christmas.
Didn't our Grandfathers fight in the second world war to stop this sort of thing?