OT: A non-Vamp type ban

Loading thread data ...

it's only fair.. smokers (and I used to smoke) are the ones doing something that causes discomfort (and sometimes more serious effects) to other people, whereas the non-smoker is not doing anything by abstaining. While non-smokers can choose not to go into a pub, or employees not to work there, it's not fair since non-smokers have as much right to go into those places as the smoker. It's like if someone stood next to you releasing noxious arse-gas all night - how many people would say "oh, it's his right to fart and you can always go somewhere else" as opposed to "well actually it is rather inconsiderate/rude of the farter and he should go to the bog or outside". Humorous angles aside - what's the difference?

Bigus

Reply to
Bigus

Like speed cameras and ID cards then. Shall we make it best of 5?

Reply to
NeedforSwede2

Except piss and moan about smokers.

Which is no right at all. A landlord can refuse then access. Also, as of when the ban comes in, a smoker will have less rights than a non-smoker. Is that right, legally or morally?

The difference is, you are aren't taxed heavily on the odd public arse burst.

Reply to
NeedforSwede2

Of course the odd public arse burst doesn't put you in hospital for months dying of lung cancer while they feed you full of expensive drugs and give you 24 hour nursing care.

Fraser

Reply to
Fraser Johnston

So you have no decent argument against that point then.

That's the problem with the pro-smoking argument, you have to split hairs and twist words in order to try and defend what is a fundamentally selfish argument. OK, I agree that a pub owner/manager is technically the one with the rights to decide who comes into their establishment. The notion that smokers will have less rights is stretching it, as there are lots of places you can't smoke as it is - your right to smoke isn't being taken away, just where you can do it, in the same way a motorist can't park on double yellow lines or on a roundabout. If anything it is the pub owners/managers who will have less "rights". However, it's no different than pubs being told by the government that they can't serve booze to under 18s etc. Do you think it unreasonable that things which are considered bad for public health or society are legislated with the benefit of the majority in mind?

That has got nothing to do with the core arguments for banning smoking in public places.

Bigus

Reply to
Bigus

I'm not. It is a legal practice. It is being restricted. It is restricting freedom of movement and freedom of choice. We don't need freedoms removed.

If for health reasons they decided that all drinkers should be restricted by the drink drive limits in pubs, and you had to pass a breathalyser before the landlord could serve you, would you be as happy about that.

I remember it well. Someplaces it is (or was) still normal. How will this law affect it? Who knows. But if it gets pushed like it did in Ireland, you can't legally smoke in your own home, if you have tradesmen in there working.

Reply to
NeedforSwede2

True, but did you know, a huge percentage of the UK price of a packet of smokes is tax that goes direct to the Natinal Health service. It doesn't ust go for smoking related medicine either, it is propping up the prem baby ward, ICU or geriatric ward.

A study worked out if all smokers quit, the amount of money saved by not having to treat chronic smoking related illnesses was about 1/3rd of the additional cost in social security, pensions, elderley care etc needed to support the projected increase in the number of dependant pensioners.

Smoking and dieing young is actually saving the country money. Part of the reason I quit. I will have paid in my part, and I want all the benefit I can get later.

Reply to
NeedforSwede2

There is an argument that the onus of consideration is on the smokers, for the reasons you give above, however that isn't a matter for legislation. The problem is that the legislation is being brought in on the grounds of health issues - specifically the effects of passive smoking. However, there is no convincing body of evidence which supports the claimed health risks of passive smoking. I find it worrying that this doesn't appear to be important.

Reply to
Albert T Cone

Yes, in private it still is. But not when you bother me with it.

It is being restricted.

You mean the majority who dont want to breathe your smoke and stink like an old ashtray? No, thats just been improved hugely.

You drinking too much does not make my clothes skin and hair stink... Or give me cancer.

Thats good then!

Reply to
Burgerman

The public purse makes a net gain from the taxes paid by smokers - and also by the fact they don't live so long therefore less pension/old age costs

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Good. It means my beer is cheaper.

I have no problem with you smoking as ling as you dont do it where I am. Feel free to save me taxes, and to die early but do it away from me.

Part of

Good man!

Reply to
Burgerman

In this case, I'm in favour of that freedom being removed.

No, but I'm entirely capable of dealing with specifics, rather than assuming that restriction of one thing means restriction of all. You could try Pastor Niemoller at this point if you wanted, but it's as much bollocks as your drinking argument.

FWIW this 'dealing with specifics' thing also means I'm very much not in favour of some of the other restrictions the govt is putting in - most of the 'security' stuff is IMHO wrong.

It is of course interesting that despite you quitting and seeming to be keen on your missus quitting, you oppose a measure which should help you in this. Is your altruism really that overpowering?

cheers, clive

Reply to
Clive George

Its not important. The very fact that one smoker in a whole pub can make it uncomfortable for the rest of us is all thats important. The medical issue is just "another" reason.

Reply to
Burgerman

unless he vomits on you

:-)

Bigus

Reply to
Bigus

Pubs could have been offered the option of providing smoking bars with regs about fume extraction and preventing it reaching the other bar(s). Or the option of being totally smoking or non smoking unless the only one in a village, etc.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

I have quit. I still go to the pub. I do now notice how strong smokers themselves, but not the smoke itself smells. I wouldn't take away the freedom to smoke, knowing how hard it is to quit.

Reply to
NeedforSwede2

Oh I know that.

Reply to
NeedforSwede2

Even though removing some of the opportunity and social pressure may help?

cheers, clive

Reply to
Clive George

Typical British shortsightedness.

What's the next step? - no alchol to be consumed outside of private homes? - if they can do it for smoking, they can do it for alcohol.

Or, perhaps, something a bit closer to home..... modified cars are more likely to be involved in an accident that standard ones. Obviously, this means mods. are dangerous and should be banned for the safety of the public.

See, once a government starts deciding what is and isn't good for us in private establishments, then they pretty much have license to do anything they feel like doing.

Reply to
SteveH

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.