Yes, currently, it's legal to force everyone else in the pub to breathe your smoke. It obviously shouldn't be.
When I drink in a pub, no-one else has to drink my processed Guinness. Not so with smoke, unfortunately.
Which is bad because...?
Cheers,
Colin.
a) It won't happen, and b) I'll stand against it. I'm not very convinced by the existing drinking on the street laws as it is.
Well, some mods are already banned - including ones you often see. It's less relevant to me than the other example, but tell you what, if it happens I promise to help you stand against an unreasonable anti-modding law.
Brilliant! You've carefully snipped the bits where I preemptively answered the points you made. The primary one is that your reduction ad absurdum doesn't work.
Anyway, deciding what is and isn't good for us in private establishments started a hell of a long time ago.
clive
Hmmmm, on the other hand, you have a choice in the matter. If you don't like the smokey atmosphere in the pub, you can go to another pub. Just like the bar staff - they knew they'd be working in a smokey environment
- if they don't agree with that then they could always get another job.
The flaw in this argument, however, is that market forces suggest that people want to smoke in pubs, and that most non-smokers have no real objection to smokers smoking in pubs - if this wasn't the case there would be a real market for non-smoking pubs. There isn't a market, so there aren't.
See above - change the pubs you frequent to non-smoking pubs. Oh, let's see... you can't. BECAUSE THERE IS NO DEMAND FOR A NON SMOKING PUB.
The government has no right to tell you what you can and can't do in your own home.
Oh, right, so because it's something you enjoy doing, you'd make a stand against it.
Thing is, it won't be long before the government clamp down on something legal that you enjoy doing. Then you'll be up in arms about it. Can you see the point I'm trying to make here?
See above.
You didn't answer the points. You're quite happy for the government to ban anything you don't partake in, but wouldn't be happy if they ban something you do partake in.
I'm not a big hunting fan, however, I was pretty much against the ban as it was restricting something humans have done since the year dot. I don't enjoy sports shooting, but wasn't particularly in favour of the blanket ban on hand guns.
The way we're going, anything which could be considered a 'fun' pastime is going to be banned on health or safety grounds.
So it's fine for this to continue, just because the thing they've chosen this time is something you don't do?
You have to make decisions in life - if you decide now that it's fine to control public behaviour in this way over the smoking issue, then don't come back complaining when they ban something you like. You've made your bed, you lie on it, so to speak.
As an example..... the Conservative club in Merthyr is staffed by smokers, and frequented by a mainly smoking clientel - why does the government have the right to tell the members of that club they're not allowed to smoke on their own premises?
No surprise really, is it though - they need *something* to spend all that invalidity benefit on...
-- JackH
Of course it does. Don't forget all the pedantic 'obvious' things. It's just a bell-curve of limitations, the government just has to be reigned in on where-abouts on the x-axis they want to be meddling.
(that sounded coherent in my head, no appologies if it doesn't in real life!)
OK, to clarify, the government has no right to tell you which *legal* activities you can and can't do in your own home.
Either something is legal or it's not. You can't go putting restrictions on where you can carry out completely legal activities.
IYSWIM.
Yup.
I saw it before you even made it. That's why I said "preemptively answered the points you made".
When the govt clamp down on something legal I enjoy doing, yes, I will be up in arms about it. I won't be sitting whining on NGs about it - I'll actually go and do something about it. It's happened already - a private members bill "discussed" something I'm very much against, but got timed out. If they ever try that one as normal govt policy, I'll be there fighting it.
No, that's not what I said at all. I'm happy for the government to ban something I think should be banned. Hence my agreeing to help you with an unreasonable anti-modding law - any such thing would almost certainly not affect me, but I'd be unhappy that such a thing happened. Ditto ID cards and other "security" measures - I'm not happy about them at all, despite the fact that they'll almost certainly not affect me.
No, it's fine because the thing they've chosen this time is not merely something I don't do, it's something I don't want others to do in my presence.
It would effectively prevent me from being a member - is selection by wanting to smoke a good thing?
clive
The point being you can't pick and choose these things. Once you let them get away with one, then don't cry when they get away with banning you from doing legal things in certain places that you enjoy doing.
If something is going to be banned, lets have a ban, not a selective ban on where you can or can't partake in it.
This debate isn't about smoking, it's about the government overstepping the line between what they should and shouldn't be able to control.
If you don't want to join a club that allows smoking on it's premises, then you are welcome to go and join a club that doesn't allow it. It's not a government decision to make.
Sorry, I don't agree with you there. I see the point you're trying to make - like I said, I saw it even before you posted, but I don't think it's valid.
I don't think the government has overstepped that line at all. It's interesting to note that the leglislation concerned was originally less strict - the government presented a bill allowing smoking in private members clubs, but the commons (note the difference) told them to bugger off and in a free vote gave us a the current bill. This has been a rare example of the government not getting their own way.
cheers, clive
Obviously not given the amount the laws on supply of alcohol/use have been eased over the years.
The damages smoking can and will cause to the health are well known, but it doesn't cause behavioural changes in people like alcohol. And alcohol kills at least as many as smoking. Strange logic.
Aye, sort of a point. Apart from the ban on drinking in public places..... I don't agree with a government telling me I can't have a can whilst walking down the street. I can see the reasons why they did, but it wasn't the solution to the problem.
Yup, and it's the reason I'm getting a bit arsey about the smoking ban.
They wont though because when I drink I dont force you to do it, and I dont pour it on your clothes either. It only effects those that want to drink. Now when it comes to drinking in a way that effects others like drink driving, or drunks attacking others then that is already illegal. Well smoking DOES harm others in the same ways.
Other than the fact that companies like Adrian Flux can already prove that someone that has built say a V8 custom Ford Pop has a MUCH SMALLER chance of a) accident and b) claim. It was the same when I wanted to insure my 1.6L sierra with a V8 and nitrous. The premium FELL! The sort of people that do real serious work to mod (rather than boy racer) their cars ar less inclined to thrash, damage or endanger all their work. So that argument is seriously flawed!
No they dont. if the MASSES (the non smokers) dont like it they get voted out. Thats how our system works. Remember pole tax?
They can, and have if it effects others. Like me.
There's nothing illegal about being so pissed you get a bit shouty with people. That affects others, but isn't technically illegal until someone complains about it.
57i, big bore exhaust, blue LEDs = more likely to have an accident. Why don't we ban them? They're obviously dangerous.....
They taxed former residents of an Eastern-bloc country?
No, don't remember that.
Good idea.
I'm sorry, but you can't just ban things because some people don't like them.
The DDA has meant changes have had to be made to licensed premises and other public establishments to accomodate people in wheelchairs. Now, what if some government minister decided to put it to the vote that people are offended by the changes made to accomodate the DDA and ordered things to be put back the way they were before the DDA was brought in? - I and many other may be happy with that, but you wouldn't.....
I didnt ban them! The goverment did so on behalf of the non smoking majority.. And you CAN ban anything that effects others in public places. Ciggaret smoke is offensive to most people, and why should you be allowed to do this to me? How would you like it if I sprayed fart spray into your face every time you went into a public area? Not to mention the health issues.
Correct. But that isnt going to happen! Because... If it was unpopular with the voting masses then they get voted out. Its not though, its popular with voters. Every family has a member that is either old, disabled in one way or another or has trouble walking, or has kids in prams etc. Level access / wide doors, help everyone not just wheelchairs. If it didnt, then they would never get voted for in parliment. Go in the shopping centre. At least one group in 5 has someone that struggles with steps etc with them. And the ones they left at home that trip may also be impaired with mobility in one way or another. Then theres the fact that disabled people have a lot of spending power contrary to popular opinion!
..
Actually the non-smoking pubs I've been to seem to be pretty successful. There does seem to be a demand.
cheers, clive
There would be a bigger market for a non-smokers extractor mask kit ;-)
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.