Ttfn
Printable View
Ttfn
It's really quite simple - it is bad law.
It's really quite simple - So far the democratically elected Governments of The United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, The Irish Republic, Wales and Scotland have decided to pass this law.
That's not just my opinion btw, see above.
I don't agree. On the face of it it's a good law. Smoking is not a personal habit and while I think you have every right to smoke and endanger yourself the idea that you have the right to inflict your habit on others that choose not to smoke no matter where you are is selfish and IMO simply wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Where I don't agree is the law being applied to private member only clubs (if it actually is).
So because a government is democratically elected no law passed should be questioned ?????????????????Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Democratically elected does not equate to just or competent, they are not always acting at the will of the people or in the best interests of the nation.
I agree.:) I think things like this that affects the whole nation should be put on the ballot paper beside the party that intends to implement such laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccI don't agree. On the face of it it's a good law. Smoking is not a personal habit and while I think you have every right to smoke and endanger yourself the idea that you have the right to inflict your habit on others that choose not to smoke no matter where you are is selfish and IMO simply wrong.
Where I don't agree is the law being applied to private member only clubs (if it actually is).
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
So because a government is democratically elected no law passed should be questioned ?????????????????
Democratically elected does not equate to just or competent, they are not always acting at the will of the people or in the best interests of the nation.
************
http://www.clearingtheairscotland.co...tml#exemptions
EXEMPTIONS
1. Residential accommodation.
2. Designated rooms in adult care homes.
3. Adult hospices.
4. Designated rooms in psychiatric hospitals and psychiatric units.
5. Designated hotel bedrooms.
6. Detention or interview rooms which are designated rooms.
7. Designated rooms in offshore installations.
8. Private vehicles
9. Designated laboratory rooms.
10. HM Submarines and ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
What else would you have on this ballot paper come manifesto, boab.
Anything that is going to affect the whole nation. I am only talking about major changes. Would you like the SNP if and when elected to declare Scotland independent without a Referendum? Would you like the Conservative Party to take the UK out of Europe without consulting the public?Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
What else would you have on this ballot paper come manifesto, boab.
Incidentally I agree with the no smoking law. Just because I think it is right should not overrule the the rights of the people who think it is wrong.
Same here. We have the ban in MD.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboabAnything that is going to affect the whole nation. I am only talking about major changes. Would you like the SNP if and when elected to declare Scotland independent without a Referendum? Would you like the Conservative Party to take the UK out of Europe without consulting the public?Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Incidentally I agree with the no smoking law. Just because I think it is right should not overrule the the rights of the people who think it is wrong.
I just look at it from both sides and not just because I don't smoke.
In certain circumstances like a private bar, we'd be infringing on smoker's rights.
Unless cigs are deemed illegal (which I'm all for :devil:), smokers should have rights.
I couldn't agree more. However rights must be balanced and I think that the right of people to not be killed by passive smoking outweighs the right to smoke anywhere you chose. ToQuote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Glasgow Council is taking it further. People aren't going to be allowed to smoke anywhere on their premises. So if you are sitting in your car, parked in their car park then you will not be allowed to smoke. I think that takes it too far personally.
My point exactly. Everyone has 'A step too far'. The National Ban was a step too far for smokers.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaulI couldn't agree more. However rights must be balanced and I think that the right of people to not be killed by passive smoking outweighs the right to smoke anywhere you chose. ToQuote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Glasgow Council is taking it further. People aren't going to be allowed to smoke anywhere on their premises. So if you are sitting in your car, parked in their car park then you will not be allowed to smoke. I think that takes it too far personally.
I see that the Freemasons are complaining because they have to go outside with their aprons and cuffs on in order to get a smoke.:lol:
Hellfire and brimstone inside but no smoking.:lol:
The way I understand it, if you vote the SNP in to power, you're sort of approving of their policies, one of which would be an independent Scotland.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
I don't really see the need for you to have a referendum on top of that.
I mean, who's actually supposed to be running the country, the government, or the populace :blink:
It is a rare occasion for a Government to have more that 50% of the votes cast. Even then they would only have over 50% of the people who bothered to vote. The only way it could be fair is to make voting compulsory and allocate seats in proportion to votes cast.Quote:
Originally Posted by BarbarossaThe way I understand it, if you vote the SNP in to power, you're sort of approving of their policies, one of which would be an independent Scotland.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
I don't really see the need for you to have a referendum on top of that.
I mean, who's actually supposed to be running the country, the government, or the populace :blink:
First past the post is archaic and does not represent the people.:)
"...the people who bothered to vote"
Exactly, they are more likely to get the sort of Government they want.
That's kind of right in my opinion. That those who can be arsed voting every for or five fucking years get to pick who runs their country.
I agree that rights have to be balanced, and that's exactly where these laws fall down - they make no attempt to achieve a balance which is why I say they are bad laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaulI couldn't agree more. However rights must be balanced and I think that the right of people to not be killed by passive smoking outweighs the right to smoke anywhere you chose.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
While ruling out the right to smoke anywhere the smoker wants they at the same time give the right to the non-smoker to breath smoke free air anywhere they want - why? By what right do they decide where the owner of a private business allows them to exercise their smoke-free rights?
All sorts of compromises could have been reached. For example smoking allowed in no more than 25% of the premises, provision having to be made such that at least 50% is smoke free (ie smoke actively prevented from reaching such areas), and access to all facilities being possible without having to leave the smoke free area.
However, the worst outcome with regard to bars and public houses is that politicians have been swayed by the argument that people do not visit these establishments purely because of the smoky atmosphere. Yet studies in Ireland have shown that there has been almost no change in the people visiting, with the exception that some smokers have decided to stay at home. In other words vast numbers of people who convinced their governments that their wishes should be granted just flat out lied about their future habits.
In any case, passing laws just because the majority want them is inherently bad, yet governments use the argument as an excuse when it suits them. If they followed that argument all the time, among the first things on the agenda would be the sealing of our borders, the return of capital punishment and the immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Because people should be able to breath smoke free air, it's a basic human right. However why should smokers have a right to inflict their poison on other people. There is not one redeeming feature to smoking, so why should people have any rights in relation to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
The next thing is that people will not be allowed to smoke in open public places. I'm sure that will come in as well, perhaps in city centres at first. Then you will have the situation where smokers won't even be able to go outside for a cigarette. That'll probably be a wee while coming tho'
As smoking is not a personal habit the onus is on the smoker, not the non smoker. I'm sorry if you feel victimised because you think you have a right to force people to breathe in your cancer causing smoke, but you only have the right to kill yourself, not others. Invent a smoke free cigarette (this includes smoke exhaled) then you have a valid complaint.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Chewing gum (even though dentists recommend it and the disgusting noise made when people chew with their mouth open) is a personal habit. It becomes impersonal when they spit out their gum out on the streets or stick it under a table. So should we allow gum chewers to "exhale" their gum however they wish?
I make the point about member only clubs being given exemptions. I view these as being different from a privately owned business with an open door policy.
Seems complex and expensive to me and I suspect would still not please the inconsiderate smokers. (these being different from the considerate ones)Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
How many people who are demanding the right to fresh air are running around in motor cars spewing noxious gases everywhere they drive. What rights have the non drivers got? Every time I go down town or walk to the nearest shop I am subjected to emissions of the following;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/me...tes/336738.stm
I suppose that does not count because nearly everyone drives.:rolleyes:
- Carbon monoxide
- Nitrogen dioxide
- Sulphur dioxide
- Benzene
- Formaldehyde
- Polycyclic hydrocarbons
- Lead
- Tiny suspended particles
:01: you made us wait a bit on that oneQuote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Driving has a purpose and without the internal combustion engine we would not have the World we have today. I agree we should clean things up, however that's not the same as smoking, which poison's and kills whilst serving no purpose.
With cars, lorries etc we must balance the dangers against the good they do. There's no such balance with cigarette smoking. The only thing we need consider is a person's right to kill themself, slowly and often painfully.
Sixty years ago this country was one of the most powerful and industrious countries in the world. The percentage of car owners per household was in the low single figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP FugleyQuote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Driving has a purpose and without the internal combustion engine we would not have the World we have today. I agree we should clean things up, however that's not the same as smoking, which poison's and kills whilst serving no purpose.
With cars, lorries etc we must balance the dangers against the good they do. There's no such balance with cigarette smoking. The only thing we need consider is a person's right to kill themself, slowly and often painfully.
Today this country is neither powerful or industrious yet car ownership has gone up to about 80% of households. What is the purpose that you talk of?
During a normal weekday 15% of cars on the road are parents taking children to and from school, which in most cases is just round the corner.
Get the public transport back to where it was and find a way to reduce the use of cars. It is the children that are going to suffer in the long run.
Please ignore all of the above. I forgot about the tax revenue from car ownership and fuel.:whistling
Moving things and people from place to place. It's really that simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
What purpose does smoking serve.
Since you ignored that bit, I'll emphasise it, that's the important part of what you've bothered to answer. I note that you've failed to address the parts that could prove difficult to your case.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaulBecause people should be able to breath smoke free air, it's a basic human right. However why should smokers have a right to inflict their poison on other people. There is not one redeeming feature to smoking, so why should people have any rights in relation to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
The next thing is that people will not be allowed to smoke in open public places. I'm sure that will come in as well, perhaps in city centres at first. Then you will have the situation where smokers won't even be able to go outside for a cigarette. That'll probably be a wee while coming tho'
When you are on private premises, you have to put up with the rules imposed by the owner. It applies to other things such as areas reserved for those who are eating, why not to areas that the owner deems to be permitted smoking areas? I've yet to see anyone give a reasoned answer to that point.
Whether smoking has any redeeming features or not is irrelevant, it is a legal activity and as such it should not be up to governments to decide that it is not permitted in all areas of a private business.
Once again, you make the mistake of thinking that I smoke, I don't. I've also never advocated forcing people to breathe other peoples' smoke, and I've never heard anyone else make the suggestion either. It is a poor tactic to argue against something that has never been proposed, one that I find is usually employed for some of our more slippery politicians. I'm surprised at you.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
All I've ever argued is that owners of private businesses have the right to designate that smoking is permitted in some areas, just as they designate areas of their business for other activities. I can't see how such a simple concept is so hard to understand.
It may seem complex and expensive, but it is the sort of thing that was being actively proposed. The very fact that no consideration was given to such a proposal indicates that those who made these laws had the basic intent of trampling all over any rights the smoker might have.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccSeems complex and expensive to me and I suspect would still not please the inconsiderate smokers. (these being different from the considerate ones)Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Additionally, you seem to see such proposals as being an exercise in pleasing the smoker, in actual fact it is about preserving rights, in particular the rights of the owner of private premises to accommodate ALL of his/her customers.
if you do not smoke I will correct the post and sayQuote:
Originally Posted by lynx
the corrections in boldQuote:
As smoking is not a personal habit the onus is on the smoker, not the non smoker. I'm sorry if you feel smokers are being victimised because you think they have a right to force people to breathe in their cancer causing smoke, but they only have the right to kill themselves, not others. Invent a smoke free cigarette (this includes smoke exhaled) then they or anyone else have a valid complaint.
By arguing that smokers have the right to smoke in open public access areas or deciding to smoke in areas where non smokers are by default you/they are advocating / forcing others to breathe in their smoke. There are plenty of smokers who take that attitude and it appears you take that attitude too.
There is a possibility that smoking relieves stress and the likelihood of a nervous breakdown in some cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaulMoving things and people from place to place. It's really that simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
What purpose does smoking serve.
I really don't see any reason why I would have to justify why people should be allowed to breath clean air, wherever they are allowed to be. Certainly not so that other people can chose to breathe poisons (forget the euphemism of smoking, they are breathing a mixture of poisons), that really makes no sense. There is no balance needing struck.Quote:
While ruling out the right to smoke anywhere the smoker wants they at the same time give the right to the non-smoker to breath smoke free air anywhere they want - why?
If people are allowed someplace, then the person in charge of that place is responsible for their health and safety. Allowing people to be subject to passive smoking is not ensuring their health and safety. The Governments have decided that the best, indeed only truly effective way to do this is to ban smoking in such places. Again that makes sense.
You feel that is an unfair breach of a percieved right to breathe poison and impose it upon others. Fair enough, we can simply agree this is a subject on which we disagree. There are no more arguments I can put forward than the simple ones I have already expressed.
Right! now that is the smoking nearly out of the way let's start on obesity caused by greedy bar stewards. They are taking up far too much room on the pavements, buses etc.:rolleyes:
Make an "excess baggage" charge, that should sort that out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
I agree. weigh passengers going on aircraft and charge for excess weight.:yup:
Passenger plus baggage.
It's bizarre that someone of 12st may get an excess charge whilst someone at 24st doesn't. Surely the gross weight of passenger plus baggage should be used.
That would be fairer.
If the flight is busy they already charge obese people for two seats..........this can be a problem if the seats are in different rows or different sides of the isle
What do you think of an obese person being charged for 2 seats?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
If they take up two seats I think it's fair. I also don't think they should be allowed to insist on only paying for one seat And only having one seat if they are going to "spill over" onto the space of the person sat next to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™What do you think of an obese person being charged for 2 seats?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
To be fair to the airlines very few would charge for two seats if there was an empty seat on the flight. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, it all depends on the check in agent and the attitude of the passenger.
That is what like about you youngsters. You give in too easily.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Seems some of you think you are allowed to go anywhere you want, with no restrictions.
In that case, since all bars are obliged to have bathroom facilities and therefore pissing is permitted, it is surely reasonable that you can piss anywhere you want.
Or do you perhaps think that the owner is allowed to make a rule that pissing is allowed in certain places and only those places?
The alternative is surely a ban on pissing in all areas open to the public, including the bathroom facilities. I hope you are good at crossing your legs.
Who suggested that? please quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Maybe not the silliest argument ever........ but f**king close :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
If you accept that there are restrictions, then why can't you accept that one of those restrictions may be that the owner can allow smoking on part of their premises, as long as it does not interfere with those areas where smoking is not allowed?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccWho suggested that? please quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
If you don't accept that then you are arguing that you can go anywhere, so the following applies.
Of course it is silly, it was intended to be, but it is also the logical extension of the argument that you have a right to go anywhere. If this is silly then so is the argument it derives from.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccMaybe not the silliest argument ever........ but f**king close :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Your statement was some people think they can go anywhere they want with no restrictions, you still haven't quoted where anyone said that. Public access means just that........public. You can be refused entry for any number of reasons such as behavior or inappropriate attire but public access still is public access. So unless one breaks those rules then they can enter public access areas. Nobody has suggested they can enter private areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
You think that crap is a "logical extension"? :ermm:Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
Quite the reverse, I think there should be restrictions. Smoking for example, that should be restricted, particularly in instances where it is being imposed on other people. You want to smoke in your own home, fill yer lungs, you are harming no-one but yourself. Obviously they would also be harming their own children, however that's really down to their conscience.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
As to me being able to go wherever I want, nope I don't think that at all. That's just plain silly, even the hardest of thinking can see that there are loads of places where free access would be inappropriate.
However anywhere I can go, the person in charge of that place is responsible for making it safe. If it is my home, then I am responsible. If it is walking down the street, then the local authorities, Police etc. If it is in a shop, then the shopkeep. If it is in a restaurant, then the restaurateur etc. They are responsible for my health and safety while I am on their premises.
As to the rest, no comment, you're just talking pish.
hJeez man. A public enclosed place shouldn't be a free for all where the owner makes up rules willy nilly.Quote:
Originally Posted by lynxIf you accept that there are restrictions, then why can't you accept that one of those restrictions may be that the owner can allow smoking on part of their premises, as long as it does not interfere with those areas where smoking is not allowed?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
If you don't accept that then you are arguing that you can go anywhere, so the following applies.
Of course it is silly, it was intended to be, but it is also the logical extension of the argument that you have a right to go anywhere. If this is silly then so is the argument it derives from.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccMaybe not the silliest argument ever........ but f**king close :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
The government's job is to protect the public.
Now I don't agree with GayPaul's stance on trying to apply the no smoking policy to private clubs but your stance (or the way you convey it) is just as daft.:dabs:
Now if the gubment really wanted to protect the public and not fanny about they would outlaw smoking altogether allowing only addicts a fix.
I don't have a stance on trying to apply it to private clubs. It already does apply to them.
My stance is that to allow private clubs an exemption is a non-starter. As every establishment would simply become a "private club", thus negating the law. There may be another way to allow smoking in certain places, other than those already allowed. However an exemption for "private clubs" isn't it.