Smoking in Scotland

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

A private property that is open to public access for business has no difference to a publicly owned property.
If you choose to take in a vagrant for the night he has to accept your smoking in your house, however if you run a hostal it is a public place the same as a library would be.
if you offer someone a lift in your car they have no right to stop you smoking...if you are a taxi they do.
I can stop people smoking in my house but i can't stop them smoking if i visit theirs.

---

That is only true if your government happens to word the law in that way. At the moment it certainly is not the case anywhere in the UK with regard to smoking.

That is the crux of the issue, should the government be permitted to rule that an otherwise perfectly legal activity can not take place on privately owned property? In itself it is a gross infringement on human rights. On the other hand, no-one is going to force you to enter the building, so your rights to clean air are not infringed.

If the "surveys" about the wishes of the masses were true, the majority of these places would already be non-smoking. Anyone in such a position who blatantly ignored the wishes of the majority would be committing financial suicide. The fact that this doesn't happen indicates that the results of these surveys are distorted.

Toffee-nosed git.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

That is the crux of the issue, should the government be permitted to rule that an otherwise perfectly legal activity can not take place on privately owned property? In itself it is a gross infringement on human rights. On the other hand, no-one is going to force you to enter the building, so your rights to clean air are not infringed.

.

---

thing is smoking although legal is still a public health hazard.... you can't deny that can you?

one can keep ones kitchen at home as dirty, germ ridden and bug infested as one likes... try that in a business kitchen and your "privately owned property" will be closed to the public.

i do agree that nobody is forced to go into these places.... perhaps all non smokers should boycott

I presently live in a country that prohibits
smoking in ALL public arenas

This law was enforced in July (of course)

Since then 1000s of out door terraces have sprung up (with heating)

when you drive home at night you see alot more action outside on the streets xauz the smokers are taking..a smoke amd chatting with each other
this has been benificial to the sex lives of many

this is very benificial to this country (but not me) because its inhabitants tend to hibernate in the winter going from indoors to indoors - hence it is benificial to the Street Life of the bation

it suks moose shit

i luv it when you take a plane to 3rd world country and all is possible

time to move

Ban it. Hate smokers. When I'm on the bus I get losers at the back smoking and I'm breathing it in. So their slowly killing me. It should be banned in public places, but pub owners should chose whether they want it banned or not.

As my colleague Clocker has pointed out, I am frusticated no end by the horrid tactic of political-correctness, which is really nothing more-or-less than social terrorism; insofar as it has been demonstrated in no uncertain terms that smoking is bad for you, and (at a minimum) noisome to others-logic ought to carry the day, and so it does...

There are no tales to be told of "the great cigarette riot" or renegade smoker's-rights groups picketing city hall; it is no great leap to conclude that denial of the destructive/irritating aspects of the habit paint one as having somewhat less than a full string of fish, but...

The expectation that such habits as smoking (or, indeed, any other habit, tradition, practice or more) require the afflicted individual to meekly submit to a social and cultural tarring-and-feathering by a questionable cadre of elitists and "experts" is a manifestation and projection of defective thought and intolerance.

Odd, wouldn't you say, that the ACLU sees fit to defend (for example) NAMBLA, but cannot see it's way clear to give even a nod to smokers?

Smoking, as a habit, will (pardon the pun) die on it's own; perversion will, regrettably, be with us far longer. :(

The problem is that this sort of legislation is the "thin-end of the wedge". It is popular in the case of smoking because over the years smokers have been labelled as pariahs and social outcasts (which is strange because in some sections the make up about a third of the population).

But by allowing this sort of legislation pass unchallenged we give a mandate to the politicians to proceed with the next item on their "political correctness" agenda. Except it isn't really about political correctness, it is about control. Control over the very minutiae of our daily lives.

In the UK, there are already plans to inform us about what we should avoid eating because it is unhealthy. Just in the same way that we were informed about the dangers of smoking. That was followed up by health warnings on packaging of tobacco products. Just in the same way that health warnings are to appear on some alcohol products. Just in the same way that it is proposed that a "traffic lights" system should appear on pre-packed food, health warnings to follow?

Now smoking is to banned in public places, will the alcohol products follow? How about what the "experts" consider unhealthy food? You can be certain that these (and others) are all things your masters are considering.

Tell the politicians to keep their interfering fingers (and in the case of the current government their bloody hands) out of our lives.

I've said before, I don't smoke. Do try to concentrate.

If you are willing to give up your freedom, so be it, but don't insist I give up mine.

When we give up our freedoms it leads to politicians thinking they can do what they want. The result is usually wars where millions die.

Analogous enough for you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

It's a matter of proportionality. My freedom to breathe fresh air is more important than your freedom to smoke in enclosed public places. No one is taking away the freedom to smoke, just to do it where it is particularly dangerous to others.

---

JP,
Where does your "right" to breathe fresh air end?
Does your worldview allow for the possibility that there are simply some spaces where your preference does not take precedence?
For example...
If there was a pub/restaurant that allowed smoking that happened to serve lasagne that you craved, would your craving ( coupled with your "right" to a smoke-free environment) trump the rights of the other patrons?
Apparently so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

Yes, it does in actual fact. My right to breathe air free from other people's smoke is absolute and final.

---

My oh my, the view from your high horse must be spectacular.
Have you ever considered exercising your "right" to simply not patronize an establishment that fails to provide an atmosphere you're not comfortable in rather than forcing it to comply with your standards?
The sanctity of your rights to the potential detriment of mine would lead to FugleyWorld would it not?

I'm afraid I could only accept the validity of your point of view if you were to apply it equally to all activities to which people object, no doubt including many of your own. But I don't expect to see you as being as open-minded as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

I'm afraid I could only accept the validity of your point of view if you were to apply it equally to all activities to which people object, no doubt including many of your own. But I don't expect to see you as being as open-minded as that.

---

I would be quite prepared to enforce regulations on all activities that adversely affect non participants.
Cars for example.... we have the technology to produce "considerably" less if not zero hazrdous emissions..but we don't because of spineless governments and big business whining about cost.

same goes with industrial poluters...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

The whole point is how adversely smoking affects other people and the fact that for the smoker it serves no useful purpose. Indeed it is killing them as well

I see no reason why I should be open minded about this. It is, in my mind similar to something like drunken driving. Sorry but I also reject your freedom to choose to do that.

---

Sorry, but no.
At least part of the point is that you feel entitled to enforce restrictions upon venues that you are not compelled to frequent.
On the off-chance that JP may, upon a whim, decide to drop into the Cigar Bar, it should be forced to conform to his "smoke free" wishes rather than the desires of the existing patrons,eh?

I see no validity to the comparison with drunken driving either.
As we are ALL compelled to drive on the same public roads, I certainly have no issue with a uniform standard of behaviour, but no one has/is forcing you patronize any specific dispenser of the apple...should one be unsuitable then I'm sure that an alternative is available.

The issue seems to be that you insist that every alternative be available for you personally while restricting, nay obliviating, the alternatives open to others.

All this banging on with nary a sliver of PCism.

I commend you all.

BTW-lynx: Thanks for standing in as uber-speller. :D

Good nite.

cough..

Seems some of JP Fugley's posts are missing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Seems some of JP Fugley's posts are missing.

---

Oh fuck!!

You know what? Database error my ass!

The fact that that's entirely different account means there has to be a mod mole or back door hack.
:O

Never gave it much thought before.:ermm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Seems some of JP Fugley's posts are missing.

---

Oh fuck!!

You know what? Database error my ass!

The fact that that's entirely different account means there has to be a mod mole or back door hack.
:O

Never gave it much thought before.:ermm:

---

Copied.

Could someone copy mine in case of a database error.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Oh fuck!!

You know what? Database error my ass!

The fact that that's entirely different account means there has to be a mod mole or back door hack.
:O

Never gave it much thought before.:ermm:

---

Copied.

Could someone copy mine in case of a database error.

---

Done. ;)

Somebody really ought to fix that, ya' know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Copied.

Could someone copy mine in case of a database error.

---

Done. ;)

Somebody really ought to fix that, ya' know?

---

You'd need a computer professional for that, mate. I don't think a hobbyist could be sure it was sorted properly. Certainly not from a security point of view,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Done. ;)

Somebody really ought to fix that, ya' know?

---

You'd need a computer professional for that, mate. I don't think a hobbyist could be sure it was sorted properly. Certainly not from a security point of view,

---

Too true, but I don't do I.T. security...perhaps I should, eh?
















Know anyone good? :huh:

I'm not saying it's lynx either.

However, just from a logical standpoint, deletions across a member's multiple accounts = targeted. Deletion of a certain range of posts across said member = targeted.

I, however, would hate that if I was a mod and got into some public tiffs with a member(s) (which would actually be unlikely in those circumstances), that I'd be found guilty of post "erosion" purely based on that.

I am curious as too how the track were covered and would hope that admin would have a record of anything the mod team does. Hell it could've been admin....although I think the admin team was entirely different at the time (besides Entity).

Checks and balances. Admin watches mods, admin watches admin. :devil:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

I'm not saying it's lynx either.

However, just from a logical standpoint, deletions across a member's multiple accounts = targeted. Deletion of a certain range of posts across said member = targeted.

I, however, would hate that if I was a mod and got into some public tiffs with a member(s) (which would actually be unlikely in those circumstances), that I'd be found guilty of post "erosion" purely based on that.

I am curious as too how the track were covered and would hope that admin would have a record of anything the mod team does. Hell it could've been admin....although I think the admin team was entirely different at the time (besides Entity).

Checks and balances. Admin watches mods, admin watches admin. :devil:

---

Copied.

Could someone copy mine. Database errors can be such a nuisance.

Yes the posts were definitely deleted maliciously and certain individuals were targeted.

In other news, Germany has just invaded Poland :o

Dang. I have quit smoking, but after trying to read this thread, I am so confused I think only nicotine can help my brain figure it out.:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Everose

Dang. I have quit smoking, but after trying to read this thread, I am so confused I think only nicotine can help my brain figure it out.:lol:

---

That's tragic, but in a good way.

Hi, 'rose. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Everose

Dang. I have quit smoking, but after trying to read this thread, I am so confused I think only nicotine can help my brain figure it out.:lol:

---

I think we have the same ban here in Silver Spring, Maryland.

I don't know if there are exceptions, like, you know, "Hey this is a smoke bar. Don't fucking come in if you don't want to inhale da smuck."

You know there'll be some dickhead that comes in and say that it's his right to come in....and make everyone put out the cigs.:dry:

I've always been a non-smoker and think that people that now take up smoking are idiots. However, if they have a spot to enjoy themselves, have a drink, and take a puff, they should be able to do it. I wouldn't think I'd have the right to come in knowing that this has been set aside for them, and fuck it up.

It sounds like to get around this in banned areas that a place would need to offer free "memberships" and have people sign a simple paper that the establishment is a private club that only allows those who smoke (or can deal with smoke) inside.

We can then still watch some dickhead challenge it.

I agree with busy, if a place legally allows smoking and some dickhead comes in and says people should put out their cigarettes then he or she is a fucking dickhead shit for brains fucking cunt bastard.

Also if a place legally bans cigarettes and some dickhead comes in and insists on smoking then he or she is a fuckbastard and should get a fucking kicking and thrown out for it.

That seems fair, well said busy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

That is the crux of the issue, should the government be permitted to rule that an otherwise perfectly legal activity can not take place on privately owned property? In itself it is a gross infringement on human rights. On the other hand, no-one is going to force you to enter the building, so your rights to clean air are not infringed.

---

Old post but well said.

Next thing you know, folks won't be able to smoke at home.

Maybe Scotland can ban titty bars. Some dickhead will come in and say that he shouldn't subjected to such nudity and cry about it to lawmakers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

That is the crux of the issue, should the government be permitted to rule that an otherwise perfectly legal activity can not take place on privately owned property? In itself it is a gross infringement on human rights. On the other hand, no-one is going to force you to enter the building, so your rights to clean air are not infringed.

---

Old post but well said.

Next thing you know, folks won't be able to smoke at home.

---

Exceptionally good idea, especially if there's a baby in the house.

There's a proven link between smoking and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome ("cot death"). It's thought that about 80 cot death cases per year in the UK could be prevented by the baby not being exposed to cigarette smoke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Old post but well said.

Next thing you know, folks won't be able to smoke at home.

---

Exceptionally good idea, especially if there's a baby in the house.

There's a proven link between smoking and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome ("cot death"). It's thought that about 80 cot death cases per year in the UK could be prevented by the baby not being exposed to cigarette smoke.

---

So is it a good idea, otherwise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Exceptionally good idea, especially if there's a baby in the house.

There's a proven link between smoking and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome ("cot death"). It's thought that about 80 cot death cases per year in the UK could be prevented by the baby not being exposed to cigarette smoke.

---

So is it a good idea, otherwise?

---

Yes, so good in fact that it should be compulsory. If you are alone in the house you MUST smerk a packet of fags. :wacko:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

So is it a good idea, otherwise?

---

Yes, so good in fact that it should be compulsory. If you are alone in the house you MUST smerk a packet of fags. :wacko:

---

Eh? Wtf are you talking about?:stars:

Sorry, I seem to have confused you. Maybe this will help.

http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/8508/irony8bk.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Sorry, I seem to have confused you. Maybe this will help.

http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/8508/irony8bk.jpg

---

Mmk now that that's outta the way....

So is it otherwise a good idea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Maybe Scotland can ban titty bars. Some dickhead will come in and say that he shouldn't subjected to such nudity and cry about it to lawmakers.

---

Yeah, the same dickhead might get a passive semi and die of a horrible disease after a protracted and painfull illness with his or her friends and family watching it happen.

Some people are so selfish, the fucking dickhead cuntfuckbastards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Maybe Scotland can ban titty bars. Some dickhead will come in and say that he shouldn't subjected to such nudity and cry about it to lawmakers.

---

Yeah, the same dickhead might get a passive semi and die of a horrible disease after a protracted and painfull illness with his or her friends and family watching it happen.

Some people are so selfish, the fucking dickhead cuntfuckbastards.

---

What you said.

Hi J2:D



Okay, so we ban the titty bar takers, the post stealers and keep the courteous smokers?:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Everose

Hi J2:D



Okay, so we ban the titty bar takers, the post stealers and keep the courteous smokers?:D

---

Sounds like a plan, 'cept for that tightass JP.

I think he should "get a room", the antisocial prick. :P

I'm loving the smoking ban.
I quit smoking a couple of months back but I always felt tempted to smoke when having a drink in the pub.
That's not an option now :D