Smoking in Scotland

I once had an employee that insisted that because we had a no smoking on the premises policy he had the right to leave for a "drag" and not just during breaks. He thought he was being discriminated against. He didn't make it past his probabtion.

Then again:

http://www.searchlores.org/images/imisslun.jpg

There's money lost on sales, but also gained.

/me lights up a Marlboro

Imo: the good (less cancer) outweights the bad (tax on sales)

Only time will tell how things pan out, as usual.

The lost Tax-income will be added on other "goods", but I think the
money saved on a long run when ppl stops, or dont begin smoking
can be big numbers too, no?

Less dieing sounds good to me. I could live with that.

:)

My post above seems a little out of place, but there was a mention about the
losses on Taxes if the sales of smokes drops dramatically/suddenly.

I say the Companys who makes the smokes should get a Big Part of the Tax Cake.

And of course the loss would be panned out as Tax on other goods. But there would be savings also, is all im saying.

About the smoking outside, we got the Law in here (Norway) too, no smoking in Pubs,
and basically, It dont shake my boat at all, I can go outside and smoke.

It is a first winter under the Law and it will be interesting to see how many pubs
survive if there's a drop on sales as ppl dont go there no more.

It rains here a lot, I think the pub with some sort of Roof in front has better chance to survive.
The smokers dont want to get wet, especially the Ladies, what with the Make up and all that.

Me? After few beers I really dont care.
(thats the way it works, hehehe...and im not made of sugar)

I have a feeling this Law might be a step on a series of actions to
make ppl realise how stoopid The Smoking Habit is.
I dint think its smart to Cut The Smokes in a one swift move, (Teh Law)
I wish there never was Sigarettes to begin with.
;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

Does it make me rabid because I do not wish to breathe the smoke of others, I think not.

Smoke if you want, enjoy it night and day. That's a mater for you, so long as you don't impose it on other people.

Just don't do it where you force others to do it as well. If society chooses to provide non-smokers with protection from that horrendous and noxious substance, great.

We speak of human rights often. I consider the most basic of these to be clean air. So, tough if you want to preserve your right to smoke anywhere you want. I want to breathe anywhere I want, it's really not a great deal to ask for.

Is that PC enough for everyone.

---

I did not say that all non-smokers were rabid, nor did I suggest that your right to breath fresh air should be infringed. However, you do not have a right to go anywhere you want. Have you complained about not being allowed into ammunition dumps? These are guaranteed non-smoking areas. Take the matter up with your MP, demand your rights.

When there are places which you may have to visit, such as public buildings, I completely agree that they should be smoke free. By and large I think the same is true in places where food is served, although I can see no reason why the same restriction has to apply to parts of the same establishment which have a totally separate function.

If you choose to visit somewhere you have to put up with the conditions which the OWNER decides are acceptable, it is his/her choice, not yours. If he/she decides to sell dung-flavour beer, do you have the right to demand that it is stopped, because it offends your sensibilities? Or would you simply stay away? If that establishment chooses to permit smoking, you have the right not to visit that establishment. If you don't visit your right to clean air isn't compromised. Why should you have the right to demand that the owner accepts your conditions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

Drink dung flavoured beer if you want. So long as I don't have to taste it then it is no business of mine. However if I find the smell to be offensive then yes I will complain about it. That's fair enough. If my Government then decide that dung flavoured beer should be banned in public places, then 1 up for the good guys.

Why would I wish to go into an ammunition dump, that's just silly particularly if I were smoking. The whole idea beggars belief.

With regard to the OWNER having total say on what he can and can't sell, or when he can sell it or to whom, that is just specious tosh. We have licensing laws, these impose rules with regard to what can be sold, to whom and for how long. We also have rules regarding environmental health, safety of customers etc. An owner of an establishment catering to the public must keep his kitchen, pipes etc clean and hygienic. To extend these rules to the air is fair and reasonable, at least I think so.

---

But you were not talking about environmental health, you were talking about your imagined right to dictate to the owner of the premises about what he can and can't do with those premises.

If you don't like what he does with his premises, don't go there. If you feel he should be driven out of business by providing the conditions he doesn't agree with, you are completely at liberty to try - those are your rights.

But get up off your arse and do it with your money, don't expect/force someone else to do it with their's.

Whether you want to go to an ammunition dump is entirely up to you. Whether you have the right to do so is not, yet you seem to think you have certain rights just because premises sell alcohol, why is that?

Just because a majority of people do not like something does not mean we should ban that thing. It has absolutely nothing to do with democracy, it is called intolerance, but that's just a polite way of saying bullying.

You responded to my comment which was about pubs and rabid anti-smoking lobby. I already agreed that publicly owned places and establishments serving food should be smoke free. Perhaps you should do a little more reading yourself.

There's still the unanswered question. You seem to think you have certain rights just because premises sell alcohol, why is that?

So you can see no difference between publicly-owned places and privately-owned?

Let's take that concept to it's logical conclusion, how about you share your home, there are plenty of homeless people out there and the government should do something about it. What about your car, government action on transport is one of the big issues of the day.

Or does it only apply when it is someone else's property?

Fudge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

So you can see no difference between publicly-owned places and privately-owned?

Let's take that concept to it's logical conclusion, how about you share your home, there are plenty of homeless people out there and the government should do something about it. What about your car, government action on transport is one of the big issues of the day.

Or does it only apply when it is someone else's property?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

To say nothing of what Pub is a contraction for.

---

Well i was answering the "private property" question but it didn't actually occur to me the "public house" part....