Wales stubs out smoking in public places

[Barbarossa]

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?

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.


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

[bigboab]

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?

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.


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

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.
First past the post is archaic and does not represent the people.

[JPaul]

"...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.

[lynx]

Just because I think it is right should not overrule the the rights of the people who think it is wrong.

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.

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.

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.

[JPaul]

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?

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.

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'

[vidcc]

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?

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.
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.

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.

Seems complex and expensive to me and I suspect would still not please the inconsiderate smokers. (these being different from the considerate ones)

[bigboab]

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

• Carbon monoxide
• Nitrogen dioxide
• Sulphur dioxide
• Benzene
• Formaldehyde
• Polycyclic hydrocarbons
• Lead
• Tiny suspended particles

I suppose that does not count because nearly everyone drives.

[vidcc]

I'm sure someone will bring up car pollution etc etc into the argument but that doesn't reduce the effects of passive smoking.

you made us wait a bit on that one

[Mr JP Fugley]

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

• Carbon monoxide
• Nitrogen dioxide
• Sulphur dioxide
• Benzene
• Formaldehyde
• Polycyclic hydrocarbons
• Lead
• Tiny suspended particles

I suppose that does not count because nearly everyone drives.

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.

[bigboab]

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

• Carbon monoxide
• Nitrogen dioxide
• Sulphur dioxide
• Benzene
• Formaldehyde
• Polycyclic hydrocarbons
• Lead
• Tiny suspended particles

I suppose that does not count because nearly everyone drives.

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.

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.