Wales stubs out smoking in public places

[JPaul]

What is the purpose that you talk of?

Moving things and people from place to place. It's really that simple.

What purpose does smoking serve.

[lynx]

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'

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

[vidcc]

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.

if you do not smoke I will correct the post and say

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.

the corrections in bold



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.

[bigboab]

What is the purpose that you talk of?

Moving things and people from place to place. It's really that simple.

What purpose does smoking serve.

There is a possibility that smoking relieves stress and the likelihood of a nervous breakdown in some cases.

[Mr JP Fugley]

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?

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.

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.

[bigboab]

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.

[Mr JP Fugley]

Make an "excess baggage" charge, that should sort that out.

[bigboab]

Make an "excess baggage" charge, that should sort that out.

I agree. weigh passengers going on aircraft and charge for excess weight.

[Mr JP Fugley]

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.

[vidcc]

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