Smoking in Scotland

[lynx]

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.

[lynx]

Toffee-nosed git.

[vidcc]

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

[zedaxax]

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

[summond_skull]

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.

[j2k4]

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.

[lynx]

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.

[lynx]

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?

[clocker]

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.

[clocker]

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?