Wales stubs out smoking in public places

[Busyman™]

Neither involves private functions, that would certainly be irrelevant and isn't anything approaching what I was saying so don't try to twist my point into something else. One rule involves smoking which you say isn't allowed.

The challenge to you is to say why you think that rule isn't allowed but the other is, when neither rule affects you if you don't want to take part in the activity.

One method of resolving disagreement is to look at the extreme situation, no matter how absurd you may think it is. If you have no answer for the extreme situation then you certainly have no answer for the commonplace. Don't repeat that it isn't relevant, that's like saying "na na na, I'm not listening".

One other point you might want to consider, since in general we are simply talking about a room, no different from any other room, except that people are allowed to smoke in that room. Please indicate why you have such a fascination with that room that you demand right of entry and therefore demand that no smoke is allowed.

Cuz it's a public place.

Imagine the local WalMart (Asda) allowing smoking....ok now the grocery store, the Chuck E Cheese, the movie theater, etc.

[lynx]

Neither involves private functions, that would certainly be irrelevant and isn't anything approaching what I was saying so don't try to twist my point into something else. One rule involves smoking which you say isn't allowed.

The challenge to you is to say why you think that rule isn't allowed but the other is, when neither rule affects you if you don't want to take part in the activity.

One method of resolving disagreement is to look at the extreme situation, no matter how absurd you may think it is. If you have no answer for the extreme situation then you certainly have no answer for the commonplace. Don't repeat that it isn't relevant, that's like saying "na na na, I'm not listening".

One other point you might want to consider, since in general we are simply talking about a room, no different from any other room, except that people are allowed to smoke in that room. Please indicate why you have such a fascination with that room that you demand right of entry and therefore demand that no smoke is allowed.

Cuz it's a public place.

Imagine the local WalMart (Asda) allowing smoking....ok now the grocery store, the Chuck E Cheese, the movie theater, etc.

You have obviously missed the bit where I said that all facilities have to be available in a smoke free (not just non-smoking) area. Any area where smoking is allowed has nothing extra (other than smoking) than any other part of the establishment.

Additionally, I was talking about public bars. I can see no reason why the logic shouldn't apply to other types of establishments, but neither can I see any reason why the majority of establishments would want to offer smoking areas, given that they would still have to provide the smoke free areas.

The point is that those who want a smoke free atmosphere get exactly what they want, while at the same time those businesses which want to do so can offer a smoking environment to their customers.

The problem comes with those who want to control our lives down to the minutest detail, they are worse than "Communism" ever was in Eastern Europe, and I was certainly no fan of that regime.

[Chip Monk]

The problem comes with those who want to control our lives down to the minutest detail, they are worse than "Communism" ever was in Eastern Europe, and I was certainly no fan of that regime.

No one wants to do that tho', so that's not a problem.

They just don't see poisoning yourself and other people as a right. As such it does not have to be taken into account when deciding what is allowed in relation to providing a safe and healthy environment for customers, staff and any other person entering an enclosed public space.

One only requires to compromise when rights have to be balanced. Take speed limits as an example. It would be nice if everyone could drive at any speed they wanted, wherever they wanted. However I am not keen on people driving at 70mph through a residential area. We don't ban cars we simply impose a maximum speed at which they can travel.

[lynx]

The problem comes with those who want to control our lives down to the minutest detail, they are worse than "Communism" ever was in Eastern Europe, and I was certainly no fan of that regime.

No one wants to do that tho', so that's not a problem.

They just don't see poisoning yourself and other people as a right. As such it does not have to be taken into account when deciding what is allowed in relation to providing a safe and healthy environment for customers, staff and any other person entering an enclosed public space.

One only requires to compromise when rights have to be balanced. Take speed limits as an example. It would be nice if everyone could drive at any speed they wanted, wherever they wanted. However I am not keen on people driving at 70mph through a residential area. We don't ban cars we simply impose a maximum speed at which they can travel.

Don't you ever read what you are responding to?

I've already said repeatedly that it can only be in a part of an establishment THAT DOES NOT AFFECT THOSE WHO WANT A SMOKE FREE ENVIRONMENT. As to poisoning oneself, it is not regarded as such otherwise it would not be permitted at all. Consequently your argument on that score is total pish.

Since no-one except those who wish to smoke are affected, it is reasonable to conclude that there is simply a desire to control the minutiae of peoples lives. Given the interference in other ways by our "nanny state" I don't think there can be much doubt of that.

If you want to compare it to cars, it doesn't equate in any way to driving at any speed you may like on a public road. Smoking in a private area of a public place would be more like driving on a race track - guess what, they can drive at any speed they want and it is perfectly legal. There are some who would like to ban that too, but by and large we recognise them as the intolerant cranks they are.

[JPaul]

Let's not get personal now. That would just make you look like a jackass. The fact that you don't actually understand my point is no reason to get all uptight.

As to poisoning oneself, it is not regarded as such otherwise it would not be permitted at all. Consequently your argument on that score is total pish.

It doesn't matter what it's regarded as. I said it was poisoning one's self and others. It is, that's just a fact. Whatever you regard it as.

Smoking is not the minutiae of people's lives. If it is then why do you even care, it's minutiae, it's not important, why all the fuss.

You didn't even understand the driving analogy. It's to do with balancing rights and reaching a compromise position. Smoking is not a right, therefore no compromise is required. What's all this nonsense about racing cars.

Just as well there are no intolerant cranks here, they might think you were getting personal. We know you don't do that, they might not.

[lynx]

You may think smoking is not a right, but freedom to perform legal acts certainly is. I think you'll get pretty hot under the collar when they try to stop some activity you like, and they almost certainly will if they aren't held to account.

The whole point of mentioning minutiae is that they should be unimportant to governments, the very fact that they interfere down to such a small level means that the massive control they attempt to exert over all aspects of our lives is oppressive. But then you knew that.

What's more, I certainly understood your attempt to divert the argument with your driving analogy, but the way it was phrased made it total nonsense. Such a policy would have a detrimental effect on others, a factor which I have been at pains to point out is unacceptable, and a point which you seem determined to ignore. Why is that? Could it be that if you acknowledge that point then your argument collapses?

My point is that driving as fast as one wants on public roads is not equivalent since other would be affected, but that use of a race circuit would be comparable, since speeds are not restricted yet it is still a public place. In a similar vein, those who do not wish to visit are not affected.

Btw, it could be some other off road venue but you knew that too, since as you said it is an analogy. It really is tiresome having to explain every issue (right down to the minutiae). You make it seem as if you are pretending not to understand the English language which we all know is not the case. It does you no credit.

[JPaul]

My point is that people moving freely and using transport can be considered a right, it has a purpose. Therefore when deciding whether it should be allowed, the answer is yes, even tho' it does present dangers. So a compromise is reached, speed limits are set. That balances the right to use a car against the dangers it represents.

My point is that driving as fast as one wants on public roads is not equivalent since other would be affected

exactly, see above. Others would be affected, so we set limits.

It wasn't an attempt to divert anything, it was a way of demonstrating how there were instances where one has to compromise and balance rights. Compare the pros and cons as it were.

However my contention is that smoking is not a right, it is poisoning yourself, it is poisoning other people. It serves no other purpose, whether it is legal or not. As such I do not see any need to include the "right to smoke" in any part of the decision making process. It simply doesn't exist.

Oh and, once again, try not to get personal if you don't mind.

[Tokeman]

we had a smoking ban here in my city also a year ago. Recently, a local bar won a court battle to fight the smoking ban. It is currently undergoing an appeal, so their lawyers say to wait until the appeals process is done to let people smoke in the bar again.
I am an ex-smoker, but when I go to bars, especially grungy bars, I expect smoke and a bad atmosphear. I hope they uphold this win for all bars.

[lynx]

My point is that people moving freely and using transport can be considered a right, it has a purpose. Therefore when deciding whether it should be allowed, the answer is yes, even tho' it does present dangers. So a compromise is reached, speed limits are set. That balances the right to use a car against the dangers it represents.

My point is that driving as fast as one wants on public roads is not equivalent since other would be affected

exactly, see above. Others would be affected, so we set limits.

And I've consistently said that it should only be allowed where others are not affected.

It wasn't an attempt to divert anything, it was a way of demonstrating how there were instances where one has to compromise and balance rights. Compare the pros and cons as it were.

However my contention is that smoking is not a right, it is poisoning yourself, it is poisoning other people. It serves no other purpose, whether it is legal or not. As such I do not see any need to include the "right to smoke" in any part of the decision making process. It simply doesn't exist.

Oh and, once again, try not to get personal if you don't mind.

You've tried to introduce a false comparison, a typical trick used by poor politicians (unfortunately many of whom now occupy high office). Where possible I expose there mendacity, so I see no reason why I should let you get away with it.

Twist as you may, you STILL haven't acknowledged that I've consistently advocated only areas where others are not affected. If you can't answer that point then your whole argument is false. I think that must becoming fairly obvious to even the most strident anti-smoker though.

[lynx]

we had a smoking ban here in my city also a year ago. Recently, a local bar won a court battle to fight the smoking ban. It is currently undergoing an appeal, so their lawyers say to wait until the appeals process is done to let people smoke in the bar again.
I am an ex-smoker, but when I go to bars, especially grungy bars, I expect smoke and a bad atmosphear. I hope they uphold this win for all bars.

I'm an ex-smoker too, and I don't agree with your point that we should expect a bad atmosphere. However, I DO expect a compromise if I'm not affected.

On a legal point, I'm pretty certain that if the bar won the court battle then it is perfectly legal to smoke in that bar. It doesn't matter if there is an appeal, until (and if) the ruling is overturned the current status has sway. Depending on the wording that may or may not apply to other bars though. The bar association would know.