Sorry, No Smoking !!

A snowHead

hedley,

A snowHead

Markos,

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

I tell you what Slikedges, I wouldn't say no to puff on the thing you're smoking.

You appear to be missing what I am saying and doing your best to try and knock me. I have my opinions, and you have your antagonistic objectives in your debating.

I'll leave it there.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Markos, the last recourse...personal insult Sad

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

It is reasonable that smokers cannot smoke in bars of the likes.... but as mentioned earlier, what about the streets? It isnt very pleasant for a non smoker to have to walk behind a group of smokers? I very much dislike smoke and this sort of situation often forces me to cross to the other side of the road.

Say I was odd in the head and decided I liked to smell hydrogen sulphide in small quantities. If I did this in the street, even at small concentrations, most anyone closeby is going to know about it! It would probably do similar damage to tobacco smoke, it would stink alot more though and make everyone closeby unhappy.... but it would be my right, like smoking, to do it...

It would rapidly give a few smokers new perspective as it would be they forced to switch to the other side of the street! That said of course, I'D almost certainly be accused of being the smelly antisocial one.... rolling eyes

You'll need to Register first of course.

Now smokers are forced onto the streets would they please think of others and not wave their cigarettes around! Twice in the last week I have had to move my daughter away from a cigarette being waved around as a lady (why its always ladies?) walked along. Men seem to manage to walk and not wave their cigarettes around why can't women?

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Personally I can;t wait. On friday I went into Manchester for the work's christmas do, the first time I've been into manchester for twelve months, and I soon recalled why - Mrs NBT and I rarely frequent pubs anymore as we both detest coming home absolutely stinking to high heaven of other people smnoking. more than that, two or three pints in a smoky pub give me a worse hangover than 6 or 7 pints at a mate's party.

Round here, a few pubs have tried to go "no smoking" but have had to revert back to allowing it as the lost the custom to the other pubs in the area. This is a shame, but given the high density of pubs not that much of a surprise - it might have worked in a village with only one or two pubs, but not in a plce with over a dozen in the space of a mile!

HOwever, if the total ban were enforced, people would be less likely to use the other pubs, if you see what I mean

and finally, I mustjust comment that all the TV interviews I've seen have been with people in pubs commenting on how awful / great it will be when smoking is banned - what about the number of people (becase I find it *very* hard to believe we're alone in this) who, like Mrs NBT and me, simply don;t go out to pubs anymore becasue of the smoke? it's *those* people who'll make a difference when they start going out again I reckon

After all it is free

slikedges, you are stuck on stupid. Who gives you the damn right to tell the owner of private property what he can and can't allow on his premises? If you don't like people smoking near you then vote with your feet and leave. Even better, don't go there in the first place. A market for non-smoking venues will develop if a market exists. But no, it doesn't exist so the whiny children stamp their feet andf demand "The Government Must Do Something!" The government must trash a thousand years of English Law and ban property owners from doing what is perfectly lawful on their own private property, for no other reason than you just don't like it - and smokers are supposed to be selfish. Pah!

Try to get it into your hear - pubs, clubs and restaurants are private property. The government has no business telling owners of private property what lawful activities they may and may not allow on their own premises. If you don't like it then leave.

4thefunofit, i can see your argument for letting the owner decide .. but dont they have an obligation to their staff..? i thought that was the crux of the legal argument..

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

4thefunofit,

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

Acacia, I'm not sure I would classify my love life as "desperate"! It may not be going through a good patch at the moment, but it's not moribund. Yet. Very Happy

snow reports

Kramer,

4thefunofit, there are other reasons for banning it other than just not liking it. How about the fact that you're harming other people by forcing them to inhale your smoke?

There are plenty of precedents in law to stop people from harming one another whether on private property or not.

You know it makes sense.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

Kramer, no, I'm not forcing anyone to inhale smoke when I'm in a pub or restaurant. I did not force you into that pub or restaurant. You are free to walk in, you are free to walk out. It's your life, stand up for yourself and make your own decisions instead of being infantile and demanding that the government makes your decisions for you.

CANV CANVINGTON[/b], what you are saying is that the state should protect people from their own stupidity and the consequences of their own actions. You know that people smoke in pubs and restaurants, it's your choice to work in one or take your labour elsewhere. When someone undertakes employment which may be harmful, e.g. excessive noise from say, construction work, the employer should take reasonable steps to mitigate that. They can provide ear protection. But when people are undertaking perfectly lawful activities on private property the state has no business proscribing it.

Civil society is perfectly capable of regulating itself. We have done so for 1000 years and have the wonderful English Common Law as a result. What you are doing now, however, is jumping on a bandwagon started by health fascists and freaks in the BMA and elsewhere. Beware of what you wish for - you cannot isolate the issue of smoking in pubs from others. These people want to have limits imposed on how many drinks you may consume in a pub, how much fat you may eat at a sitting, they even want to impose laws on fast food chains preventing them from serving people who are deemed to be too fat.

George Orwell where are you now?! As you surrender your freedoms to these people you will notice that they never actually go away. The more they regulate, ban, control, proscribe, dictate and hector you the more they are encouraged. If you ride a motorbike then beware, these very same people are looking to take away your wheels - but hey, it's for your own safety, can't you see? "WE know what is good for you, not you. WE should have the right to dictate what supposedly free men and women can and can't do on private property. WE are so enlightened that we take away your right to take care of your own health."

And when the day dawns that they move onto 'extreme' sports and they try to take away what is yours by lobbying for them to be banned/regulated/controlled/proscribed/limited you'll wonder how it ever came to this. You'll wonder what gives them the right to take away your fun and you'll say they have no right. Of course they have no right, but they'll assume the right because they have been encouraged and egged on a thousand times in other areas of life in the past. Like now.

So you don't like smoking: tough. Leave. Walk out. The only other choice is to surrender your own freedom to control your own decisions in life or give it up to people who are doing what you want them to do today but will turn around tomorrow and take away what is precious to you.

A snowHead

4thefunofit,

A snowHead

Dave Horsley, what I'm doing is perfectly lawful, I'm doing it on private property and with the owner's permission. You too are stuck on stupid. What does it take to make you understand that the state has no business outlawing perfectly lawful activities on private property? If the staff don't like smoking they can get another job! No-one forces you into a job you do not want. And no, it is absolutely NOT the legitimate function of government to look out for the health of free individuals with free will. It is your owned damned responsibility to look after your own health. Hey, if you don't want to then fine. It's your body and your own life. It's called personal responsibility. But you step way over the line when you cheerlead while the government bans what is perfectly lawful on private property.

Try to understand one simple thing. The existence of private property has been one of the essential pillars of our free society since the middle ages. The concept rules that no-one may prevent you from doing on your own property what the Monarch or any Minister of the Crown may do on theirs. It s the boldest statement that you are a free individual in your own land and that you may shut the door on all comers. The phrase "an Englishman's home is his castle" isn't some hackneyed saying but stems from the fact that every Englishman has precisely the same rights in law to hold and enjoy property as even the Lord of the Manor. He may even shut the door on that Lord, who may then only enter with a magistrate's warrant. In short, it is a bullwark against tyranny.

What you now propose is that the state can legitimately dictate to you what you may and may not do on your own property. Even perfectly lawful activities may not be enjoyed by you on your own piece of land if the states so dictates. That is the position you take. By supporting such an illiberal proposal you are not lookig out for anyone's health but willingly giving up not only your liberty as a free man but severely weakening a fundamental principle in our civilisation - that on your own property not even the state may push you around.

David Horsley and others, this has nothing to do with health. It has nothing to do with looking out for others. This thoroughly despicable proposal is wholly designed to push the state further and further and further into your lives. The proposal is all about expanding the boundaries of the state at the expense of free will. A liberal society is only liberal as long as you accept that others will do things you don't like but have to rub along. If you accept this proposal you must accept that you are no liberal and have no place in a free society. You are happy for the state to bend others to your will and force them by law to act in ways which you approve. Good for you, but one day you will be the one who is bitten, and who will be left to argue for you?

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

Private property or place of work? I think I'd agree with what 4thefunofit is saying if all pubs/clubs, etc were owned and staffed by the same person, but that isn't often the case.

There's no right or wrong on this issue - it just depends on how you view the world. Therefore phrases like "stuck on stupid" aren't really warranted in my opinion.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

4thefunofit, your mindless repetition of the same phrase over and over again implies that you don't do very much free thinking on this subject, instead rote repeating something that you think sounds clever.

From the point of view of justice, is it just that someone feel be forced to go elsewhere to avoid being harmed by passive smoking? Isn't it more just that those who are causing the harm, be forced to find somewhere else to do it?

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

4thefunofit,

You'll need to Register first of course.

This seems to be rapidly boiling to one conclusion.... smoking is not against the law, therefore a person is entitled to do it. If it discomforts another, then that is tough....

Is that really what a smoker wants to convince us of? Puzzled

....aimed towards 4thefunofit....

Adam

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

4thefunofit, You point of view disintegrates, because we are discussing what should and should not be legal.

The "thin end of the wedge" argument is an interesting one, but tends not to hold up in practice. I remember similar arguments being used aginst women's rights, but things have not changed that much there.

After all it is free

Kramer, 'repetition' yes but, please, not mindless. I have repeated myself because this is the heart of the matter. Your opposition to smoking in a pub is trumped by the principle that it is a lawful activity on privately owned property. Privately owned property - the essence of which is exclusivity: the right of the owner to exclude people and practices which the owner does not care for, including you and your opinion or (yes!) smokers if he wishes. I care not a jot for your opinion of smoking and smokers because your opinion on these matters is like mine and everyone else's - irrelevent. The point of the matter concerns the legitimate limits of state power and the erosion of your inalienable right to hold and enjoy property free of any encumbrance (hence 'freehold' - d'ya geddit?)

Dave Horsley, yes, Parliament can make smoking illegal. I would of course argue that the state has no business doing such a thing but at least a blanket ban would be more intellectually consistent than a ban on smoking in some private properties. You obviously skipped over where I stated that employers should have a (that's 'a') responsibility to alleviate the effects of jobs hazards. But there can be no equivalence between mining companies being required to protect against dust and the owner of a pub allowing smoking. The ultimate responsibility is on the individual to decide if they want to work there or not. If you don't want to breathe in smoke then work elsewhere. To co-opt, cajole and encourage the state to smash a fundamental principle of civilised British life because you'd rather not get a job elsewhere or not go for a drink elsewhere is short-sighted, unthinking, highly irresponsible and utterly selfish.

I'm pretty sure that a pub (public areas of) etc are not private property during the licencing/opening hours.........at those times it is deemed a public place.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

anyone wanna go skiing?

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

buns, you state that I think: smoking is not against the law, therefore a person is entitled to do it. If it discomforts another, then that is tough....

If the smoker is smoking on private property and the owner allows him to do it then yes - tough. If the owner bans smoking then it's tough on the smoker. Is that too difficult to understand?

Chris Bish, yes, we are discussing what should be legal and I have yet to read a convincing argument why a lawful activity should be banned on private property. The fundamental point still seems to pass you by. This proposal is not the state doing you a favour. It is not the state doing something for your own good. If this proposal becomes law then you have just had your own inalienable right to hold and enjoy property as you wish curtailed. Now you may wish to do that, but youhave no moral or legal right to push for anyone else's right n property to be curtailed. It is fundamentally illiberal and has no place in a civilised society.

snow reports

Dan, - I'm pretty sure that a pub (public areas of) etc are not private property during the licencing/opening hours.........at those times it is deemed a public place.

Of course it's private property. No-one changes the deeds of the premises at opening and closing times. The right of the owner to exclude and bar you is simply the same right that you have to exclude people from your own home. A pub is private property merely with a licence to serve alcohol.

4thefunofit, No. I want the state to prevent others from doing me harm. Whether on private property or not is immaterial. snowHead

You know it makes sense.

4thefunofit,

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

4thefunofit, it's different because no one can just walk through my front doors, i have to let them in. With a pub anyone has a right to go in, of course they can then be asked to leave/not served but they have still entered. I'll try and find a legal link (for my own curiosity as well, as i can't remember exactly which is right) although pushing for time at the moment.... snowHead

A snowHead

4thefunofit,

You are basically advocating a total lack of basic manners. There is no simpler way of interpreting what you are saying.

A snowHead

Dave Horsley, well the fact that some Scottish establishments have banned smoking voluntarily is just fine and dandy. I support them 100% because it's their damned right to do as they please on their own property.

There's no point in discussing this further. I think we've established that some are concerned with fundamental liberties whilst others want the state to use it's law-making powers to socially engineer the behaviour of others.

Remember one thing though - that dog will turn and bite you one day. It'll take away your right to enjoy life as you see fit. And when that day arrives let's not have any complaints - you'll merely be reaping what you've sown.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

buns, oh I'm sorry, I just cannot let that pass. YOU demand the right to tell others how to behave on THEIR OWN property and you think I advocate a total lack of manners?

buns, look up the word 'chutzpah' in the dictionary.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

4thefunofit,

If you care to read.... I never followed the path of what a smoker could do on their own property. I was generalising, so I am afraid to have to shoot down you last response.

To now be more specific, a bar/club may well be privately owned and smoking may well be permitted. All that being true, manners are still manners. It is not a case of saying what you can or cant do, it is a case of asking you to have consideration for others, especially when what you want to do inevitably impacts on everyone within close proximity.

I am not saying what someone can and cannot do, I am speaking of basic manners which should dictate to a well mannered person, what they SHOULD and should not do.

Just because something is allowed does not mean it should be done.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

4thefunofit, it is privately owned property that the public have access to, hence the name "pub". Noone is trying to ban people from smoking in private residences which is where your rhetoric falls down slightly.

You'll need to Register first of course.

4thefunofit, I feel that you are following a civil liberties line, but an odd one, rather along the lines of those who believe they have a right to speed and that there should be no cameras. I want the civil liberty to breathe clean air. In any place where the public have access. I also want the government to protect me from law-breakers on the road. OK, I don't want to confuse the issue, and the two issues are not parallel, but what remains is the debate about what should and should not be legal. I do not believe it should be legal for one human being to inflict toxic fumes on another. Wherever it happens. snowHead

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

After all it is free

I'm probably going to regret this and suffer at the keyboards of others, but I have to say 4thefunofit is making sense. I'm not as articulate as him, and some of his ideas are a little radical, but I do tend to agree with him on the whole.

With regards to people working in bars and coal mines, if they started the job and conditions grew worse then there would be a case against the employer, but when someone joins a company and then they start moaning about the conditions it's a little unfair.

And yes, if we let government take this action, where do we draw the line in the future?

The old saying comes to mind; You can please all the people some of the time, and you can please some of the people all the time, but you cannot please all the people all the time.

I dare say slikedges will come by and tell me I'm totally incorrect rolling eyes

Markos, How can you say he is making sense? Just apply a littel reductio ad absurdam to it.

People should be free to do as they wish on their own property. So slavery is fine on the private property of your own plantation. I can hear 4thefunofit, coming back with "Ah, but slavery is illegal." It wasn't 200 years ago. Laws and mores have changed. Just as laws and mores on smoking have changed.

Before very long smoking will be found no more acceptable than slavery....

snowHead

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

But Markos,

What about the simple issue of consideration for others. Smokers know that the smoke is harmful, is it not simply good manner not to impose that upon other.... at a restaurant for example? Like im fairly sure a smoker wouldnt like it if I came and repeatedly passed wind in the vicinity of their food.... you can bet if someone did it to me, I would think it was horrible!

Help!!

Sorry, No Smoking !!

snowHeads Forum Index >>> The Piste