Sorry, No Smoking !!

A snowHead

Kramer, it is privately owned property that the public have access to, hence the name "pub". Yes, but the public only have access to it because the owner allows the public access. The owner can bar you in the same way that you can bar someone from your own home. There is no difference both in law and in practice. Dear God.

Chris Bish, but what remains is the debate about what should and should not be legal Sorry, no. This is a trifling, piddling argument compared to the fundamental matter of the legitimate limits of state power. When you advocate the banning of smoking in a pub you are actually agreeing to the principle that the state can dictate what you may and may not do in your own home. Answer me - is this what you want? Are you so infantilised that you cannot take responsibility for your own lungs? Do you wait for the government to call you in the morning to grant permission for yout first visit to the toilet?

Chris Bish, So slavery is fine on the private property of your own plantation. Try thinking about this. It is I who is advocating the freedom of the individual here. It is you who is advocating ever greater powers for the state (yes, the state, that entity which declared slavery to be lawful before civil libertarians fought tooth and nail to have the damned state get the hell out of people's lives and who won emancipation for slaves.) You have it precisely wrong.

Look, you live in what is still, just, a liberal society where laws are supposed to reflect that we are free people who don't need guiding every step of the way by an all seeing state. This assumption allows for the fact that some of what we all isn't agreeable to everyone, but hey, we just have to get along somehow. A bit of give and take. When you begin to demand legislation outlawing each and every thing which you don't like you lose the right to partake in the good things which come from a free society and you end up in one place. It's where 400 million people were under the Soviets and where the North Koreans are now. You cannot design society to your own wishes and expect not to be on the receiving end of bad legislation when bad people turn on you. It's your choice, but what you advocate is illiberal, un-British and unworthy.

A snowHead

The problem you have with trying to argue with smokers is that they are inherently selfish and fail to see the logic that their assumed right to smoke interferes with my actual right to clean air. I can't think of many other habits where those who happen to be in the vicinity are forced to partake of that habit against their will, therefore smoking is a bit of a different situation to many of the oft-quoted so-called parallel activities such as drinking and/or pollution from cars.

The issue is also often clouded by those who aren't (or sometimes claim not to be!) smokers themselves who feel the need to stand up against the might of the tyrannical oppressors (that's the near 80% of us that are non-smokers, if you miss their point) on behalf of the poor mistreated smokers. I don't always understand the mindset of these people who often tout extremist viewpoints on it being the thin end of the wedge, etc... and the government will be telling you how much sugar you can have in your tea next and so on. This, of course, misses the point that how much sugar or fat you eat and how much you drink does not affect those in your immediate vicinity in the same way that smoking does. It's unique amongst personal habits, there is no other parallel to it. Those of you too "stuck on stupid", however, may struggle to comprehend this...

You'll find that whereas most non-smokers will happily agree that they don't want a total ban on smoking, they just want smokers to not do it where non-smokers are affected by it, most smokers will vehemently protest that they have the right to smoke anywhere, any place, any time as a "civil liberty", thus forgetting that the rest of us (by a ratio of 4 to 1) have a right to NOT be affected by their personal choice.

Anyone's choice to smoke is ABSOLUTELY their right and choice to make. However, it is known to be dangerous to both themselves and others around them, so where is the law that says they have the right to force others in their vicinity to also partake in their personal choice? If I want to drink Stella until I puke, that is my choice. Do I have the right to force my Stella on everyone else around me? Hardly. Excuse me? Can I just spit some of this Stella I've just drunk all over your clothes and force some down your throat too please? Just because it's not the "accepted norm" now, who's to say the habit wouldn't catch on after a while, eh? Does that make it acceptable? How many people have to do this before it becomes as acceptable as smoking?

As to pubs being "private property" and therefore it's down to the landlord... good grief, what colour is the sky on your planet mate? "pub" as in short for "public house"... you know, "licensed premises for the public consumption of alcohol". How many publicans these days own their own pub? Just because years ago someone decided that smoking was cool and trendy and it became the norm doesn't mean that you forever have the right to indulge in a noxious habit once we become civilised enough to realise the inherent stupidity and harm in the habit.

The argument about non-smokers having the right to leave if they don't like smoky pubs is entirely specious. Both non-smokers and smokers alike have the right to have a drink. However, smokers do NOT have the right to take over pubs "just because people have always smoked in them." Utter baloney.

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

4thefunofit, actually there's a whole specific area of the law dealing with public houses. It's called the licensing act. The rest of your argument is just hot air about your so-called right to smoke, the same arguments trotted out by the tobacco manufacturers through their PR agencies to justify their continued profiteering through causing cancer.

The rights of the individual are tantamount, unless they are causing harm to others. By smoking in a public place you are harming those around you, who have the same right as you to be there without suffering any harm from other people's deliberate acts.

How do you justify causing harm to others, by pursuing your habit?

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

Markos, will oblige later, when free Toofy Grin

4thefunofit, Twisted Evil

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

I'm not a smoker, and I rarely if ever am forced to breathe in other peoples smoke. Smokers, as a general rule, do not feel it is their god given right to smoke where ever they want. Most smokers I know are courteous and do their upmost to ensure before they light up that they won't offend anyone.

By all means I am all for smoking and non-smoking areas, but I don't want to hear the goverment keep smoking legal, but ban it from public places. It's either without doubt an extreme danger to the public, or it isn't.

There are those of us who don't want to enter smokey areas and we should be able to do so. Likewise, the smoker does want to be in smokey places, and they should also be able to do so.

You'll need to Register first of course.

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

Well I've been round this particular mulberry bush too often to do it any more. I do wonder though, if anyone has noticed that this is not actually about smoking.

buns, He (she?) has clearly stated that they think it is just fine for a smoker to light up even when it makes those around them uncomfortable. That is not courteous at all.

No, no I haven't said that anywhere. You're seeing words but not reading. I have said nothing more than the state has no business outlawing a lawful activity on private property. No more, no less. I actually think it can be discourteous to smoke in a pub if a smoker can easily move elsewhere and not inconvenience others.

If someone can actually make a cogent argument for why it is right, good, proper and moral for the state to break an ancient legal principle then please post it. All I have seen so far is "yeah, I don't like smoking so do it." Sorry, not good enough. Not liking something is no good reason to impose an obviously illiberal restriction.

After all it is free

for the same reason we stopped using asbestos, we didnt no it was detrimental to our health when it was discovered......

quite simple i think

Don't forget that soon you will NOT be able to smoke in a pub in Scotland and Wales BUT will be able to in Engalnd. That's racist surely wink

Not sure of the situ in Norn Iron.

The above assumes current planned legislation comes to fruition!

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

4thefunofit, it used to be legal for a man to rape his wife until the state outlawed it. Like it or not, there are some things that the state does have business getting involved in. Smoking in public places is one of them, because unless the state does get involved, the free market won't lead to it happening.

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

4thefunofit, Sign me up for the stupid squad but you have failed to explain in words that I can understand why an Englishmans castle equates to the Elephant and Castle. There are a many activities which are lawful in some circumstances but not in others. Sex being the one obviously quoted here. Where the age, consent ,willingness, financial transactions, venue including whether on public view even in private premises all affect the legal position of the participants.
Just what is the ancient legal principle being newly broken here?

snow reports

When I was young I'd often get asked by women if I smoked after making lurve. to which I replied

I HAVEN'T REALLY NOTICED!!!!!

HAR HAR HAR

You know it makes sense.

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

This thread is so stressful I think I need to pop outside to the middle of a large field for a fag Laughing

A snowHead

This thread is so stressful I think I need to pop outside to the middle of a large field for a fag Laughing

A snowHead

Smoking cannot be banned. Tony and big Gordo make too much money from it.

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

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

How do I improve my carving?! NehNeh

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Markos, having failed with argumentum ad hominem you're now having a go at argumentum ad misericordiam!

Back to your one laboured point though, sorry, but no-one's going to build you 2 parks or 2 restaurants so smokers can have the same "rights" as non-smokers and there's no way smoke can be kept away from non-smokers in a single premises without air-locks (if you prefer, there's no way clean air can be kept away from smokers without air-locks). If someone's got to be in the cubicle, it's the smokers because they're the ones doing the imposing/the harm/the infringing. Anyway, if the government is to fulfil its obligation to the health of staff, it has to introduce this legislation. It is indeed disingenuous of the staff to complain, but nevertheless quite right that the government should act to ensure adequate working conditions. The mere preference of non-smokers in non-essential venues is just a secondary social issue. snowHead

4thefunofit, Twisted Evil

You'll need to Register first of course.

No, I totally agree, But Greasey Joes truckers cafe should be allowed to let their patronage carry on with their roll-ups if that is how they and their clients wish it. And the nice clean Bar Shenkos wine bar should be allowed to ban smoking as they feel it would attract a more appropriate customer.

It should be nothing to do with the government.

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

So why does the government ban certain chemicals (many cleaning products have had to be reformulated lately)? Why do children not play with mercury in chemistry class? Why are there strict guidlines about radioactive substances (many of which one were household items)?

If an activity or item is considered to be a public health hazard, then the government does have a place being involved.

After all it is free

Sorry but you're missing my point, I'm trying to say it should be up to establishments (i.e. pubs and cafes) if they permit smoking, and that would give the public the choice.

Im not missing the point..... why is an establishment having a choice about smoking any different from it having the choice to supply water with dissolved Radon or heavy metals?

Adam

Ps. I have just had my christmas lunch in a restaurant which permits smoking. I now stink of smoke, I have a jacket permeated by the smell, my eyes are dry and sore and I have a sore throat. I will resultantly never go to that restaurant again and will recommend to everyone who asks, to do likewise.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

id prefer smokin to be banned indoors, however it dont bother me that much that i dont go to pubs, many of ma mates smoke, u just learn to live with it i guess.

most clubs have air vents anyways to suck it out

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

Markos, if the smoking ban should be nothing to do with the government, then so should the responsibility for treating smoking associated diseases. Even then, as it is a pubic health issue, it would still be the government's business.

snow reports

Buns.... Because there are lot of establishments that want to allow their smoking customers to carry on smoking, as their customers too, who themselves wish to carry on smoking in there. And in the case of your xmas meal, there should have been a non-smokers option or some other choice where you weren't frog marched into a smoking restaurant and made to sit there as it was going to cause you so much grief.

Kramer.... Should the government prevent the treatment of parachutists in parachute accidents, drivers from driving accidents, etc.

Guys, there's a ton of good reasons why we dont want to share smokers vicinities, and also plenty of smokers who want to smoke in peace. If they are letting us have our freedom, we should allow them theirs.

You know it makes sense.

Sorry, have come to this a bit late and haven't read the whole thread, but there do seem to be some rather odd arguments being used.

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

A snowHead

Dave Burt, but that assumes that there is a non-smoking choice which is freely available. Without legislation there generally isn't.

A snowHead

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

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

4thefunofit, The usual logical fallacies, preposterous extrapolations and tired jingoistic trite you trot out dismissed, all you have offered us are 2 premises:

1. That everyone posting on this thread is "stuck on stupid" apart from you (and possibly Markos). Will you entertain the possibility that that is rude, unconstructive and inaccurate? I would also counsel that when you’re beyond the 2 SDs, you should stop to at least reconsider whether it is in fact you who ought to be thinking inside the box, lest yourself ending up outside the box but caught in a track of fallacious logic?

2. The government shouldn’t stop people conducting a lawful activity on private property.

In a civilized society, most people consider that the government has a duty to protect both the public and individuals even when on private property. And I’m afraid the force of law certainly applies even behind the closed gates of your private castle, so that the 2nd half of your second premise fails.

Being drunk and disorderly in a public place poses a risk to the public and is unlawful largely because of this. Being drunk and disorderly alone in your house, is a little sad, but poses no risk to the public and is not unlawful. Smoking in a public place is harmful to the public but currently lawful. Smoking alone in your castle is not harmful to the public. The new law seeks to recognise that smoking in a public place is harmful to the public and individuals but falls short due to moral cowardice. However smoking in certain enclosed spaces to which the public has access, and in which individual staff have to work (I know it’s disingenuous of the staff to complain but the duty of the state is nonetheless clear), will become an unlawful activity so that the 1st half of your second premise fails too. You’ll still be able to smoke alone in your castle.

Causing harm to others should indeed not be lawful, no matter who owns the property.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

You'll need to Register first of course.

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

After all it is free

I dont really know about restaurants in belfast, I dont go out all that often to be honest. Most I know of simply having smoking and non-smoking areas. We just went to this place because it was within walking distance of work and was a change from the usual chinese/indian/pizza... it really was a shame because the food was very tastey!

Adam

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Help!!

Sorry, No Smoking !!

snowHeads Forum Index >>> The Piste