Sidney Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 You know things are getting serious about anti-smoking when even the French decide to ban it! BBC News Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 More people on here should consider the bigger picture with regards to ignoring the overall impact of this debate on our civil liberties. The problem with focussing on single issues is that they all eventually amass into a major erosion of civil liberties (the thin end of the wedge effect). You just have to look at all of the legislation that has come about since 9/11 (much of which is now in force in the IOM) to see the overall effect on our civil liberties - despite the UK being a nation that lived with 25 years of terrorism from the IRA, the death of over 3000 people, as well as real and daily threats to major UK cities such as London, Manchester and Warrington etc. As no one disagrees that smokers and non-smokers should not be forced to mix, pursuing such a draconian policy as banning smoking in 'all premises' erodes the freedom of association for 30% of the population, and takes away the rights of business people to decide how they should best run their premises. In reality, if managed properly, the market is actually big enough to cater for all types of people, even if the government were to concentrate its efforts protecting children and other groups by insisting on choice through regulations regarding smoking in restaurants or 'family pubs' that cater for kids. There is an excellent poem attributed to Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) which I think we ignore at our peril. Although the poem is about about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group - nevertheless, I think it resonates with what is going on in the US and the UK today. They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up. Surely the best route on this debate is tolerance through compromise. In short, if we allow one group to be persecuted, we open up the persecution of other groups. Who will be next? Fat people, people who drink too much, people without children, people with too many children, people with low IQs? The development of a nanny state is nothing more than an erosion of our civil liberties - through a government telling us how to live our lives and dictating what we can and cannot do. Add to this our every movement and transaction being recorded through ID cards and CCTV, a perpetual state of 'war on terror', and George Orwell's 1984 quickly becomes a reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisner Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Civil Liberties? Erosion of Civil Liberties? Terrorism? IRA? Poems? George Orwell's 1984? etc. etc. How pompous and important does the nicotine addict want to be? Live with it, but please, preferably in your very own air-space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 How pompous and important does the nicotine addict want to be? Simply - just as important as you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Nice one Albert! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisner Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Fair point I s'pose So, who has the more right? The person who wants to breathe fresh air or the person that wants to breathe smoke? Ok, I'll concede to you that they both may have an equal right. But I say again - please go do your smoking where I can enjoy my right to some air without your exhaled filth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 But I say again - please go do your smoking where I can enjoy my right to some air without your exhaled filth. Like I said... As no one disagrees that smokers and non-smokers should not be forced to mix, pursuing such a draconian policy as banning smoking in 'all premises' erodes the freedom of association for 30% of the population, and takes away the rights of business people to decide how they should best run their premises. In reality, if managed properly, the market is actually big enough to cater for all types of people, even if the government were to concentrate its efforts protecting children and other groups by insisting on choice through regulations regarding smoking in restaurants or 'family pubs' that cater for kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Nicely put Albert - although I fear the forces of self-righteous intolerance are already at the door and unwilling to listen. At least the estimated £40,000 a day net* contribution we make via our taxes is doing some good. * In the UK, tobacco revenue was reported recently as (IIRC - no time to Google) £9 billion, with £2.5 billion going back into the NHS to pay for the treatment of smoking-related disease. We usually mirror UK stats, and I also heard the IOM earns £55k a day from smokers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 More people on here should consider the bigger picture with regards to ignoring the overall impact of this debate on our civil liberties. The development of a nanny state is nothing more than an erosion of our civil liberties - through a government telling us how to live our lives and dictating what we can and cannot do. Add to this our every movement and transaction being recorded through ID cards and CCTV, a perpetual state of 'war on terror', and George Orwell's 1984 quickly becomes a reality. I have selectively quoted but when I see the civil libities/human rights argument being quoted on an issue I really thing that straws are really being clutched at. You could argue that restricting my right to do anything is an attack on civil libities. I am not allowed to drink and drive, take drugs, deal drugs. How dare the government restrict my civil libities in such a way. I could get really offensive was the law under which Gary Glitter got caught and found guilty an infringement on his civil libities? Strictly you could argue it was but I am glad that such laws and restrictions are in place. I have not looked at your topics but presumably you are favour in no restriction in the number coming to live or work in the Isle of Man, what they get paid or what benefits they claim as otherwise that would be a restriction on their civil libities. Presumably you are also in favour of "R" drivers not being restricted in any way, no indecency laws, no anti social behaviour orders as all could be argued that they are a restriction on ones civil libities In short argue as much as you want for smoking etc etc but the civil libity issue should be a non issue as it could apply to virtually any issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumble Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Lost Login - they're all ILLEGAL. Smoking - however much you may dislike it - is not, and never has been. Until now. And that's an erosion of our civil 'libities'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Lost Login - they're all ILLEGAL. Smoking - however much you may dislike it - is not, and never has been. Until now. And that's an erosion of our civil 'libities'. I appreciate they are all illegal. Making them illegal is a prohibition to doing them. Therefore it could be argued that your civil libities are being restricted. If they were not illegal then you would not be restricted from doing them. If your argument is if something is illegal it stops it being a restriction of civil libities then presumabbly when by law smoking is banned in a public place are you saying as it would then be illegal the civil libities argument goes out of the window. In addition not all have always been illegal. e.g drink driving laws, possesion of drugs. I have not argued for or against smoking. My argument is that resorting to a civil libities argument generally is almost a last stop saloon as you could apply a civil libities argument to many laws which prohibit anything. I was purely giving slightly extreme examples. You can equally restate the argument using different examples. Is it a civil libity issue that nightclubs won't let me in if wearing jeans, or pubs say no soiled working clothes or should they be made to provide seperate rooms or areas where this not apply. Argue for or against smokingby all means just have something more substantial to back the argument up than a civil libities issue. That applies equally to those who say it is an attack on their civil libity not to have the right to breath non smoked filled air in a pub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_Naylor Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 After reading this thread, one thing really stands out, Anti smoker's "appear" to be horrible,nasty, bombastic,crude people, glad I dont know any Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I have not argued for or against smoking. My argument is that resorting to a civil libities argument generally is almost a last stop saloon as you could apply a civil libities argument to many laws which prohibit anything. I was purely giving slightly extreme examples. You can equally restate the argument using different examples. Is it a civil libity issue that nightclubs won't let me in if wearing jeans, or pubs say no soiled working clothes or should they be made to provide seperate rooms or areas where this not apply. Argue for or against smokingby all means just have something more substantial to back the argument up than a civil libities issue. That applies equally to those who say it is an attack on their civil libity not to have the right to breath non smoked filled air in a pub The analogies you use are extreme and over simplistic. If people congregate now to smoke in a pub and tomorrow it is made illegal to do so, yet remains legal to smoke at home or on the street - then that does constitute a breach on civil liberties on a specific group of people. A closer analogy to driving that might constitute a breach of your civil liberties might be: that in order to curb global warming the government decide to ban all driving at weekends, but say, as you only work weekends, then in order to get to work you are forced to walk 20 miles as you cannot drive or even get a bus on a Saturday or Sunday. Wouldn't you argue that instead we should all be allowed to drive for five days, rather than ban all driving at weekends? Wouldn't you consider that the rights of weekend workers were being unfairly affected - or would you just blindly accept it? Civil liberties are extremely important and are very relevant to this argument. It is down to people like you that blindly acccept such changes who have sold out many of our civil liberties over the past five years. Since you seem to understand simplistic analogies so well, try this one. It is always easy to run downhill, but sometimes it is best to stop and look back, if only to realise how far you have to climb back to get back to where you started from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 As far as I know the right of smokers to associate and smoke in a private club is fully allowed in the legislation; this is definitely the case in Scotland etc. Non smokers can choose to join them. The Rights issue is a total red herring. Both sides can claim their rights are been infringed: the smokers right to smoke; the non smokers right not to be polluted. The legislation puts the ownus on non smokers to actively choose to join with smokers rather than allowing a smoker to pollute an area where not every one has consented to be exposed to the consequences of the smokers habit. Sorry Albert the European Court of Human Rights and Amnesty International are not going to have any truck with your whining. If you feel so strongly about it go and form a private club and invite all your mates ... both smoking and non smoking to come along. In what way are your rights been infringed in this example. I was in the pub the other day came home stinking to high heaven, got lots of grief about it from the missus and who knows the risks of passive smoking I have had to endure over the years ... totally without my consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 As far as I know the right of smokers to associate and smoke in a private club is fully allowed in the legislation; this is definitely the case in Scotland etc. Non smokers can choose to join them. The Rights issue is a total red herring. Both sides can claim their rights are been infringed: the smokers right to smoke; the non smokers right not to be polluted. The legislation puts the ownus on non smokers to actively choose to join with smokers rather than allowing a smoker to pollute an area where not every one has consented to be exposed to the consequences of the smokers habit. Sorry Albert the European Court of Human Rights and Amnesty International are not going to have any truck with your whining. If you feel so strongly about it go and form a private club and invite all your mates ... both smoking and non smoking to come along. In what way are your rights been infringed in this example. I was in the pub the other day came home stinking to high heaven, got lots of grief about it from the missus and who knows the risks of passive smoking I have had to endure over the years ... totally without my consent. This argument seems to be going around in circles. The rights issue is not a red herring, people are just choosing to ignore it at their convenience. Smoker or non-smoker, no one would agree that smokers and non-smokers should be forced to go to the same places - however there is enough room in the market place to cater for all. Smoking in private clubs has been banned in the UK legislation, so smokers are not allowed to set up a private club to do this. If a group of people are banned from congregating with their own kind on private premises - it is a breach of their civil rights. The only reason for a ban on all premises in the UK was business lobbyists saying it 'should be a level playing field' as they were afraid such clubs would make them lose business. Businesses have no right to dictate peoples civil rights, though they have the right to decide what legal activities take place on their premises. If the market cannot decide, then legislation may be required, but such legislation should be based on pub size, food areas etc. (as has been done in parts of Europe). The argument that we are protecting staff is the real red herring, as many people in the retail trade would be prepared to work in such environments, as a greater percentage of them smoke. Legislation based on pub size/food etc. would ensure there were sufficient places for non-smokers to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.