[BBC News] Business support for smoking ban

[Lost Login]

The world is not divided into three countries, Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia so can I claim my prize?

 

I challenge anybody to tell me of anything in George Orwell's 1984 that is not actually a fact today.

 

_

 

 

[size="6"]Democracy = The majority agreeing with Albert

Dumbocracy = The majority disagreeing with Albert[/size][/color]

[Albert Tatlock]

Let me point out a few distinctions:

• Expressing opinions - we can choose to ignore them, so we should be free to express them.
  
• Drinking alcohol - we can choose whether to drink or not, and drinking per se does not cause direct harm to others, so we should be free to make that choice. As a public policy point that doesn't make it wrong to take measures to discourage excessive or binge drinking.
  
• Smoking - we can choose whether to smoke or not, but those around us have no real choice as to whether they are exposed to that smoke. It is therefore appropriate to place limits on it.
  

It really devalues the concept of civil liberties when you use it to justify any action you take - do not equate democracy and free speech with the freedom to do anything you damn well please and to hell with the consequences to others: it is grossly offensive. The basic rights that underpin our society come with the responsibility to do no harm to those around us.

You have missed the whole point of my post - and that is that you are taking away people's rights to freely congregate in establishments well away from you even in private clubs etc. where people can choose whether to go or not. You are trying to remove the civil liberties argument away from what is nothing more than the removal of a very fundamental civil liberty, namely 'freedom of association', simply because it suits you in this instance. If people can so freely argue away one civil liberty, it follows that they can do the same for another just as easily.

[Lonan3]

It really devalues the concept of civil liberties when you use it to justify any action you take - do not equate democracy and free speech with the freedom to do anything you damn well please and to hell with the consequences to others: it is grossly offensive. The basic rights that underpin our society come with the responsibility to do no harm to those around us.

A total disregard of any points made by others and an insistence that 'my prejudices are more important than your reasoned argument' is hardly engaging in a rational debate.

Please note that Albert's post asked why it isn't possible for smokers to have their own establishments if they choose to do so - away from those who find the smell of tobacco smoke offensive. That is a reasonable question.

The suggestion that Drinking alcohol - we can choose whether to drink or not, and drinking per se does not cause direct harm to others, so we should be free to make that choice, is the most incredible nonsense. Alcohol is responsible - directly or indirectly - for a large number of deaths, for a considerable drain on the resources of the NHS and, in many cases, for the destruction of family units.

And when the breweries put the price of their products up again and again - to replace the missing revenue from former customers who can't be bothered going for a night out in a totally sterile and infecund environment - do not dare to complain about it!

The hypocrisy of the government's attitude - "We'd like to prevent you from smoking for the sake of your health - but we want you to carry on buying tobacco products because we need the revenue" - is absolutely staggering in it's audacity.

[Lost Login]

And unlikely to be beaten unless they bring in a law which imposes a speed limit of 60 or 70 on all cars unless driven by a non smoking MHK in a zero carbon emitting vehicle whilst on the way to pick up 5 "immigrants" from the EU who have arrived on any airline which is not 100% Manxed owned and charges a top fare of £10.

Funniest post of the year so far....

[Albert Tatlock]

The world is not divided into three countries, Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia so can I claim my prize?

 

I challenge anybody to tell me of anything in George Orwell's 1984 that is not actually a fact today.

 

_

 

 

[size="6"]Democracy = The majority agreeing with Albert

Dumbocracy = The majority disagreeing with Albert[/size][/color]

Sorry - no prize yet.

 

The world is divided into three all fighting an economic war and a pertual 'war on terror': first world countries, second world countries and third world countries (four only if you accept the classification for indiginous groups like the red indians etc.).

 

"First World" refers to so called developed, capitalist, industrial countries, roughly, a bloc of countries aligned with the United States after world war II, with more or less common political and economic interests: North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia.

 

"Second World" refers to the former communist-socialist, industrial states, (formerly the Eastern bloc, the territory and sphere of influence of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republic) today: Russia, Eastern Europe and some of the Turk States (e.g., Kazakhstan) as well as China.

 

"Third World" are all the other countries, today often used to roughly describe the developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. The term Third World includes as well capitalist (e.g., Venezuela) and communist (e.g., North Korea) countries as very rich (e.g., Saudi Arabia) and very poor (e.g., Mali) countries.

 

 

_

[Lost Login]

I have not read the bill but I believe the answer is straight forward. The legislation as initially intoduced was to protect "workers" from working in a "smoked filled enviroment. Presumably any private club would still require bar staff, cleaners etc.

 

If you had a club where in effect it was wholly owned by its members, only membes were allowed admission and the members provided all the internal services then I can not see why that should not be allowed except it may to difficult to draft in the legislation to stop it being abused. e.g. a pub charges 50p on the door which grants you membership, all staff have 50p deducted from their first pay packet in respect of membership. You therefore now have a pub complying with the letter if not the spirit of the law.

 

Either way I believe the argument has now basically been lost and in five years time it will generally be accepted just as not smoking is now accepted on public transport, aeroplanes etc and not smoking in restaurants almost is. To my mind the pro smoking lobby have not fought a very smart campaign on the issue as generally there responses or proposals have been only after proposed changes have been mutted. In general they were reactionary rather than proactive.

 

The classic one to my mind was many of the pubs saying that there is no need for the ban as they could introduce much better ventilation systems or have a specific room for smokers. Possibly valid arguments but those sort of measures should have been introduced voluntarily a considerable time before, except it would have been a specific area for non smokers, and if they had been the pressure change may not have arisen.

 

 

 

Please note that Albert's post asked why it isn't possible for smokers to have their own establishments if they choose to do so - away from those who find the smell of tobacco smoke offensive. That is a reasonable question.

[Lost Login]

Whether I agree with your argument or not those "three" you describe are NOT countries and are NOT called Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. It is therefore a FACT that there are things in 1984 that are "not actually a fact" today. There are many others but for you Albert I like to keep things simple

 

The world is not divided into three countries, Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia so can I claim my prize?

 

I challenge anybody to tell me of anything in George Orwell's 1984 that is not actually a fact today.

 

_

 

 

[size="6"]Democracy = The majority agreeing with Albert

Dumbocracy = The majority disagreeing with Albert[/size][/color]

Sorry - no prize yet.

 

The world is divided into three all fighting an economic war: first world countries, second world countries and third world countries (four only if you accept the classification for indiginous groups like the red indians etc.).

 

"First World" refers to so called developed, capitalist, industrial countries, roughly, a bloc of countries aligned with the United States after world war II, with more or less common political and economic interests: North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia.

 

"Second World" refers to the former communist-socialist, industrial states, (formerly the Eastern bloc, the territory and sphere of influence of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republic) today: Russia, Eastern Europe and some of the Turk States (e.g., Kazakhstan) as well as China.

 

"Third World" are all the other countries, today often used to roughly describe the developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. The term Third World includes as well capitalist (e.g., Venezuela) and communist (e.g., North Korea) countries as very rich (e.g., Saudi Arabia) and very poor (e.g., Mali) countries.

 

 

_

[Albert Tatlock]

Whether I agree with your argument or not those "three" you describe are NOT countries and are NOT called Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. It is therefore a FACT that there are things in 1984 that are "not actually a fact" today. There are many others but for you Albert I like to keep things simple

My name's not Winston Smith either, and Big Brother is a television programme too. Semantics my friend (Newspeak).

 

 

_

[Pragmatopian]

Please note that Albert's post asked why it isn't possible for smokers to have their own establishments if they choose to do so - away from those who find the smell of tobacco smoke offensive. That is a reasonable question.

 

Agreed. Employment law could be tricky, but no reason that there couldn't be an exception to the general rule.

 

The suggestion that Drinking alcohol - we can choose whether to drink or not, and drinking per se does not cause direct harm to others, so we should be free to make that choice, is the most incredible nonsense. Alcohol is responsible - directly or indirectly - for a large number of deaths, for a considerable drain on the resources of the NHS and, in many cases, for the destruction of family units.

 

Agree that irresponsible alcohol consumption can lead to a lot of problems - I was careful to include 'per se' and to provide for measures against excessive and binge drinking. The special issue with smoke is that, even by it's intended use, it is damaging the health not only of the consumer but of those around them. You'd have to drink a shitload of alchohol before those around you would get drunk off the fumes.

 

The hypocrisy of the government's attitude - "We'd like to prevent you from smoking for the sake of your health - but we want you to carry on buying tobacco products because we need the revenue" - is absolutely staggering in it's audacity.

 

I think we can wholeheartedly agree on that

[Pragmatopian]

You have missed the whole point of my post - and that is that you are taking away people's rights to freely congregate in establishments well away from you even in private clubs etc. where people can choose whether to go or not. You are trying to remove the civil liberties argument away from what is nothing more than the removal of a very fundamental civil liberty, namely 'freedom of association', simply because it suits you in this instance. If people can so freely argue away one civil liberty, it follows that they can do the same for another just as easily.

 

You can freely congregate to your heart's content - you just can't smoke in venues where it is prohibited I suppose the argument is that congregating without being able to smoke is not freely congregating, but that's a pretty dodgy interpretation of English as it is commonly understood. There are plenty of things I'm not allowed to do in bars, clubs and restaurants for a variety of good reasons - what makes smoking so special? As in reply to Lonan I've no particular problem with smoking in private members clubs, although I have my doubts about workability (both the practicalities and economic feasibility). If there is demand for it and it is not already allowed for by the existing legislation, amendments could be made. You're right that I find smoking to be a filthy and senseless habit, but what people do in their own homes or with adults who have given their informed consent is their own business.

 

I'm absolutely with you on the principle that we should all fight against the attempts of governments to curtail our rights to say what we think, go where we like and meet whoever we want without unwarranted intrusion, with the justifcation arising out of the climate of fear created by Bush's "War of Terror". However, I'm absolutely against you on introducing the 'thin end of the wedge' argument in respect of this particular legislation - it is a health bill. Take a look at recent criminal justice legislation: that's where you'll find the real curtailment of your civil liberties. We're already at least halfway up the wedge and smoking has bugger all to do with it

[Brad_Naylor]

The hypocrisy of the government's attitude - "We'd like to prevent you from smoking for the sake of your health - but we want you to carry on buying tobacco products because we need the revenue" - is absolutely staggering in it's audacity.

 

I have been a smoker for 35 years, when I started there were no associated heath risks that I was aware of, I started because it was "cool" and everyone was doing it, I took to it like duck to water, I've tried and failed many times over the years to stop smoking only to start again soon after, the above quote sums it up for me, I don't like the underhand way the Government are handling this issue and think that there should be a "complete" UK wide ban on tobacco products. I could happily give up then along with millions of other addicts, As long a there is a supply of the dreaded weed I shall probably continue to smoke, much as I feel I am letting myself down every time I smoke.

[ourtess]

As a lifelong non-smoker I am totally against the ban. Nightlife in Italy, Ireland, Spain and Malta is now much worse than before their bans.

If the government wanted to really ban something they should start with bicycles, many times a more dangerous form of transport than cars.

[lectro]

Nightlife in Italy, Ireland, Spain and Malta is now much worse than before their bans.

If the government wanted to really ban something they should start with bicycles, many times a more dangerous form of transport than cars.

 

No it's not.

No it isn't.

[keyboarder]

As a lifelong non-smoker I am totally against the ban. Nightlife in Italy, Ireland, Spain and Malta is now much worse than before their bans.

If the government wanted to really ban something they should start with bicycles, many times a more dangerous form of transport than cars.

 

You could have just written - "I am totally against the ban." Everything else in your post is both questionable and irrelevant.

[ourtess]

As a lifelong non-smoker I am totally against the ban. Yesterday I was at my place in Spain. A local restaurant had at first set aside an area for smokers when the ban came in. His trade went down. Then he made the whole restaurant non-smoking. Trade down some more. Now he has a sign up on the door telling people that it is a 'smoking only' restaurant. It was packed out with happy diners when we went on Monday.