Smoking Ban - The Isle Of Man

[manxman8180]

I have no objection to a smoking ban in workplaces in which even one non-smoker may have to suffer unwanted smoke.

A workplace like, lets's say.........a pub, or a nightclub?

 

Glad you finally agree.

[Theodolite]

. . . . .

 

I do think it would be reasonable for pubs (i.e. drinking establishments) to have a room in which smoking can be allowed - which is how it always used to be.

 

. . . . .

 

It was indeed how it used to be and it worked very well. But then the smoker - that is the generic ubiquitous average smoker - decided it was ok to spark up wherever they wished regardless of others. The 'No Smoking at the Bar' rule illustrated this on a smaller scale where the smokers just stuck two fingers up to 'rules'.

 

It doesn't take long before the smoker selfishly imposes the filthy residue of his/her addiction onto others.

 

Your posts are normally reasoned - so I'm quite surprised to find you talking such complete and utter bollocks and attempting to give further credence to an oft-quoted urban myth.

The reason for the abandonment of smoking/non-smoking areas was quite simply because the greedy bastards who owned the pubs reasoned that they could crowd far more paying customers into one large area rather than having them separated into two smaller ones.

It would, in fact, be fair to say that the money grabbing breweries are now about to reap what they've sown. They were the ones who crammed smokers and non-smokers into a communal area - it was never a case of smokers defying 'rules.'

 

Well here we see history quite differently then.

 

I remember Smoke Rooms in pubs quite well. There was never an announcement by the brewery or anyone else that the concept was being done away with. It was a gradual effect whereby people who smoked back then (er...and I was one of them but I suppose you perhaps guessed I am a reformed smoker......) found without too much problem they could just spark up anywhere. Be that in the office, on the bus, in the cinema, in a restaurant, in the street and yes, in any room of the pub. After all, back then, on what possible grounds did non-smokers have to complain.........

 

I say again my analogy with the 'No Smoking at the Bar' rule. I'm not saying Lonan3, Gladys, Grumble and Stu Peters are to blame, but the general smoker has for too long arrogantly stuck two fingers up at the non-smoker. I am surprised that you cannot see that.

[Lost Login]

1) The law will still let you freely associate on private premises. There is nothing in the legislation preventing you just that if it is an enclosed public space you may not smoke. If you want to smoke you can still gather round each others houses. Yes the law is changing they always do. Alcohol is a legal product and there are rules where when and whom can purchase or consume this.

 

2) Disagree. I was purely pointing out that you are happy to follow a law when you agree with it but if you disagree then you argue it should be left to us as individuals to decide and we should not be dictated to. I only request that you be consistent.

 

3) I believe I am a tolerant person but we all have different levels of tolerance. I am not sure though how you can set up a separate smoking "facility" and say it will not affect me or anybody. Who is going to clean, serve, tidy up etc etc these smoking places? The argument currently is should non smokers be tolerant of smokers smoking in their presence or smokers be tolerant that they can not smoke in an enclosed public space. Smokers can not smoke in a bubble that will affect nobody else. Yes you can reduce the numbers affected but not eliminate

 

4) No it is not a weak argument. Certainly it is no weaker than your argument which is how dare they change the law to make something illegal that currently is legal and will partly remain legal afterwards. Your argument would see nothing ever changing and being made illegal. At some point legislation was introduced with regard to the age at which you could drink, smoke, have sex and with whom. The legislation continues to change and be refined. Either relaxing. i.e. homosexuality, or tightening smoking.

 

At present the UK government is bringing in legislation with regard to the contents of food and advertising in respect of kids as a health issue. These foods remain legal but it will be illegal to advertise to kids. Just like the rules have in the past changed with regard to advertising in respect of alcohol and tobacco. Are you arguing that that legislation should not be introduced and food manufactures should have no restriction on what and how they can advertise to kids as the argument not to introduce that legislation is virtually identical to your argument re the current smoking legislation.

 

 

1. Don't forget that we are talking about a perfectly legal product here i.e. tobacco. The law is changing to dictate that a group of like minded individuals cannot freely associate together on private premises away from others to do it.

2. Your TT argument is false logic. There is a perfectly sensible compromise available to save lives over a two-week period - it's not going to be one way for the other 50 weeks of the year - and doesn't stop people driving on other roads. I would probably have something to say about that if it were to be the case otherwise.

3. You cannot by definition be a tolerant person if you selectively demonstrate tolerance for one minority group and not consider it for another - especially when that minority have no intention of affecting you in performing something perfectly legal well away from you (and even if as a compromise such places available are specified in law).

4. This constant linking of what's illegal e.g. 'tolerence with regard to nuisance behaviour, underage drinking etc.' is a weak argument of associating things that are already illegal for a good reason - with things that are not illegal (which tobacco won't be after the ban). In other words it is a fools immature argument for actually making EVERYTHING that's bad for people (or what some people don't like) illegal - and is meaningless to the debate. It could equally apply to motor cars and anything else involving human risk.

[Albert Tatlock]

1) The law will still let you freely associate on private premises.

 

2) Disagree. I was purely pointing out that you are happy to follow a law when you agree with it but if you disagree then you argue it should be left to us as individuals to decide and we should not be dictated to. I only request that you be consistent.

 

3) I believe I am a tolerant person but we all have different levels of tolerance. I am not sure though how you can set up a separate smoking "facility" and say it will not affect me or anybody. Who is going to clean, serve, tidy up etc etc these smoking places? The argument currently is should non smokers be tolerant of smokers smoking in their presence or smokers be tolerant that they can not smoke in an enclosed public space. Smokers can not smoke in a bubble that will affect nobody else. Yes you can reduce the numbers affected but not eliminate

 

4) No it is not a weak argument. Certainly it is no weaker than your argument which is how dare they change the law to make something illegal that currently is legal and will partly remain legal afterwards. Your argument would see nothing ever changing and being made illegal. At some point legislation was introduced with regard to the age at which you could drink, smoke, have sex and with whom. The legislation continues to change and be refined. Either relaxing. i.e. homosexuality, or tightening smoking.

 

At present the UK government is bringing in legislation with regard to the contents of food and advertising in respect of kids as a health issue. These foods remain legal but it will be illegal to advertise to kids. Just like the rules have in the past changed with regard to advertising in respect of alcohol and tobacco. Are you arguing that that legislation should not be introduced and food manufactures should have no restriction on what and how they can advertise to kids as the argument not to introduce that legislation is virtually identical to your argument re the current smoking legislation.

 

 

1. Don't forget that we are talking about a perfectly legal product here i.e. tobacco. The law is changing to dictate that a group of like minded individuals cannot freely associate together on private premises away from others to do it.

2. Your TT argument is false logic. There is a perfectly sensible compromise available to save lives over a two-week period - it's not going to be one way for the other 50 weeks of the year - and doesn't stop people driving on other roads. I would probably have something to say about that if it were to be the case otherwise.

3. You cannot by definition be a tolerant person if you selectively demonstrate tolerance for one minority group and not consider it for another - especially when that minority have no intention of affecting you in performing something perfectly legal well away from you (and even if as a compromise such places available are specified in law).

4. This constant linking of what's illegal e.g. 'tolerence with regard to nuisance behaviour, underage drinking etc.' is a weak argument of associating things that are already illegal for a good reason - with things that are not illegal (which tobacco won't be after the ban). In other words it is a fools immature argument for actually making EVERYTHING that's bad for people (or what some people don't like) illegal - and is meaningless to the debate. It could equally apply to motor cars and anything else involving human risk.

1. Fact is the law will still stop me doing something perfectly legal, and associating with my friends even in a private club to do it.

2. Again you are talking about selective tolerance. This is the whole point - why make an anti-smoking law, which a lot of people do not want and do not see as necessary if separate premises were made available? This lack of a compromise is pure Nannyism and intolerance. You're repeating your weak argument of association again - and once again - if people followed that weak argument they would drive through red traffic lights and stop signs which are 'dictated' to them. You have to face up to the fact that you don't want a compromise - so stop pretending that you are tolerant - because you are not.

3. This would not affect you if separate premises were allocated (e.g. a maximum percentage by laws, along with the wishes of the landloard). People are not arguing for the right to do it in front of you. But your lack of tolerance will inflict smoke on kids and vulnerable adults at home, as people move from the pub to their homes (as figures in Ireland and Scotland clearly show).

4. This is where the Nannyists reveal themselves - it is none of your/their business whether people want to smoke - only that they don't do it in front of you. So why can't people who wish to do so in an allocated pub or private club away from you do so.

 

...and no I don't believe that advertising should be stopped. Obesity is a relatively new epidemic, and kids get fat only through poor parenting, and lazy parents driving them everywhere. This is an admission that parents have lost control and it is the media that controls kids lives and brings them up. This is the failure of the Nannyist - addressing the symptom and not the cause. In other words treat everyone as the lowest common denominator and not as human beings. Most adults become fat simply because of the lack of manual work/exercise and because they spend most of their day in an office. However, as I don't watch adverts it does not affect me at all, but I still think it is unnecessary, as people/parents should be more responsible.

[iom_cb]

a belief in liberal democracy is not neccersarily an argument for opposing a ban.

 

Defining liberal democracy is open to various interpretations, but it can equally be used to argue that the individual has the right not to be subjected to smoke.

 

I am not part of any lobby group ... as i said i am a smoker and i smoke in pubs at times (easy to lose a moral code when drunk! lol) but i do honestly feel that the right of those not to be subjected to smoke is greater than those who wish to smoke.

 

The smoking/non-smoking room idea isn't practical in many pubs and would also divide people i feel, i think the provision of shelters outside pubs is the best way to deal with it.

 

i did however spot one side-affect in guernsey ... loads of smokers hanging round the door often being very loud and drunk ... which was a little intimidating.

[OneArmedScissor]

My thoughts on this debate....

 

Whilst I don't agree with Albert's "thin end of the wedge" argument, I do completely agree that there is an issue as far as stopping consenting smokers from smoking in a designated place, whether that's a smoking pub or a smoking room. I really don't understand why people are arguing against that, and the point about barstaff is not a big enough factor in the grand scheme of the argument. If you really have an issue with it, then don't work in a smoking bar, it's not like we're short on jobs in the IOM. I also get the impression that it's a point that's being made on behalf of barstaff because it suits a particular argument, rather than by barstaff themselves.

 

I personally think that smoking should be banned anywhere that other people would be subjected to it against their will. ie. in the workplace, in restaurants etc. However I can't possibly see why people would advocate that Albert and Lonan and the rest of the smoke crew can't go to a smoking room in a bar and indulge in their smoking and make their own decisions regarding their own health. Us non-smokers wouldn't be subjected to their smoke unless we chose to be. Yes, designated smoking areas would have to be adhered to, and some pubs and clubs aren't suitable at present for this to work, but I don't think that's such an unrealistic thing to think could be made to work.

 

It's all about compromise and personal choice for me.

[loaf]

1. Don't forget that we are talking about a perfectly legal product here .

It seems you're using the legality of a product to justify why it should be legal.

[Lost Login]

This is just getting into a circular discussion

 

The law will not stop you from doing something perfectly legal. I am not aware that the legislation is banning smoking. It is only prescribing where you can not smoke. At the most you can say it is stopping you doing something which is presently legal. i.e. smoking in a confined public space.

 

Tolerance is always selective. I make no argument by of association be it weak or strong. I purely point out you're inconsistencies. I do not see why the argument you are making in respect of this bit of legislation is any different from similar pices of legislation that has been brought in over the years except that it affects you and affects you know. If you want an argument of association sex between consenting adults or on your own is I believe a legal activity but there are restriction about where I can undertake that. There are similar arguments to relax those laws e.g in terms of the provision of brothels as there are to not tighten the smoking laws. My and everybodies stand on each is based on what each of us will tolerate.

 

 

I accept I am perfectly happy as non smoker with the new legislation. I have put up with smoking for years in pubs and it does amuse me to read many who argue that smoking should be acceptable when no food is about but not when it is. It is almost as if it is believed my dislike suddenly disappears when I am not eating. What I never realised though was I was doing a public duty by being tolerant of smokers in pubs as otherwise those people would go home and "inflict smoke on kids and vulnerable adults at home" These are your words! So your argument is that people who smoke in pubs do not smoke at home. Then that if they can not smoke in pubs that desire for a cigarette at home will overcome their previous health concerns for the kids etc. That whilst you do not want smoke to be "inflictedon kids and vulnerable adults at home" you are more than hapy to inflict it on strangers outside your home.

 

I have at no point said I am not agreeable to there being seperate smoking rooms in pubs. That I trust you will accept is a compromise. However legislation has been introduced which means employees do not have to "suffer" the effects of smoke at work. If you can explain, as I and others have requested on more than one occasion, how those whose work place this is would not be affected, i.e. cleaners, bar staff, glass collectors, and I will be more than ready to agree to such a compromise. At present I have heard no such explanation the best that has been presented is that it is not such a huge issue in that they will only be subject to it on an infrequent basis and staff could agree. Unfortunately legislation does not work on that basis. If there were such "relaxation they would quickly be abused and staff would be lent on to agree to work in those econditions. The only possible solution would be some sort of not for profit private members club where the the members did everything. The only problem with that is again it probably would be very easy to abuse the intention of the current legislation.

 

In my view the argument is lost and was lost long ago, not by smokers who now and in the past have been reasonable and considerate but by the fact that for years no effort was put in place in respect of non smokers when they requsted similar facilities. Very few put in the good air conditioing or even mentioned it as an idea unles they feared that the smoking ban was to be introduced. Huge effort and expence is now being put into producing warm outside smoking areas. Where was such effort for non smokers. If some effort had been made to resolve this as an issue before it really arose you might have seen some goodwill on both sides. It was left though until positions were polarised and consequently you are left with all or nothing

 

 

1. Fact is the law will still stop me doing something perfectly legal, and associating with my friends even in a private club to do it.

2. Again you are talking about selective tolerance. This is the whole point - why make an anti-smoking law, which a lot of people do not want and do not see as necessary if separate premises were made available? This lack of a compromise is pure Nannyism and intolerance. You're repeating your weak argument of association again - and once again - if people followed that weak argument they would drive through red traffic lights and stop signs which are 'dictated' to them. You have to face up to the fact that you don't want a compromise - so stop pretending that you are tolerant - because you are not.

3. This would not affect you if separate premises were allocated (e.g. a maximum percentage by laws, along with the wishes of the landloard). People are not arguing for the right to do it in front of you. But your lack of tolerance will inflict smoke on kids and vulnerable adults at home, as people move from the pub to their homes (as figures in Ireland and Scotland clearly show).

4. This is where the Nannyists reveal themselves - it is none of your/their business whether people want to smoke - only that they don't do it in front of you. So why can't people who wish to do so in an allocated pub or private club away from you do so.

 

...and no I don't believe that advertising should be stopped. Obesity is a relatively new epidemic, and kids get fat only through poor parenting, and lazy parents driving them everywhere. This is an admission that parents have lost control and it is the media that controls kids lives and brings them up. This is the failure of the Nannyist - addressing the symptom and not the cause. In other words treat everyone as the lowest common denominator and not as human beings. Most adults become fat simply because of the lack of manual work/exercise and because they spend most of their day in an office. However, as I don't watch adverts it does not affect me at all, but I still think it is unnecessary, as people/parents should be more responsible.

[Albert Tatlock]

This is just getting into a circular discussion

 

The law will not stop you from doing something perfectly legal. I am not aware that the legislation is banning smoking. It is only prescribing where you can not smoke. At the most you can say it is stopping you doing something which is presently legal. i.e. smoking in a confined public space.

 

Tolerance is always selective. I make no argument by of association be it weak or strong. I purely point out you're inconsistencies. I do not see why the argument you are making in respect of this bit of legislation is any different from similar pices of legislation that has been brought in over the years except that it affects you and affects you know. If you want an argument of association sex between consenting adults or on your own is I believe a legal activity but there are restriction about where I can undertake that. There are similar arguments to relax those laws e.g in terms of the provision of brothels as there are to not tighten the smoking laws. My and everybodies stand on each is based on what each of us will tolerate.

 

 

I accept I am perfectly happy as non smoker with the new legislation. I have put up with smoking for years in pubs and it does amuse me to read many who argue that smoking should be acceptable when no food is about but not when it is. It is almost as if it is believed my dislike suddenly disappears when I am not eating. What I never realised though was I was doing a public duty by being tolerant of smokers in pubs as otherwise those people would go home and "inflict smoke on kids and vulnerable adults at home" These are your words! So your argument is that people who smoke in pubs do not smoke at home. Then that if they can not smoke in pubs that desire for a cigarette at home will overcome their previous health concerns for the kids etc. That whilst you do not want smoke to be "inflictedon kids and vulnerable adults at home" you are more than hapy to inflict it on strangers outside your home.

 

I have at no point said I am not agreeable to there being seperate smoking rooms in pubs. That I trust you will accept is a compromise. However legislation has been introduced which means employees do not have to "suffer" the effects of smoke at work. If you can explain, as I and others have requested on more than one occasion, how those whose work place this is would not be affected, i.e. cleaners, bar staff, glass collectors, and I will be more than ready to agree to such a compromise. At present I have heard no such explanation the best that has been presented is that it is not such a huge issue in that they will only be subject to it on an infrequent basis and staff could agree. Unfortunately legislation does not work on that basis. If there were such "relaxation they would quickly be abused and staff would be lent on to agree to work in those econditions. The only possible solution would be some sort of not for profit private members club where the the members did everything. The only problem with that is again it probably would be very easy to abuse the intention of the current legislation.

 

In my view the argument is lost and was lost long ago, not by smokers who now and in the past have been reasonable and considerate but by the fact that for years no effort was put in place in respect of non smokers when they requsted similar facilities. Very few put in the good air conditioing or even mentioned it as an idea unles they feared that the smoking ban was to be introduced. Huge effort and expence is now being put into producing warm outside smoking areas. Where was such effort for non smokers. If some effort had been made to resolve this as an issue before it really arose you might have seen some goodwill on both sides. It was left though until positions were polarised and consequently you are left with all or nothing

 

 

1. Fact is the law will still stop me doing something perfectly legal, and associating with my friends even in a private club to do it.

2. Again you are talking about selective tolerance. This is the whole point - why make an anti-smoking law, which a lot of people do not want and do not see as necessary if separate premises were made available? This lack of a compromise is pure Nannyism and intolerance. You're repeating your weak argument of association again - and once again - if people followed that weak argument they would drive through red traffic lights and stop signs which are 'dictated' to them. You have to face up to the fact that you don't want a compromise - so stop pretending that you are tolerant - because you are not.

3. This would not affect you if separate premises were allocated (e.g. a maximum percentage by laws, along with the wishes of the landloard). People are not arguing for the right to do it in front of you. But your lack of tolerance will inflict smoke on kids and vulnerable adults at home, as people move from the pub to their homes (as figures in Ireland and Scotland clearly show).

4. This is where the Nannyists reveal themselves - it is none of your/their business whether people want to smoke - only that they don't do it in front of you. So why can't people who wish to do so in an allocated pub or private club away from you do so.

 

...and no I don't believe that advertising should be stopped. Obesity is a relatively new epidemic, and kids get fat only through poor parenting, and lazy parents driving them everywhere. This is an admission that parents have lost control and it is the media that controls kids lives and brings them up. This is the failure of the Nannyist - addressing the symptom and not the cause. In other words treat everyone as the lowest common denominator and not as human beings. Most adults become fat simply because of the lack of manual work/exercise and because they spend most of their day in an office. However, as I don't watch adverts it does not affect me at all, but I still think it is unnecessary, as people/parents should be more responsible.

Repetition and a deviation. Lose 5 points.

[Pragmatopian]

"Smoking is evil and all smokers are in league with the devil." Discuss.

 

[Lost Login]

Repeated repitition is how young children learn. I was hoping it would work with you. More seriously my responses are going to be repititive if you keep repeating the same mantra over and over again and do not respond to contents of posts.

 

I still wait for an explanation how you believe it would be possible to establish an enlclosed no smoking area in a pub that would require no employess to enter it. If you could provide a workable answer then I believe it would be very difficult to argue against the legislation being revised to include such provisions. This point has been raised on several occasions and you pointedly ignore

 

Repetition and a deviation. Lose 5 points.

[the mo beats experience]

I still wait for an explanation how you believe it would be possible to establish an enlclosed no smoking area in a pub that would require no employess to enter it.

Pubs i go into, the employee's use the oportunity to collect glasses to go and have a fag anyway. Easily workable.

[manxman8180]

.......and the point about barstaff is not a big enough factor in the grand scheme of the argument.

Of course it's a major factor, not just barstaff, but all staff in establishments where smoking is currently permitted. If you worked in a laboratory or factory with such substances as formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide, you would be required to have in place significant control measures to reduce the risk of exposure. The first thought with such measures is always...Can it be elimiated altogether? In the case of second hand smoke, they have decided, rightly, that it can. Hey presto, no more smoking in confined spaces.

 

Anyway, a seperate smoking area is just what they are getting.

 

It's called outside.

[Lost Login]

So every worker who will go into the smoking area will be a smoker. I am sorry but I just do not believe that is the case. Yes staff who smoke nip of and have a crafty fag here and there but that is my no means everybody. I used to work behind a bar and those who wanted a fag nipped out the back or yes went for a wander. Us non smokers did the same. What I rarely saw was the smokers actually smoking why they did the rounds collecting as invariablythey had their hands full. Yes before or after while they were having a natter but not at the time.

 

I still wait for an explanation how you believe it would be possible to establish an enlclosed no smoking area in a pub that would require no employess to enter it.

Pubs i go into, the employee's use the oportunity to collect glasses to go and have a fag anyway. Easily workable.

[manxman8180]

Plus, of course, whether their staff smoke or not, I would imagine that someone could make a good case about the employer having a duty of care to protect staff from the second hand smoke of others.