Smoking Ban - The Isle Of Man

[loaf]

In the interests of seeing things from a smoker’s point of view, I went down to Paramount City last night and tried setting fire to something and walking around with it smoldering in my hand. They escorted me off the premises.

[Theodolite]

Heh, nice one!

 

I wonder what would be the impact on our society if a packet of twenty cigarettes was increased to say, £30 a packet.

 

?

[iom_cb]

I'm a manx voter and can have my opinion without such abuse .... i'd like to point out that i am a smoker but am still in favour of the ban.

 

i too believe in a libertarian approach to government with little interference but the fact is that smoking affects those around you and me and they have a right not to be subjected to such injury by us.

 

I was in Guernsey last week and they already have the ban ... and it was very pleasant and with nobody else smoking I felt i didn't need a fag as much.

[Miss Take]

You have to remember that sometimes many of us don't actually want to be 'like you'. In fact to most of us, 'leading the way' often means being led by the nose by one lobby group - or one group of self-appointed 'know-it-alls' - after another. The trouble is that people like you, who live in 'my little dream world', just never listen to others. I'll put it down to your inexperience of life - but my experience is that you should stick that approach up your ar*e.

 

Going for a compromise (i.e. some smoking pubs); such as is are available in many other parts of Europe; would have demonstrated far better leadership and liberal democracy - rather than just the usual 'cut and paste' approach to legislation - and would have been truly 'leading the way'. It also misses a golden opportunity for encouraging more visitors to use such facilities, away from 50 weeks a year of persecution in the rest of the UK. Above all it would provide a way of not alienting a third of the islands population.

 

I shall mostly be working across Europe from September, partly I admit, to get away from the UK and all the other mealy mouthed 'I'll live-forever' people like you, who are responsible for starting to turn the UK (with the island starting to follow very closely) into a police state, taxing the arse off people through failed initiative after failed initiative, whilst generating the highest ever number of UK born emmigrants.

 

You vote 'Lemming' if you want to, just don't expect me or other people to always agree with you.

 

But some smokers on here have written that they're in favour of the ban, so it does not alienate a third of the IOM population.

Plus, I would have thought 'compromise' would be a dirty word to you - seems not in this case.

If the majority of people got together to say that drilling into your head to see what it was like was likely to kill you, I presume that you'd get your drill straight out of its box, just to show that you're not one of those lemmings who agrees with the majority. Calling someone a lemming is not a valid argument for anything.

I applaud those who stand up for the minority, I really do, but I just don't see the validity of your arguments here.

 

PS, I used to work for a fag company - I've been round their factory and really do know what goes into them, alongside the official ingredients. Things that just happen to be trapped in amongst the tobacco leaves when they're harvested. Even if the smoke weren't toxic, I wouldn't go near them - ever.

[Lonan3]

But some smokers on here have written that they're in favour of the ban, so it does not alienate a third of the IOM population.

 

There are also many non-smokers who are not in favour of the ban - who believe that there ought to be a compromise - but, of course, as someone who supports it you'll just carry on selecting the bits that suit your view so I suppose I'm wasting my time replying.

 

[sighs - and heads out to the garage for a smoke]

[Miss Take]

But some smokers on here have written that they're in favour of the ban, so it does not alienate a third of the IOM population.

 

There are also many non-smokers who are not in favour of the ban - who believe that there ought to be a compromise - but, of course, as someone who supports it you'll just carry on selecting the bits that suit your view so I suppose I'm wasting my time replying.

 

[sighs - and heads out to the garage for a smoke]

 

Okay, if there are any non-smokers who are 'alienated' by this decision, please show yourselves?

 

Lonan3, you too are more than capable of choosing which pieces of information you decide to comment on and which you choose to ignore - your world weary attitude seems a bit false in this respect.

[Lost Login]

As a non smoker I have no problem with the ban as I think it is the only workable solution as any compromise I do not believe would work. I think you either allow smoking in confined spaces or you do not.

 

I presume your comment at the end is satircal but it always amused me slighlty the number of people who would not smoke in their own host cos of the smell etc etc and would go into the garage or garden for a fag but if they went out were happy to smoke in a pub, restaurent. I always thought why they could not recognise that just as they did not like the effects at home many others did not appreciate their smoking outside the home.

 

 

[sighs - and heads out to the garage for a smoke]

[Millman]

As I already stated I am a non smoker who while not alienated or against a ban can see the disadvantages in one. I fully support a ban in all establishments that are serving food. Beyond that there are still issues that mean a total ban and the workarounds this causes does not deliver the non smoking nirvana that some of the more vociferous opponents of smoking are foretelling.

 

I wonder what the adamant supporters of the ban (or at least those who like a good night out) will make of things if the ban does mean more pubs and venues shutting. Because lets face it it may not be a result of the ban but a certain brewery certainly seems to be making the most of it as an excuse.

[Albert Tatlock]

Going for a compromise (i.e. some smoking pubs); such as is are available in many other parts of Europe; would have demonstrated far better leadership and liberal democracy - rather than just the usual 'cut and paste' approach to legislation - and would have been truly 'leading the way'. It also misses a golden opportunity for encouraging more visitors to use such facilities, away from 50 weeks a year of persecution in the rest of the UK. Above all it would provide a way of not alienting a third of the islands population.

Plus, I would have thought 'compromise' would be a dirty word to you - seems not in this case.

Actually, compromise is one of my favourite words. The clue was in the phrase 'some smoking pubs'

 

Compromise:

 

n 1: a middle way between two extremes [syn: via media]

2: an accommodation in which both sides make concessions; "the

newly elected congressmen rejected a compromise because

they considered it `business as usual'"

v 1: make a compromise; arrive at a compromise; "nobody will get

everything he wants; we all must compromise"

2: settle by concession

 

...as opposed to 'imposed', one of my least favourite words and 'Nanny State' a phrase I abhor.

 

In a liberal democracy people have choice and are tolerant of others. I am tolerant of gays but wouldn't visit a gay club. I am tolerant of other races but wouldn't go to a 'rap' concert etc. Other people don't like the TT but tolerate it.

 

Just as equally there could be some pubs where smoking was permitted where other tolerant people would not be forced to go.

 

People like you have no right to tell me how to live my life (provided it is legal and I do no harm to others) and, if necessary, away from you. You also have no right to dictate who I associate with, if a group of like-minded individuals felt the same. Overall, you cannot be selective in what you tolerate in a liberal democracy - but many people on here are just like that e.g. some want to ban smoking whilst saying voluntary euthenasia should be legal etc.

 

There is a much bigger picture here, regarding intolerance and indifference, that many people seem to be missing - in this case for quite selfish and unwanted altruistic motives. People continually fail to address that in this particular debate and instead go back into a cyclic selfish uncompromising argument. There are several businesses, many staff, and many customers who would support such a compromise, even if there were to be a legal requirement based on percentages of establishments allowed to provide smoking facilities etc. But no - the Nanny State 'wins' again.

[Lonan3]

Please note: At least two well-known watering-holes in Douglas will be closing their doors shortly after the TT Festival. No doubt there will be many reasons given - but the decisive one is that they have no reasonable facilities for smokers.

 

I have no objection to a smoking ban in places that serve food.

I have no objection to a smoking ban in places where children are likely to assemble.

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

All of that is entirely reasonable.

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.

That has always been my view.

[Lost Login]

But are these two not potentailly contradictory the issue being in that whilst a pub for most of us is a place for relaxing, socialising etc for some it is a work place. Be it that they be the cleaner, the bar staff, the the guys collecting empty glasses, bouncers if there is any trouble etc etc. They may only have minimum involvement but it would be very hard to legislate to allow for that and it would be quickly be easy to abuse.

 

Now it could be argued that provided those workers state they are happy to work in a smoking enviroment then it should be no problem but not many workers would I believe say no as they would want to be sure to keep their jobs.

 

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

 

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.

[Lost Login]

But that is the whole point, once it becomes law it will be illegal whether or not you, I or anybody else likes it.

 

Our society is run by a range of rules and laws which are ever evolving and changing. Many things we could do last century we can not do now. Some I agree with some I may disagree with and in either case I try to follow. If I disagree I can campaign to get changed. I might like to smoke a bit of Pot now and again, I do not and in the IoM it would be ilegal to do so but on the basis it would not do others any particular harm should MHKs allow that to be legalised in the IoM. Presently the majority is of the view no because as a whole it is believed that as a whole it is better for society if such drugs are not legalised.

 

The UK and to be followed by the IoM is coming to the view that for society as a whole it would be better if smoking was not allowed in public places hence the legislation. Yes they ban smoking in total at some point in the future but that will be if and when society as whole wants to take and will back that step.

 

To argue as you do about tolerance, compromise etc is a load of baloney as whilst it might work in Utopia here in the real word we tend to go with hard and fast laws that society in general accepts otherwise you could argue for tolerence with regard to nuisance beahiour, underage drinking, underage sex, beastiality, in fact virtually any law which prevents one person doing one thing on their own or with another other.

 

The TT course will be one way for TT forenight because those in charge believe it will be beneficially for it to be so. I will accept that law even if I may have my doubts. Surely if you are for freedom of choice, compromise etc then you would have been arguing for it to reamian two way so that every body could have made their own decision on an individual basis.

 

 

People like you have no right to tell me how to live my life (provided it is legal and I do no harm to others)

There is a much bigger picture here, regarding intolerance and indifference, that many people seem to be missing - in this case for quite selfish and unwanted altruistic motives. People continually fail to address that in this particular debate and instead go back into a cyclic selfish uncompromising argument. There are several businesses, many staff, and many customers who would support such a compromise, even if there were to be a legal requirement based on percentages of establishments allowed to provide smoking facilities etc. But no - the Nanny State 'wins' again.

[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.

[Albert Tatlock]

But that is the whole point, once it becomes law it will be illegal whether or not you, I or anybody else likes it.

 

Our society is run by a range of rules and laws which are ever evolving and changing. Many things we could do last century we can not do now. Some I agree with some I may disagree with and in either case I try to follow. If I disagree I can campaign to get changed. I might like to smoke a bit of Pot now and again, I do not and in the IoM it would be ilegal to do so but on the basis it would not do others any particular harm should MHKs allow that to be legalised in the IoM. Presently the majority is of the view no because as a whole it is believed that as a whole it is better for society if such drugs are not legalised.

 

The UK and to be followed by the IoM is coming to the view that for society as a whole it would be better if smoking was not allowed in public places hence the legislation. Yes they ban smoking in total at some point in the future but that will be if and when society as whole wants to take and will back that step.

 

To argue as you do about tolerance, compromise etc is a load of baloney as whilst it might work in Utopia here in the real word we tend to go with hard and fast laws that society in general accepts otherwise you could argue for tolerence with regard to nuisance beahiour, underage drinking, underage sex, beastiality, in fact virtually any law which prevents one person doing one thing on their own or with another other.

 

The TT course will be one way for TT forenight because those in charge believe it will be beneficially for it to be so. I will accept that law even if I may have my doubts. Surely if you are for freedom of choice, compromise etc then you would have been arguing for it to reamian two way so that every body could have made their own decision on an individual basis.

 

 

People like you have no right to tell me how to live my life (provided it is legal and I do no harm to others)

There is a much bigger picture here, regarding intolerance and indifference, that many people seem to be missing - in this case for quite selfish and unwanted altruistic motives. People continually fail to address that in this particular debate and instead go back into a cyclic selfish uncompromising argument. There are several businesses, many staff, and many customers who would support such a compromise, even if there were to be a legal requirement based on percentages of establishments allowed to provide smoking facilities etc. But no - the Nanny State 'wins' again.

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.

[Lonan3]

. . . . .

 

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.'