NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4376310.stm
Last year's Public Health White Paper outlined plans for a smoking ban across workplaces in England after pressure from health professionals and campaigners who argued second-hand smoke was harming workers.

Only private members clubs and pubs which do not serve food would be exempt.

But the subsequent consultation raised concerns pubs, especially in poor areas, would stop serving food to avoid the ban - widening health inequalities - and whether a one metre smoke-free exclusion zone around bars was enough to protect workers in those pubs.

Weeks of discussion at cabinet level followed during the autumn of this year in which various proposals were discussed.

In the end, the bill sticks largely to the original proposal, but allows scope for another consultation on how to protect bar workers which could lead to smoking only being allowed in pubs in sealed rooms.

It also brings forward by 18 months the deadline for full implementation to summer 2007. There will be a full review of the ban within three years, the Department of Health has said.

The measures contrast with the full ban in place in the Republic of Ireland, and the proposed bans for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The new health bill now includes smoking bans for Britain, after Ireland has implemented them a few months ago.

Should smoking in public places be banned? Why? Why not?

As a non-smoker, I like the idea. I hate breathing other people's smoke. It's made a real difference in restaurants & food service areas of pubs here in Victoria.

I'm out of coffee, I'm out candy, you take away my smokes and somone's getting a spork to the back of the neck!

As a non-smoker, I like the idea. I hate breathing other people's smoke. It's made a real difference in restaurants & food service areas of pubs here in Victoria.
The thing is the question is about a complete smoking ban. Which would effectively turn a large portion of law abiding citizens into criminals.

Fair enough you can't smoke in enclosed space or near building entrances where you can harm others. It's the same go as how you're allowed to drink arsnic if you want, but you can't put it in other people's tea.

But outright banning smoking makes no sense and won't happen so long as I have breath in my body and a pack of Peter Stivo's in my back pocket!

My city recently passed a smoking ban in all public places. It's causing a lot of the local bars to lose buisness (some have reported a 70% drop in sales compared to a year ago, and the ban has only been in place for four months)

I disagree with it for four reasons.

1. A buisness owner should have the final say on whether or not smoking is allowed in their buisness.

2. People who become bartenders or otherwise work in a bar should already be aware that people smoke like chimneys when they drink. If they don't want to deal with the consequences, they shouldn't be working in bars...there are plenty of other jobs out there.

3. The loss of buisness in local bars is going to seriously damage city revenue, not to mention that the city just spent millions to improve the downtown area, and is now no longer able to justify the expense through increased spending in the area.

4. A bar opened up here a couple years ago that was non-smoking, looking to capitalize on non-smokers who wanted a place to go to.

It went out of buisness in six months due to a lack of customers.

Now the non-smokers are doing the same thing, failing to support the buisnesses upon which they have imposed a crippling regulation.

I'm fully in favor of a smoking ban in public places, (restaurants in my town have been largely uneffected by the ban) but ALL bars should be exempt.

The thing is the question is about a complete smoking ban. Which would effectively turn a large portion of law abiding citizens into criminals.

Fair enough you can't smoke in enclosed space or near building entrances where you can harm others. It's the same go as how you're allowed to drink arsnic if you want, but you can't put it in other people's tea.

But outright banning smoking makes no sense and won't happen so long as I have breath in my body and a pack of Peter Stivo's in my back pocket!

I'd have to agree with that, if you want to smoke in the street, or park, or whatever, I don't have a problem with that. The smoke just dissipates into the air. I do support a ban on smoking inside & outside the doorways of buildings though.

Smoking was recently banned in all Swedish pubs and restaurants, and business hasn't been affected negatively. Some businesses have actually increased. Add to that the fact that the personell is much healthier, and now asthmatics and such can go out for a nice evening. I only see positive things with this ban.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that banning smoking in public places is good, but at least in the states the various campaigns of, "Smokes are the devil!" have actually stopped a number of people from smoking.

I just don't like smoke inside, it doesn't dissapate enough, and although I can handle a few people doing, I can't imagine a whole bar filled with smoke! Smokers should go outside, or to a well ventilated room. All I ask.

The thing is the question is about a complete smoking ban. Which would effectively turn a large portion of law abiding citizens into criminals.
The proposed legistlation here is about banning it in public places; pubs (or possibly just pubs that serve food), restaurants, etcetera. Not making tobacco illegal totally.

Personally, I'm an ambivalent non-smoker.
Pro-Ban: Smoking smells truly abhorrent, makes you cough, lingers forever, and is generally unpleasant.
Anti-Ban: I don't like banning things. If I go around banning other people's hobbies/addictions, maybe they'll go around banning mine.

Im sorry but if people want to give themselves Heart Disease and Lung Cancer, they can do it alone and refrain from sharing it with non-smokers like me.

I'm a non-smoker, but I'm against the ban - all the non-smoking bars I've been genuinely lose the typical pub atmosphere that I enjoy so much. Furthermore, if I hate smoke so much, I can go somewhere non-smoking. There are plenty of non-smoking bars/restaurants or at least ones with non-smoking areas.

I'm constantly surprised that so many lefties whine on about people smoking, when they otherwise whine on about the nanny state.

I you allow people to smoke in public areas why not allow them to shoot up on crack through their eyeballs, at least there are no second hand effects for anyone else

Of course public smoking should be banned.

It's why I actually have a hole in my heart. :mad:

As a smoking libertarian, I naturally oppose this legislation. The bar smoking legislation is a bit of a fuzzy moral area (although I personally support bars, pubs and restaurants making their own choice), but the blanket ban would be an egregious attack on human rights. I can understand how smoking in a building with others might cause concern about health issues, but the street is a public place too, and when I smoke in the street, the smoke just drifts away into the air. As someone who spends most of their day not at home, only being allowed to smoke at home would be a bitch.

The ban is about enclosed public spaces. I personally think that the ban should be all or nothing. Either allowing smoking to be down to the discretion of the owners of the buildings, or ban it from all buildings except someone's home.

Giving pubs that don't serve food, and clubs the ability to allow smoking is a bit stupid from where I look at it. It's a compromise where a compromise won't work.

It's not the smoking part that bothers me.
It's all the trash (cigarette butts) that get left everywhere by smokers who are too lazy to find a bin or ash tray.

Banned in actual public? Yes. This means out on the street, or any other government run area (IE owned by the citizenry). It's up to the smoker to be able to control the smoke, and they cannot. They cannot push their smoke on others without permission first.

HOWEVER, this does not apply to private establishments like bars and restaurants--that should be up to the owner of said establishment. Those places are not public. They are owned by individuals. Their house, their rules. Just because a lot of people like to go to a particular place doesn't mean it's publicly owned or operated.

As a smoking libertarian, I naturally oppose this legislation. The bar smoking legislation is a bit of a fuzzy moral area (although I personally support bars, pubs and restaurants making their own choice), but the blanket ban would be an egregious attack on human rights. I can understand how smoking in a building with others might cause concern about health issues, but the street is a public place too, and when I smoke in the street, the smoke just drifts away into the air. As someone who spends most of their day not at home, only being allowed to smoke at home would be a bitch.

The only problem in your reasoning is that the smoke doesn't always just go up first (I smell it walking down the street, I smell it in my car...if it just went up and into the air, without affecting others, I would never know it was there).

You're infringing on others, by allowing the smoke to enter another person's "air-space". If you could somehow control it or contain it so another person wouldn't be affected in the area that belongs to all (I know, belongs-to-all goes against my libertarian morals as well), that's something altogether different.

Inside buildings is up to the building's owner.

Depends on the building. I just signed a petition to put the smoking ban back on the ballot in my city, because people are starting to realize that smoking actually isn't the unhealthiest thing you can do in a bar. I don't smoke anymore, but I don't like the idea of dictating to store owners what they can and can't allow in their buildings.

Also, the idea of secondhand smoke as a health hazard is something of a fantasy; there's only slightly more legitimate evidence to support it than there is for Intelligent Design. As I point out every single time this comes up, the EPA study that was credited for establishing the link between ETS and lung cancer was thrown out by a Federal Court 6 years after its release for cherry-picking its data to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. Even if you do accept those numbers, the chances of you dying from lung cancer was roughly one in eighty thousand, assuming you were regularly exposed to ETS. Now, the chances for someone that wasn't exposed to ETS were calculated as being roughly one in a hundred thousand.

That may look like a big difference on the surface [and the EPA claimed that it was a "20% increase"] but the difference in these statistics is negligible. If you calculate it out, these stats mean that 10 in one million [i]non ETS-exposed folks will come down with lung cancer. [b]12.5 out of a million ETS exposed people would, according to the study, wind up with cancer. Not only is that not a "20% increase" in one's chances of getting cancer, but the difference is statistically irrelevant. And remember, these numbers are coming from a study that was found ot be bogus, at least in part.

The bottom line here is that people who go to restaurants to eat do not stay in them for hours at a time, and for ETS to be a measurable health risk [for most people] they would have to be more or less locked into the utility closet with the restaurant's entire smoking population.

In spite of all this, I still wouldn't smoke in a restaurant, primarily for civility [not health] reasons, but I'd never ban it in a million years. Bars and bowling alleys though? Fuck yeah, fire it up.

No it bloody shouldn't, and if it should, ban alcohol publically too.

I'm constantly surprised that so many lefties whine on about people smoking, when they otherwise whine on about the nanny state.

I've never heard "lefties" whine on about the "nanny state" - it's always being right wingers who have done the whining in that department, from what i've heard.

I think it should be banned in most public places indoors - especially restaurants. It really pisses me off when i'm sitting down to a nice dinner and some moron lights up, masking the smell and thus damaging the taste of the food i'm eating.

However, should definitely not be banned in pubs - smoking in a pub is a long held tradition and part of the atmosphere.

I've never heard "lefties" whine on about the "nanny state" - it's always being right wingers who have done the whining in that department, from what i've heard.

I think it should be banned in most public places indoors - especially restaurants. It really pisses me off when i'm sitting down to a nice dinner and some moron lights up, masking the smell and thus damaging the taste of the food i'm eating.

However, should definitely not be banned in pubs - smoking in a pub is a long held tradition and part of the atmosphere.
Nor will you ever hear leftists whine about too much government control. Not as long as it is they that control it.

I've never heard "lefties" whine on about the "nanny state" - it's always being right wingers who have done the whining in that department, from what i've heard.

I think it should be banned in most public places indoors - especially restaurants. It really pisses me off when i'm sitting down to a nice dinner and some moron lights up, masking the smell and thus damaging the taste of the food i'm eating.

However, should definitely not be banned in pubs - smoking in a pub is a long held tradition and part of the atmosphere.

And why souldn't the right whinge? We are equally entitled to our democratic right to bitch:p

Seriously though, the nanny state is a joke, if you don't like a smoky pub, go to a wine bar, or hell, dont go out, and protect the mediocraty you ensconse yourself in. Pubs, why bother, it ruins the atmosphere, however, restaurants, I can understand, it does ruin the food.

No it bloody shouldn't, and if it should, ban alcohol publically too.

The only problem with people drinking publically, is that if they become drunk, they can start behaving violently. There is already a law against this (drunk and disorderly). However, smoking causes damage (and annoyance) to people whether the smoker intends, or realises it.

A drinker doesn't force you to drink his drink, but a smoker forces you to smoke his cigarette.

The only problem with people drinking publically, is that if they become drunk, they can start behaving violently. There is already a law against this (drunk and disorderly). However, smoking causes damage (and annoyance) to people whether the smoker intends, or realises it.

A drinker doesn't force you to drink his drink, but a smoker forces you to smoke his cigarette.

Wow, a car pollutes the air and causes Asthma. Lets ban cars. Oh, dont forget buses, bikes and planes. How many people are attacked by drunks, in comparison to those harmed by smoking? Personally, in the right place, smoke is good, and I actuallt live, i smoke, I drink, I eat real food. I do not need a left wing, egalitarian moron waving the flag of multicultarism telling me what I can and cant do.

Wow, a car pollutes the air and causes Asthma. Lets ban cars. Oh, dont forget buses, bikes and planes. How many people are attacked by drunks, in comparison to those harmed by smoking? Personally, in the right place, smoke is good, and I actuallt live, i smoke, I drink, I eat real food. I do not need a left wing, egalitarian moron waving the flag of multicultarism telling me what I can and cant do.

I've never heard a cigarette further the economy (other than getting people to spend their money on healthcare) which is what cars, bikes and planes do. They have -purpose-, smoking, really, doesn't.

I do not need a left wing, egalitarian moron waving the flag of multicultarism telling me what I can and cant do.

And I don't need another moron telling me what I can and can't breathe.

I've never heard a cigarette further the economy (other than getting people to spend their money on healthcare) which is what cars, bikes and planes do. They have -purpose-, smoking, really, doesn't.

The tobacco industry, whioch contributes tax money, or is it that all ciggarettes are irectly derived from satan's little box of evils to afflict mortals?

The tobacco industry, whioch contributes tax money, or is it that all ciggarettes are irectly derived from satan's little box of evils to afflict mortals?

I'm actually not religious one little bit, I just don't believe that taxes alone are a good enough reason to allow people to kill themselves, and those other people around them, in public. Maybe we should ban it as a form of murder?

I'm actually not religious one little bit, I just don't believe that taxes alone are a good enough reason to allow people to kill themselves, and those other people around them, in public. Maybe we should ban it as a form of murder?

Once more, it sets a precedent, and alcohol has to go too. Lets be puritan, wahey!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't like smoke, I can understand that, but why impose the views of some on others. I might not like alcohol being served (I do), however, it is no reason to implement prohibition.

I've never heard a cigarette further the economy (other than getting people to spend their money on healthcare) which is what cars, bikes and planes do. They have -purpose-, smoking, really, doesn't.
There are a lot of investors, tobacco farmers, cigarette makers, and cigarette sellers that would argue with you. Now, if you say their economic value is just not as wholesome as some other industries, I think you are just demonstrating the arrogance that liberals are so famous for.

The right answer is, of course, to let the market work it out. Just don't patronize establishments that allow smoking. If there are enough of you zealots out there, maybe you can force a change. Subverting unpleasantness by force of law is just the way out for those that can't do it any other way.

I don't really care, because what people do with their own bodies is their business and not mine, so long as they don't breathe that shit in my face.

I do not need a left wing, egalitarian moron waving the flag of multicultarism telling me what I can and cant do.

Since when has tobbacco smoking had anything to do with multi culturalism or egalitariansism?

Besides - right wingers traditionally support a ban on cannabis, which makes far less sense than a ban on smoking in public.

Since when has tobbacco smoking had anything to do with multi culturalism or egalitariansism?

Besides - right wingers traditionally support a ban on cannabis, which makes far less sense than a ban on smoking in public.

Tobacco is dangerous to the body, not the mind. It does not induce psychosis

I am Non-Smoker for 52 days now...and i don´t ban smokers, it was my decision to smoke. and now its my decision not to smoke anymore.

Once more, it sets a precedent, and alcohol has to go too. Lets be puritan, wahey!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't like smoke, I can understand that, but why impose the views of some on others. I might not like alcohol being served (I do), however, it is no reason to implement prohibition.

YOU can't control where your smoke goes. There's the difference. I can control where my booze does, though. You also can't serve up or drink booze on many streets in the nation (open intoxicant laws).

As for cars--cigarettes don't get people from place to place, and are not mandatory to the job market. But yeah, a cleaner emission system would be nice.

YOU can't control where your smoke goes. There's the difference. I can control where my booze does, though. You also can't serve up or drink booze on many streets in the nation (open intoxicant laws).

As for cars--cigarettes don't get people from place to place, and are not mandatory to the job market. But yeah, a cleaner emission system would be nice.

Same premise though, you must agree.

And carsa re considrably more dangerous in the long term than ciggarettes, what with ozone pollution and all.

Tobacco is dangerous to the body, not the mind. It does not induce psychosis

It only damages the mind seriously if you are already prone to mental problems - something like 20% of people. That is why it should be legalised, as long as they can publically provide a method of checking whether it will effect you that badly.

Besides, so what? I don't need some right wing, anti-meritocratic moron waving the flag of "ethnic purity" telling me what I can and can't do ;)

Besides, so what? I don't need some right wing, anti-meritocratic moron waving the flag of "ethnic purity" telling me what I can and can't do ;)

I do not, I merely enjoy a ciggarette whilst looking pretentious. Why should anyone, even, god forbid, Labour, intedict my doing so? Its my body, and, to echo Courtney Love "Its my goddam business if I'm immoral or not"

Same premise though, you must agree.

And carsa re considrably more dangerous in the long term than ciggarettes, what with ozone pollution and all.

Hey, if there were some way for you to be able to contain the smoke to you, I'd be all for it. Who am I to tell someone what they can or can't do with their own bodies or property?

Yup, cars are much more lethal--both with exhaust and just the general lack of control humans have over them.

I second-hand smoke two packs a day. You can't do this. Where will I get my fix then?! :mad:

The thing is the question is about a complete smoking ban. Which would effectively turn a large portion of law abiding citizens into criminals.

Fair enough you can't smoke in enclosed space or near building entrances where you can harm others. It's the same go as how you're allowed to drink arsnic if you want, but you can't put it in other people's tea.

But outright banning smoking makes no sense and won't happen so long as I have breath in my body and a pack of Peter Stivo's in my back pocket!
It isn't about a complete smoking ban: it's about banning smoking in public buildings.

I do not, I merely enjoy a cigarette whilst looking pretentious. Why should anyone, even, god forbid, Labour, intedict my doing so? Its my body, and, to echo Courtney Love "Its my goddam business if I'm immoral or not"
Wrong. If you're smoking in a public building it's every bugger else in the room's business as well.

I suppose that I should point out that all of you who continue to call second hand smoke dangerous would do well to refute the excellent point made by Melkor before opening your yap. Without refutation, you're just "blowing smoke" :headbang:

Paraphrased quoting:

Also, the idea of secondhand smoke as a health hazard is something of a fantasy...As I point out every single time this comes up, the EPA study that was credited for establishing the link between ETS and lung cancer was thrown out by a Federal Court 6 years after its release for cherry-picking its data to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. ... the EPA claimed that it was a "20% increase" ... Not only is that not a "20% increase" in one's chances of getting cancer, but the difference is statistically irrelevant. And remember, these numbers are coming from a study that was found ot be bogus, at least in part....

Depends on the building. I just signed a petition to put the smoking ban back on the ballot in my city, because people are starting to realize that smoking actually isn't the unhealthiest thing you can do in a bar. I don't smoke anymore, but I don't like the idea of dictating to store owners what they can and can't allow in their buildings.

Also, the idea of secondhand smoke as a health hazard is something of a fantasy; there's only slightly more legitimate evidence to support it than there is for Intelligent Design. As I point out every single time this comes up, the EPA study that was credited for establishing the link between ETS and lung cancer was thrown out by a Federal Court 6 years after its release for cherry-picking its data to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. Even if you do accept those numbers, the chances of you dying from lung cancer was roughly one in eighty thousand, assuming you were regularly exposed to ETS. Now, the chances for someone that wasn't exposed to ETS were calculated as being roughly one in a hundred thousand.

That may look like a big difference on the surface [and the EPA claimed that it was a "20% increase"] but the difference in these statistics is negligible. If you calculate it out, these stats mean that 10 in one million [i]non ETS-exposed folks will come down with lung cancer. [b]12.5 out of a million ETS exposed people would, according to the study, wind up with cancer. Not only is that not a "20% increase" in one's chances of getting cancer, but the difference is statistically irrelevant. And remember, these numbers are coming from a study that was found ot be bogus, at least in part.

The bottom line here is that people who go to restaurants to eat do not stay in them for hours at a time, and for ETS to be a measurable health risk [for most people] they would have to be more or less locked into the utility closet with the restaurant's entire smoking population.

In spite of all this, I still wouldn't smoke in a restaurant, primarily for civility [not health] reasons, but I'd never ban it in a million years. Bars and bowling alleys though? Fuck yeah, fire it up.

*applause*

Unfortunately, in most of the anti-smoking cases - like most of the nonsmokers who voted "yes" for this - their thinking will not be diluted by the sweet water of reason. Years of taxpayer funded anti-smoking propaganda have gotten them into a place of agreement with authoritarian, petty and basically vindictively ignorant social policy.

I do not, I merely enjoy a ciggarette whilst looking pretentious. Why should anyone, even, god forbid, Labour, intedict my doing so? Its my body, and, to echo Courtney Love "Its my goddam business if I'm immoral or not"

You are perfectly entitled to, just not in places like restaurants or enclosed public buildings where it is not only *potentially* harmful to others, but downright unpleasant. I don't think that they should be banned in pubs either.

The thing is that if you believe that cannabis should remain banned whilst being against a public ban on cigarettes on the grounds that you should be able to do as you please if it hurts no one else, then you are contradicting yourself. After all, I merely enjoy some weed with my mates whilst watching DVDs and ordering pizza. Hardly hurting anyone else - unlike alchohol, which is the cause of many fights involving trips to casualty and thus a drain on the NHS. Sadly, most tories strongly support prohibition on cannabis.

I suppose that I should point out that all of you who continue to call second hand smoke dangerous would do well to refute the excellent point made by Melkor before opening your yap. Without refutation, you're just "blowing smoke" :headbang:
I've heard it suggested that the tobacco lobby has quite a large influence on your federal government. There are other studies besides the EPA one, though of course, being produced in decadent liberal countries in Europe, these are vastly inferior to proper American science in every important respect.

Im a smoker and I honestly dont mind if they dont want me to smoke in restaurants or cafes as it can be offputting for non-smokers. However in pubs I object to a ban as it is part of the atmosphere. Even when I didnt smoke I didnt mind people smoking around me in pubs.

And the health risks? YOU'RE IN A FUCKING PUB DRINKING! You dont mind liver failure but a little cancer scares you? Jesus H Christ.

Im a smoker and I honestly dont mind if they dont want me to smoke in restaurants or cafes as it can be offputting for non-smokers. However in pubs I object to a ban as it is part of the atmosphere. Even when I didnt smoke I didnt mind people smoking around me in pubs.

And the health risks? YOU'RE IN A FUCKING PUB DRINKING! You dont mind liver failure but a little cancer scares you? Jesus H Christ.
I find not being able to taste my beer and coming home smelling like an ashtray more annoying, to be honest.

I find not being able to taste my beer and coming home smelling like an ashtray more annoying, to be honest.

Oh wow, you have to wash your clothes. Poor you.

You are perfectly entitled to, just not in places like restaurants or enclosed public buildings where it is not only *potentially* harmful to others, but downright unpleasant. I don't think that they should be banned in pubs either.

Why places like restaraunts? Why not all private businesses? As long as we're dictating to business owners how to run their place.

And what is it with people complaining about smoking in restaraunts anyway; no one can get fed unless they go to a restaraunt frequented by smokers? All of a sudden no one has choice anymore. It's either risk lung cancer, or starve to death.

Of course, that's basically the option anyway. Auto pollution pretty much guarantees you don't have to hang around smokers for any length of time to risk lung cancer. You can just, for example, breathe air within a busy city. But I guess people like the illusion of safety.

I've heard it suggested that the tobacco lobby has quite a large influence on your federal government. There are other studies besides the EPA one, though of course, being produced in decadent liberal countries in Europe, these are vastly inferior to proper American science in every important respect.


It's been suggested, but that would probably account for the huge sums of money that they've been forced to pay out in court awards to individuals, groups and various state governments. Because they used that large influence in a way to get themselves a series of losing verdicts, punitive awards and excessive taxation on their products.

And at least we can agree on your final point :D

It's been suggested, but that would probably account for the huge sums of money that they've been forced to pay out in court awards to individuals, groups and various state governments. Because they used that large influence in a way to get themselves a series of losing verdicts, punitive awards and excessive taxation on their products.

And at least we can agree on your final point :D
Punitive proceedings are one thing, but they wouldn't be having to deal with those in the first place if they couldn't get reports like this EPA thing thrown out of court.

Oh wow, you have to wash your clothes. Poor you.
And my hair. I'd change my clothes the following day in any case, unlike a lot of smokers.
It's strange how a minority feel that their bad manners should be indulged by everybody else, though: if it was muslims complaining about a pig statue you'd be bitching about political correctness, no doubt.

And my hair. I'd change my clothes the following day in any case, unlike a lot of smokers.

Oh no. You have to wash your HAIR too? I feel for you, man, I really do.


It's strange how a minority feel that their bad manners should be indulged by everybody else, though: if it was muslims complaining about a pig statue you'd be bitching about political correctness, no doubt.

Oh, hello strawman! I bet you felt reeeeal strong knocking that sucker down. ;)

Oh no. You have to wash your HAIR too? I feel for you, man, I really do. Oh, hello strawman! I bet you felt reeeeal strong knocking that sucker down. ;)
Cute. Do you have anything to add to the debate that isn't self righteous bullshit or personal abuse?

A further observation: smokers don't have any problem with accepting the consequences of their actions, unless said actions might have some sort of impact on their social life? Don't make me laugh.

Cute. Do you have anything to add to the debate that isn't self righteous bullshit or personal abuse?

To be honest, I just enjoy pointing out flaws in weak arguments such as yours: your own petty bullshit (you have to wash your clothes and your hair) and strawman/ad hominem fallacies (smokers don't wash their clothes, smokers are probably hypocrites because of some sort pig statue/muslim thing you made up).

I've already argued this particular topic a bunch of times on this forum, and it always seems to end up with nonsmokers self righteously citing their precious glass lungs and accusing smokers of being basically a bunch of murdering, baby-eating devils. ;) It gets tiresome.

To be honest, I just enjoy pointing out flaws in weak arguments such as yours: your own petty bullshit (you have to wash your clothes and your hair) and strawman/ad hominem fallacies (smokers don't wash their clothes, smokers are probably hypocrites because of some sort pig statue/muslim thing you made up).

I've already argued this particular topic a bunch of times on this forum, and it always seems to end up with nonsmokers self righteously citing their precious glass lungs and accusing smokers of being basically a bunch of murdering, baby-eating devils. ;) It gets tiresome.
No, my objection is more that smokers are whining like six year olds over the prospect of not having their habit indulged in public any more. It isn't a civil rights issue, and I find it laughable that anybody is suggesting it is. This is something you chose to do, and you knew it was going to have consequences: this may be a new development, but you still have no business whining about it like somebody's raped your mother.

No, my objection is more that smokers are whining like six year olds over the prospect of not having their habit indulged in public any more. It isn't a civil rights issue, and I find it laughable that anybody is suggesting it is. This is something you chose to do, and you knew it was going to have consequences: this may be a new development, but you still have no business whining about it like somebody's raped your mother.

Funny, it's usually the antismokers who whine. "Oh my poor lungs, do what you want with yours, but mine are sacred!" "I shouldn't have smokers force their habit on me, it's like rape!" "Do what you want at home, but don't rape my lungs with your penetrating, large smoke!"

And furthermore a restaraunt is not "public." It is a private establishment whose goal is to profit it's owners. It should be allowed to decide whether to allow smoking or not.

But no, whining antismokers whine and whine until government steps in to make them feel safer by regulating business and society yet some more.

Lastly, even if smokers are whining, we do have business doing it. Just as the antismokers are allowed to whine, so too can others whine. It's how the world works.

Why places like restaraunts? Why not all private businesses? As long as we're dictating to business owners how to run their place.

And what is it with people complaining about smoking in restaraunts anyway; no one can get fed unless they go to a restaraunt frequented by smokers? All of a sudden no one has choice anymore. It's either risk lung cancer, or starve to death.


I particuarly think smoking in restaurants is downright rude and selfish because tobacco smoke can ruin a good meal - half of the taste in food comes from the ability to smell it and smoke ruins that.

If you are so badly addicted and are that weak of will that you can't resist the hour or so it takes to eat a meal without having a cigarette then you should piss off and smoke in some place away from everyone else. Smoking in restaurants is just like talking to someone on a mobile phone during a movie.

Funny, it's usually the antismokers who whine. "Oh my poor lungs, do what you want with yours, but mine are sacred!" "I shouldn't have smokers force their habit on me, it's like rape!" "Do what you want at home, but don't rape my lungs with your penetrating, large smoke!"
You're not Dennis Leary, give it a rest.

And furthermore a restaraunt is not "public." It is a private establishment whose goal is to profit it's owners. It should be allowed to decide whether to allow smoking or not.
It does not have an invite only members list. Therefore it's a public building. Besides which, the people who work there are subjected to other people's smoke for the whole of their shift, rather than just having a meal spoiled. This seems to be the point of the legislation, rather than non smokers whining in high pitched voices.

But no, whining antismokers whine and whine until government steps in to make them feel safer by regulating business and society yet some more.
There are, at present a lot more people in the UK who don't smoke than people who do. Tilting the society towards the latter seems a little unreasonable, given this. The total smoking ban seems a little draconian, but as a partial ban is unworkable, you're stuck with it unless the whole business gets thrown out of Parliament, which isn't inconceivable.

It does not have an invite only members list. Therefore it's a public building. Besides which, the people who work there are subjected to other people's smoke for the whole of their shift, rather than just having a meal spoiled. This seems to be the point of the legislation, rather than non smokers whining in high pitched voices.


An owner of an establishment can have ANYONE removed from their premises at any time for any reason. Yes, it IS private. At least in the US, it is. They just choose to allow more into their building. People who work there CHOOSE to do so. Anything else is bullshit. There are other jobs in the service industry.

An owner of an establishment can have ANYONE removed from their premises at any time for any reason. Yes, it IS private. At least in the US, it is. They just choose to allow more into their building. People who work there CHOOSE to do so. Anything else is bullshit. There are other jobs in the service industry.
I hate to be the one to spring this on you, but we're not talking about the US here.

No, my objection is more that smokers are whining like six year olds over the prospect of not having their habit indulged in public any more. It isn't a civil rights issue, and I find it laughable that anybody is suggesting it is...
Not a civil rights issue? What bullshit tree did you pick that one from? If the government comes around and says "You can only do this, this and this" in public, it is a civil rights issue; all laws are civil rights issues, since they ostensibly serve to govern our behavior and determine the extent of said civil liberties.

Also, I don't smoke. I don't think it's particularly pleasant and even though I did it for 6 years, the smell irritates me now and sometimes it even triggers a mild cough if I'm unprepared for it. However I do realize that some things are more important than basic preferences, and just because it's irritating doesn't mean it's justified to ban it; while we're busy banning things we don't like I might as well ban bringing infants into public places or start revoking licenses for driving slowly in the passing lane.

And by the way, I mentioned the EPA study because it was the study that started this whole ETS crusade; as far as I'm concerned discrediting it was like when that guy admitted the Loch Ness monster was a hoax on his deathbed. Without that initial thesis, the theories that followed it become useless. Does that mean that I will never accept a study that suggests ETS may pose a health risk? Not really; it just means I don't accept the work that's been done so far, since it's more of a political game than a scientific one. However, that also doesn't mean that if it is a health risk, that it should be banned. Next thing we know they'll be wanting to pass the 18th Amendment again. I know that's something of a slippery slope, but banning smoking on a Federal level at least would be a dangerous precedent.

Breathe Free... Ban Perfume

I myself am very allergic to perfumes and scented personal products such as shampoos, hair sprays and fabric softeners. I can have reactions varying form headache to confusion, asthma to anaphylaxis. I urge all of the folks afffected by these toxic substances to be loud and vocal to write to our lung associations, health departments etc. At this point people feel they have the right to inflict theses chemicals on us. Well it was not so long ago that smokers felt this way as well. Look how far we have come educating the public on the health hazzards of second hand smoke. I strive to make similar success with second hand wiffs of these toxins.
I for instance went into anaphylaxis in the waiting room of my physician from the exposure to the perfume of a patient who had left the office already. I have the right to go out of my home safely as do all of you.

Prevalencia de sensibilizaciones a cosmeticos en profesionales de la estetica. [Prevalence of cosmetic sensitivity among beauticians]. Sanchez-Palacios-A and others, Allergol-Immunopathol-Madr. 1995 Jul-Aug; 23(4): 148-52

" All my life I have had problems with cosmetics; there are only a few I can use.
I do not use any scented products, my family does not either, and I am happy to say that unscented products are today quite well available. But this is not enough. I get ill from scented products other people use. For many years I had to take antihistamines daily to be able to go to work. I was only well during weekends. I quit work in '94 and now I feel well.

A year ago I was on a training course with 15 other students for two and a half months (computer training). That course was a breaking point for me. The scents were too much; our group tried to avoid scented products, so that I could be with them, but there were other groups too and I had to travel by bus approx. 1 hour per day. In a bus one cannot avoid scented people.

Now I smell even tiny amounts of scent. I get asthma-like symptoms, start to tremble, feel sick, have vomited, have rhinitis and my eyes itch, but the worst are asthma-like symptoms. I do not have asthma otherwise. I do jogging, walking, biking and body building (at home) without breathing problems. Now when I can smell the scents, I have noticed that people do smell terribly scented and for me it is a very bad smell. Earlier some perfumes and aftershaves smelled good, now those same products do smell terribly bad. I cannot go to other people's homes, as most have such scented indoor air that I just cannot breathe there (I have vomited on leaving).

I just wonder, how babies and small children can breathe in those homes, schools etc. It does not help if one just avoids using perfumes and aftershaves. Laundry detergents and fabric softeners (if not non-scented) can spoil the indoor air totally. I have met parents whose children have pre-asthma symptoms and when I visited their home, I knew why, I had to go out, I could not breathe there. But they do not believe me if I advise them to avoid scented products. "

A new study has revealed that, amongst other things, cleaning agents contain perfumes that can cause allergies. The Danish Environmental Protection Agency (Danish EPA) fears that the number of allergy cases will increase and therefore wants more protection for people.

Within the last ten years the number of people suffering from perfume allergies has increased from about 2 per cent to 4 per cent. Studies have revealed a connection between allergies and perfumes, but these studies are just about cosmetics, not the many other perfumed products we buy today.

The Danish EPA has now examined whether 43 other consumer products such as cleaning agents, clothes, and toys also contain some of the 24 perfumes that the EU Scientific Committee for Cosmetics and other Consumer Products has designated as allergenic. The results demonstrate that 40 products contain one or more perfumes that are known allergenics. The concentration in individual products is lower than in cosmetics, but in some products up to nine different perfumes have been added.

James E. Lessenger, MD, From a private practice.

[J Am Board Fam Pract 14(2):137-140, 2001. © 2001 American Board of Family Practice]

Abstract

Background: Perfumes have been associated with rashes in employees exposed to scented soaps or with allergic conditions, such as rhinitis or asthma, in employees exposed to perfumes or fragrances in the air.
Methods: Reported here is a case of an anaphylactic reaction and respiratory distress as a result of a deliberate assault with a perfume spray. The medical literature was searched using the key words "fragrances," "respiratory distress," "assault," and "health care workers."
Results: A female medical assistant with no history of asthma or reactions to fragrances was assaulted by a patient, who pumped three sprays of a perfume into her face. The employee experienced an acute anaphylactic reaction with shortness of breath, a suffocating sensation, wheezes, and generalized urticaria, and required aggressive medical treatment, a long period of oral bronchodilator therapy, and, finally, weaning from the medications.
Conclusions: Perfumes are complex mixtures of more than 4,000 vegetable and animal extracts and organic and nonorganic compounds. Fragrances have been found to cause exacerbations of symptoms and airway obstruction in asthmatic patients, including chest tightening and wheezing, and are a common cause of cosmetic allergic contact dermatitis. In many work settings the use of fragrances is limited. Assault is becoming more common among workers in the health care setting. Workers should be prepared to take immediate steps should an employee go into anaphylactic shock.


First we get rid of smoking then perfume, next we can outlaw alcohol.
It is only a matter of time.

JMayo

I hate to be the one to spring this on you, but we're not talking about the US here.

The original article was from the BBC, yes. But the question was a general one, for a global answer--at least there were no qualifiers to limit it to the UK.

US municipalities and states are going through this ban bullshit all the time, so it's very easy for us to respond.

If it was to be limited to the UK, then you have my apologies. If it was indeed a global statement, I was just qualifying the experiences I had, and was trying to imply that it may be different outside the US.

I'm not one of those folks that states that the US way is the right way--I was stating that it was from my point of view, given my experiences, not just my country.

As much as I hate to say this, I actually agree with DHomme:eek:

Why ban smoking in public places? Really now, if you are willing to go into a bar and drink yourself stupid, how can you object to a little passive smoking? It is, to all intents and purposes, an impositionn upon our civil rights, and ough to be opposed.

As much as I hate to say this, I actually agree with DHomme:eek:

Why ban smoking in public places? Really now, if you are willing to go into a bar and drink yourself stupid, how can you object to a little passive smoking? It is, to all intents and purposes, an impositionn upon our civil rights, and ough to be opposed.

A bar is not a public place. That is owned by someone. I have no problems with letting the owner decide what they want going on in their establishment.

A bar is not a public place. That is owned by someone. I have no problems with letting the owner decide what they want going on in their establishment.

Good, and how does the smoke linger on a public street? I don't blow my smoke in people's faces (Unless I don't like them that is:p ), and most other smokers dont.

Not a civil rights issue? What bullshit tree did you pick that one from? If the government comes around and says "You can only do this, this and this" in public, it is a civil rights issue; all laws are civil rights issues, since they ostensibly serve to govern our behavior and determine the extent of said civil liberties.

Also, I don't smoke. I don't think it's particularly pleasant and even though I did it for 6 years, the smell irritates me now and sometimes it even triggers a mild cough if I'm unprepared for it. However I do realize that some things are more important than basic preferences, and just because it's irritating doesn't mean it's justified to ban it; while we're busy banning things we don't like I might as well ban bringing infants into public places or start revoking licenses for driving slowly in the passing lane.

And by the way, I mentioned the EPA study because it was the study that started this whole ETS crusade; as far as I'm concerned discrediting it was like when that guy admitted the Loch Ness monster was a hoax on his deathbed. Without that initial thesis, the theories that followed it become useless. Does that mean that I will never accept a study that suggests ETS may pose a health risk? Not really; it just means I don't accept the work that's been done so far, since it's more of a political game than a scientific one. However, that also doesn't mean that if it is a health risk, that it should be banned. Next thing we know they'll be wanting to pass the 18th Amendment again. I know that's something of a slippery slope, but banning smoking on a Federal level at least would be a dangerous precedent.
As far as I can tell, people choose to start smoking. This is a self inflicted problem, so no, I don't think it is a civil rights issue. If they have a problem with the consequences, they can stop, as you have. I find it a bit offensive when people equate this with racism or wifebeating, as some people have been doing since the story broke.
Nobody's talking something about banning something purely because it's irritating. The main issue seems to be effect working eight hour shifts in a room full of smoke is having on bar staff and waiters, which is fair enough. It's a shitty job that pays peanuts, after all.
The EPA study might have started the ball rolling in the 'States, and may even have been dismissed because because its findings were at fault rather than because the defense paid their lawyers more than the EPA did, but a lot of research has been done elsewhere which seems to bear out that it's a harmful pursuit. One study being slung out of a court who might have an agenda does make everything else done in that area since worthless: you might as well cite the monkey trial from the '20s as proof that there isn't any such thing as evolution.

Zaxon, I honestly think this thread was about the fact that this is going through the British parliament at the moment.
Mayo, that's a false syllogism.

Mayo, that's a false syllogism.

I disagree. It is the next logical step in public health, according to many. So many people are affected by Fragrance allergies. The Ban on perfumes have already popped it ugly head here in the states. Not that it has gone anywhere yet. But since smoking can be banned in public spaces so can perfume. For the exact same health reasons.

Regards,

JMayo

I disagree. It is the next logical step in public health, according to many. So many people are affected by Fragrance allergies. The Ban on perfumes have already popped it ugly head here in the states. Not that it has gone anywhere yet. But since smoking can be banned in public spaces so can perfume. For the exact same health reasons.

Regards,

JMayo

Yeah, while we are at it, lets ban lights so the epileptics don't feel excluded, and since the blind can't see, lets all wear blindfolds. Why impose your defiecies upon us? Perfume is a perfectly acceptible method of self-enhancement, if you don't like it, it might be the universe telling you you can't date fit people:p

As much as I hate to say this, I actually agree with DHomme:eek:

Why ban smoking in public places? Really now, if you are willing to go into a bar and drink yourself stupid, how can you object to a little passive smoking? It is, to all intents and purposes, an impositionn upon our civil rights, and ough to be opposed.
Because one is something you're making a choice to do to yourself and the other is something that somebody else is inflicting on you. I'd have thought that was obvious.

As far as I can tell, people choose to start smoking. This is a self inflicted problem, so no, I don't think it is a civil rights issue. If they have a problem with the consequences, they can stop, as you have. I find it a bit offensive when people equate this with racism or wifebeating, as some people have been doing since the story broke.
They're comparable in that they're behaviors and that the law governs them. Like I said, all laws are civil rights 'issues.' From what I can tell, nothing in this post contests that, even though you do seem to still be interested in ignoring the civil liberties angle.

Also, car accidents are self inflicted problems too, generally. Should we not drive because we might kill ourselves or someone else? Of course not. It's an acceptable risk.

Nobody's talking something about banning something purely because it's irritating.
Then you obviously haven't met many anti-smoking crusaders.

The main issue seems to be effect working eight hour shifts in a room full of smoke is having on bar staff and waiters, which is fair enough. It's a shitty job that pays peanuts, after all.
First of all, most of the bartenders and waitresses smoke too: I've been in the service industry for some time now and I've noticed that, as a general rule, people in the service industry like to smoke. Non-smokers have been a distinct minority on every shift I've ever worked.

Secondly, the room is generally not "full of smoke" unless your bar happens to be in a broom closet. Some bars can get pretty smoky, but I imagine that if the masses of nonsmoking workers [who apparently exist somewhere] had a big enough problem with this, they wouldn't work in places like these.

The EPA study might have started the ball rolling in the 'States, and may even have been dismissed because because its findings were at fault rather than because the defense paid their lawyers more than the EPA did, but a lot of research has been done elsewhere which seems to bear out that it's a harmful pursuit. One study being slung out of a court who might have an agenda does make everything else done in that area since worthless: you might as well cite the monkey trial from the '20s as proof that there isn't any such thing as evolution.
Yes, of course the court was bought, if that's what you'd prefer to believe. Here you're deploying a mechanism for only choosing to believe in what you believed in ten minutes ago: you obviously didn't know the study had been thrown out and it's pretty obvious here that you're attempting to rationalize its condemnation.

Unfortunately, the American Cancer Society, the Heart & Lung Association and a few other agencies still cite that study as their primary source of proof that ETS causes health problems. Can you understand why I might be a bit peeved that a propaganda crusade has been launched based on faulty premises? If ETS is such a measurable risk, then why haven't any of these agencies cited new studies as their primary source in the seven years since the study had been thrown out?

Mayo, that's a false syllogism.
No, actually it's called a 'slippery slope.' It's a valid comparison, but slippery slopes are generaly insufficient for use in logical debate because they can be corrupted too easily.

Also, it's usually a good idea to say why something is a "false syllogism."

They're comparable in that they're behaviors and that the law governs them. Like I said, all laws are civil rights 'issues.' From what I can tell, nothing in this post contests that, even though you do seem to still be interested in ignoring the civil liberties angle.
Smoking in public is also ignoring other people's civil liberties, though it seems that this is only undesirable if the government is doing it.

Also, car accidents are self inflicted problems too, generally. Should we not drive because we might kill ourselves or someone else? Of course not. It's an acceptable risk.
Some are, some aren't.

First of all, most of the bartenders and waitresses smoke too: I've been in the service industry for some time now and I've noticed that, as a general rule, people in the service industry like to smoke. Non-smokers have been a distinct minority on every shift I've ever worked.

Secondly, the room is generally not "full of smoke" unless your bar happens to be in a broom closet. Some bars can get pretty smoky, but I imagine that if the masses of nonsmoking workers [who apparently exist somewhere] had a big enough problem with this, they wouldn't work in places like these.
I've been in some pretty smoky bars in my time.
I admit it's a difficult notion for a libertarian to get their head around, but some people actually end up working a job by default rather than by choice. The bulk of the bar workers I've met fit into this category, and I don't think I've ever met somebody who was waiting tables from choice.


Yes, of course the court was bought, if that's what you'd prefer to believe. Here you're deploying a mechanism for only choosing to believe in what you believed in ten minutes ago: you obviously didn't know the study had been thrown out and it's pretty obvious here that you're attempting to rationalize its condemnation.

Unfortunately, the American Cancer Society, the Heart & Lung Association and a few other agencies still cite that study as their primary source of proof that ETS causes health problems. Can you understand why I might be a bit peeved that a propaganda crusade has been launched based on faulty premises? If ETS is such a measurable risk, then why haven't any of these agencies cited new studies as their primary source in the seven years since the study had been thrown out?[QUOTE]
One: people have been suggesting that tobacco smoke might be harmful for a lot longer than seven years now.
Two: there have been studies elsewhere that haven't been thrown out of court or dismissed as incorrect. But of course, these are insignificant next to one report being found untrue in a country that's so devoted to the study of science that it lets school boards teach creationism as a fact, or has the oil industries gimps publishing assertions that global warning is a communist plot to make America look bad.

[QUOTE]No, actually it's called a 'slippery slope.' It's a valid comparison, but slippery slopes are generaly insufficient for use in logical debate because they can be corrupted too easily.

Also, it's usually a good idea to say why something is a "false syllogism."
Because there isn't any suggestion that the three cases cited are in any way connected, or that one might lead to the others.
As for slippery slopes, I thought they'd been out of favour in the American right after it turned out that the Domino Theory was horsecrap.

I am telling you it is happening just like it started with smoking.

There is ample medical proof that fragrances can make people very ill.
There is a new body of evidence that is growing that it can cause someone to develope illnesses as well. Both are arguments used in support of smoking bans.A couple of places in California, USA have also banned fragrances in some situations. Halifax, Nova Scotia is discouraging the wearing of fragrances in public because the chemicals in them can make some people ill.

Smoking causes people to get sick and should be banned
Perfume causes people to get sick and should be banned
All things that can cause people to get sick should be banned.

Did I do that right?


There's trouble in the air

Cities in North America are banning artificial fragrances in public places as evidence mounts that they make people sick. Hugh Wilson investigates

Saturday September 18, 2004
The Guardian


Every perfumier's nightmare has become reality in Halifax, Nova Scotia. By instituting a policy of "no scents makes good sense", discouraging the wearing of cosmetic fragrances in municipal offices, libraries, hospitals, classrooms, courts and buses, the Canadian city has given official recognition to the suffering of hundreds of "fragrance-sensitive" citizens.
http://society.guardian.co.uk/publichealth/story/0,11098,1307367,00.html

Cities move to ban the pong
By Hugh Wilson
September 25, 2004

Every perfumer's nightmare has become reality in Halifax, Nova Scotia. By instituting a policy of discouraging the wearing of cosmetic fragrances in public buildings, the Canadian city has officially recognised the suffering of hundreds of "fragrance-sensitive" citizens.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/24/1095961862863.html?from=storylhs

Smoking in public is also ignoring other people's civil liberties, though it seems that this is only undesirable if the government is doing it.
Bullshit. Just because something may pose a health risk doesn't automatically consitute a breach in one's civil liberties. If this were the case, driving a car would be illegal since lots of traffic can cause health risks via smog. If this were teh case, manufacturing facilities would have to be shut down since potentially dangerous circumstances might, under this logic, mean violating the worker's 'civil liberties'--a term which seems to be growing more conflated and distorted as this conversation progresses.

Some are, some aren't.
Yes, which is why the word "generally" appears. In point of fact, most car accidents are the fault of one or more drivers, which makes the health hazards posed by them largely a construct of human behavior, much like smoking.

You didn't actually answer my point, either. Am I surprised? Not really.

I've been in some pretty smoky bars in my time.
I admit it's a difficult notion for a libertarian to get their head around, but some people actually end up working a job by default rather than by choice.
Bullshit. Who chose to fill out the application? The worker. Might they need the job to survive? Sure, but that doesn't mean it's not still a choice. The only time a choice isn't a choice is when force is involved, and I don't see the restaurant industry hiring goons to drag people off the streets and into their restaurants.

The bulk of the bar workers I've met fit into this category, and I don't think I've ever met somebody who was waiting tables from choice.
Again, this is exasperating logic at best. Right now, I'm not working at Larry's bar on High street. Why? Because I haven't chosen to fill out an application there. Do I need another job? Probably, but I'll be getting it on my terms.

Everyone you've ever met is working their job because they chose to, under a specific set of circumstances. That doesn't mean necessarily that they want to be there, but we all do things we don't want to do.

One: people have been suggesting that tobacco smoke might be harmful for a lot longer than seven years now.
Yes, and until somewhat recently this was limited to harm inflicted upon the individual who is smoking. The idea of secondhand smoke as a health hazard is a relatively new one.

Two: there have been studies elsewhere that haven't been thrown out of court or dismissed as incorrect.
You've already said this three or four times: I understand, believe it or not. I'll say it again because you obviously missed it even though I bolded this passage previously: "Unfortunately, the American Cancer Society, the Heart & Lung Association and a few other agencies still cite that study as their primary source of proof that ETS causes health problems."

Again, if the studies are so overwhelming, the ACS and their ilk could easily cite a new source.

So far, they haven't, although some agencies cite a WHO press release as a secondary source; conveniently ignoring the study itself, which found no link between childhood ETS exposure and lung cancer in adults.

But of course, these are insignificant next to one report being found untrue in a country that's so devoted to the study of science that it lets school boards teach creationism as a fact, or has the oil industries gimps publishing assertions that global warning is a communist plot to make America look bad.
Stunning logic you've got there. Since a group of people have definately got their heads up their asses on some issues, this means we're totally incapable of coming to any conclusions? This part seems more like hostility than logic to me.

Because there isn't any suggestion that the three cases cited are in any way connected, or that one might lead to the others.
Ummm..... if you can't notice the similarities you obviously aren't paying attention, or you're just refusing to read it at all or.... something. Let's examine the basics of the comparison:

Smoking may cause health problems.
Smoking is the product of a certain human behavior.
Therefore, these behaviors are the cause of certain helth risks and should be eliminated.

Perfumes may cause health problems.
The application of perfume is the product of cetain human behavior.
Therefore, these behaviors are the cause of cetain health risks and should be elimated.

The logic is identical.

I am telling you it is happening just like it started with smoking.

There is ample medical proof that fragerences can make people very ill.
There is a new body of evidence that is growing that it can cause someone to develope illnesses as well. Both are arguments used in support of smoking bans.A couple of places in California, USA have also banned fragrances in some situations. Hilifax, Nova Scotia is discouraging the wearing of fragrances in public because the chemicals in them can make some people ill.

Smoking causes people to get sick and should be banned
Perfume causes people to get sick and should be banned
All things that can cause people to get sick should be banned.

Did I do that right?


There's trouble in the air

Cities in North America are banning artificial fragrances in public places as evidence mounts that they make people sick. Hugh Wilson investigates

Saturday September 18, 2004
The Guardian


Every perfumier's nightmare has become reality in Halifax, Nova Scotia. By instituting a policy of "no scents makes good sense", discouraging the wearing of cosmetic fragrances in municipal offices, libraries, hospitals, classrooms, courts and buses, the Canadian city has given official recognition to the suffering of hundreds of "fragrance-sensitive" citizens.
http://society.guardian.co.uk/publichealth/story/0,11098,1307367,00.html

Cities move to ban the pong
By Hugh Wilson
September 25, 2004

Every perfumer's nightmare has become reality in Halifax, Nova Scotia. By instituting a policy of discouraging the wearing of cosmetic fragrances in public buildings, the Canadian city has officially recognised the suffering of hundreds of "fragrance-sensitive" citizens.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/24/1095961862863.html?from=storylhs
Fair enough, but is there a connection between the two?
Come to that, is smoking in public illegal anywhere in the 'States besides Boulder?

Fair enough, but is there a connection between the two?
Come to that, is smoking in public illegal anywhere in the 'States besides Boulder?
It's illegal in my city for one thing, and I know that it's illegal in NYC too; they started it actually. I'm not sure where else this is law yet but it will catch on in most states and will likely be swiftly repealed in most cases. It's already going to be on the ballot again in my city, and I plan on voting it down.

It's illegal in my city for one thing, and I know that it's illegal in NYC too; they started it actually. I'm not sure where else this is law yet but it will catch on in most states and will likely be swiftly repealed in most cases. It's already going to be on the ballot again in my city, and I plan on voting it down.
Good luck, then.

Yes lets ban smoking altogheter, even outside.

Good, and how does the smoke linger on a public street? I don't blow my smoke in people's faces (Unless I don't like them that is:p ), and most other smokers dont.

I didn't say you did, but I have repeatedly walked through clouds of smoke. It does linger.

Zaxon, I honestly think this thread was about the fact that this is going through the British parliament at the moment.


Then it's none of my concern. :) You guys hash it out over there.

I particuarly think smoking in restaurants is downright rude and selfish because tobacco smoke can ruin a good meal - half of the taste in food comes from the ability to smell it and smoke ruins that.

Yep, rude and selfish. Of course, neither rudeness or selfishness are against the law.


If you are so badly addicted and are that weak of will

Ah yes, because no one smokes unless they have a weak will and are badly addicted?

that you can't resist the hour or so it takes to eat a meal without having a cigarette then you should piss off and smoke in some place away from everyone else. Smoking in restaurants is just like talking to someone on a mobile phone during a movie.

In other words, you think it's rude and selfish. Fair enough. But we can't go around banning things just because it's 'rude.' Free speech! is rude!

Unfortunately, most people who want to ban smoking are NOT concerned about people who work at a place, who can't get a job elsewhere, who have to breathe in smoke every day at work. And I find that excuse a little silly, if you can't handle smoke, why apply for a job where you know you'll encounter smoke? If you can't handle the job, you should look for another job. It's like people who lie down in the street and complain cuz they got run over.

Then it's none of my concern. :) You guys hash it out over there.
I don't honestly have a problem with it. I'm just fed up of smokers making out it's a terrible form of oppresion along the lines of selling their daughters to white slavers.
If it gets them out of the house, the girls will probably be glad for some fresh air...

I don't honestly have a problem with it. I'm just fed up of smokers making out it's a terrible form of oppresion along the lines of selling their daughters to white slavers.
If it gets them out of the house, the girls will probably be glad for some fresh air...

Well, you know my stance--if it's in a private establishment, where the owner has determined that people can smoke, or on the smoker's own property, then they can puff away to their heart's content.

Once they get to something that actually is public (government/people owned and operated), then they would have to somehow contain the smoke, until they garnered the permission of the people in the same area.

Well, you know my stance--if it's in a private establishment, where the owner has determined that people can smoke, or on the smoker's own property, then they can puff away to their heart's content.

Once they get to something that actually is public (government/people owned and operated), then they would have to somehow contain the smoke, until they garnered the permission of the people in the same area.
Pubs and restaurants may be privately owned, but they're open to the public. Unless it's invite only (and the law won'\t cover private clubs if it goes through) then it strikes me as fair enough.

Fair enough, but is there a connection between the two?
Come to that, is smoking in public illegal anywhere in the 'States besides Boulder?

The connection to me is clear.
Smoking can make you sick
Smelling perfume can make you sick

In the state of California, outdoor smoking is banned within 20 feet of all public building entrances, exits, "operable windows," and air intakes. This applies to all public and state-owned buildings, including all buildings part of such large entities as the 10-campus University of California system, the 23-campus California State University system, and the 109-campus California Community Colleges system. Many California public universities take tougher stances than the statewide required minimum, either by extending no-smoking zones past 20 feet or severely restricting outdoor smoking to specific areas, such as California State University, Fresno, which prohibits all indoor and outdoor smoking on its campus except for in several designated outdoor zones.

Smoking is prohibited within 25 feet of playgrounds, sandboxes, or "tot-lots" throughout the state of California.

Solana Beach, California, a small coastal town in North San Diego County, California enacted a total ban (with no designated smoking areas) on smoking on its beaches in 2003, the first community to have done so in the Continental United States. Many other coastal communities in California have since enacted similar bans, although policies regarding the scope and enforcement of such laws vary. Other coastal California cities and communities with beach-smoking bans include Capitola, Carpinteria, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Newport Beach, San Clemente, Santa Cruz, and Santa Monica.

Some beaches in Sydney, Australia have smoking bans in place.
In the Australian state of Queensland, smoking is prohibited within four metres of entrances to public buildings, near playgrounds, outdoor areas where food is served, and at all major sports stadiums.

In 2004 San Francisco, California approved one of the strictest outdoor-smoking bans in the world to-date, prohibiting smoking in all city-owned parks and plazas as well as public sports facilities. Other smaller California cities have outdoor bans in city-owned places but none is as far-reaching as the new San Francisco policy, which came into effect June 1, 2005.

Cities such as Davis, California and Berkeley, California ban all outdoor smoking at outdoor restaurants and food venues.

Edmonton, Alberta banned all outdoor patio smoking at bars, restaurants and casinos on July 1, 2005.

Selected wards in Tokyo, Japan prohibit smoking on the streets. This ban is enforced and violators are fined.

There are about 150 other laws in the US that restricts or bans smoking in outdoor public places.

Regards,

JMayo

Pubs and restaurants may be privately owned, but they're open to the public. Unless it's invite only (and the law won'\t cover private clubs if it goes through) then it strikes me as fair enough.

Can pub owners and restaurants over there remove a person from the premises at any time for any reason? If so, then it's private property, and not public. If not, well....then I dunno....that would just be screwed up in my book.

Just because someone can walk in, doesn't make it public. It's all about property and ownership.

Pubs and restaurants may be privately owned, but they're open to the public. Unless it's invite only (and the law won'\t cover private clubs if it goes through) then it strikes me as fair enough.

So your saying that if I open a private membership only club that serves drinks and food, I am going to be allowed to let my patrons smoke?
I am sorry but I don't believe that will be allowed for long



Regards,

JMayo

So your saying that if I open a private membership only club that serves drinks and food, I am going to be allowed to let my patrons smoke?
I am sorry but I don't believe that will be allowed for long



Regards,

JMayo
Yes, there are dozens of private members clubs that serve drinks and food over here. It's a Georgian thing.

Yes, there are dozens of private members clubs that serve drinks and food over here. It's a Georgian thing.

We have them over here as well it is the smoking that is the problem.
One of the arguments here and in the UK law "to protect workers"
Private clubs need works as well.
Like here private clubs will not be allowed to having smoking either.

Regards,

JMayo

We have them over here as well it is the smoking that is the problem.
One of the arguments here and in the UK law "to protect workers"
Private clubs need works as well.
Like here private clubs will not be allowed to having smoking either.

Regards,

JMayo
They're not covered by the pending law and they're patronised by rich twats who think they can do what they want. The government is unlikely to go messing.

They're not covered by the pending law and they're patronised by rich twats who think they can do what they want. The government is unlikely to go messing.

That is what we thought here as well. Anti Smokers are rabid and generally unwilling to compromise.
All the while they tell smokers to stop whining, they are the ones whining the loudest.
I don't smoke by the way. But I am against legislating behavior in this manner.

Regards,

JMayo

That is what we thought here as well. Anti Smokers are rabid and generally unwilling to compromise.
All the while they tell smokers to stop whining, they are the ones whining the loudest.
I don't smoke by the way. But I am against legislating behavior in this manner.

Regards,

JMayo
Right. There have been absolutely no smokers whining about smoking in pubs possibly being banned in a different country in theis thread.

Right. There have been absolutely no smokers whining about smoking in pubs possibly being banned in a different country in theis thread.

Ok both sides are whining.
But I have far greater sympathy for the other side.
I remember when smokers thought all this would amount to was a few people whining. Things change but the anti-smoking movement is a tyrannical effort, there is no compromise.

Regards,

JMayo

Ok both sides are whining.
But I have far greater sympathy for the other side.
I remember when smokers thought all this would amount to was a few people whining. Things change but the anti-smoking movement is a tyrannical effort, there is no compromise.

Regards,

JMayo
What, because it isn't just a few people whining? If something isn't totally ineffectual it's a tyranny?

Oh yeah, ban smoking, that's a great plan...because prohibition has worked soooo well in the past...

Private businesses should get to decide for themselves if they want to allow smoking/drinking/drug use. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

Oh yeah, ban smoking, that's a great plan...because prohibition has worked soooo well in the past...
Smoking isn't being banned. It's just being made more difficult to blow smoke over somebody else in a public place of an evening. Do try to pay attention.

Smoking isn't being banned. It's just being made more difficult to blow smoke over somebody else in a public place of an evening. Do try to pay attention.
Wow, you totally couldn't be bothered to read more than one sentence of my post, could you? :)

What, because it isn't just a few people whining? If something isn't totally ineffectual it's a tyranny?

Choice is the answer to the problem. You and I should be able to go to smoke free bars and restaurants and smokers should be able to go to smoking establishments.
The fact the non-smoking establishment is unwilling to even talk about choice proves it is tyranny.

Regards,

JMayo