NationStates Jolt Archive

What about the rights of smokers?

The government are quite willing to take the millions of pounds of tax they weedle out of us every year but we have to hide like children to persue our habit...seems like we are being treated like second class citizens and it really pisses me off

I tell you what...since we are no longer allowed to smoke indoors from 1st of july in england (everywhere else its already in place) then in the summer all outdoor space should be reseved for smokers...and the non smokers can sit inside and get hot and bothered in a smoke free environment...

the world is full of gas guzzling cars...industrial waste and untold amounts of man made pollution probably killing us as we speak...yet when someone wants to spark up a cigarette all the leftys are up in arms...well ive had enough

Its my fucking body and if I want to put smoke into my lungs then I have a right to do so...

Its my fucking body and if I want to put smoke into my lungs then I have a right to do so...

How about my right to not have your smoke in my lungs?

In my opinion, you should be free to smoke in any private building or place that will allow it, but not in public places. Your rights end where mine begin.

You don't have the right to put smoke into the bodies of those around you, which is the entire point of the smoking ban. Now get down off that cross.

What about the rights of smokers?

What about it? I don't really care about such a minor, minor, insignificant "right".

Smoke all you want to, just don't breach the rights of non-smokers.

And go find a proper cause to spend your energy one, one less silly than "The right to increase my own risks of poor health and cancer".

Please.

How about my right to not have your smoke in my lungs?

How about the right of private property owners to do what they want with their property? If I own a house in the countryside, for example, and both me and my wife smoke, I think we should be able to smoke inside if we want. It harms no-one but ourselves if we do. If we invite someone over, and they dislike our smoking habits, they can politely ask us to stop, and if we refuse, well, hey - they can leave. Similar bans have been passed in the US for bars and restaurants, which I think is stupid. If a privately owned restaurant or bar wants to allow smoking within its building, I see no reason why shouldn't be allowed to, and if the non-smokers out there don't like it, they can take their business elsewhere.

I completely agree with the restriction of smoking in public areas. You are right, in that many people don't wish to breath in second-hand smoke. But in private areas, restriction of smoking by anyone other than the owner is a restriction of civil liberties (property owner's rights), and sets a horrible precedent for what else homeowners can do even in their own homes.

you go out of your front door and the toxins you breathe from the traffic is doing far more harm folks...

and last time I looked...smoking is legal in the UK? then why do I feel like a criminal every time I light up?

If they dont want us to smoke...instead of telling us when and where to smoke...just ban it

but they wont do that will they? because the economy would probably collapse without our money!

How about the right of private property owners to do what they want with their property? If I own a house in the countryside, for example, and both me and my wife smoke, I think we should be able to smoke inside if we want. It harms no-one but ourselves if we do. If we invite someone over, and they dislike our smoking habits, they can politely ask us to stop, and if we refuse, well, hey - they can leave. Similar bans have been passed in the US for bars and restaurants, which I think is stupid. If a privately owned restaurant or bar wants to allow smoking within its building, I see no reason why shouldn't be allowed to, and if the non-smokers out there don't like it, they can take their business elsewhere.

I completely agree with the restriction of smoking in public areas. You are right, in that many people don't wish to breath in second-hand smoke. But in private areas, restriction of smoking by anyone other than the owner is a restriction of civil liberties (property owner's rights), and sets a horrible precedent for what else homeowners can do even in their own homes.

That's just about what I meant, just make sure that all smoking bars/restaurants have giant signs proclaiming the fact.

what I'm more annoyed about is that on July 1st you will have to leave the premises to smoke, which would destroy not only smoking areas whether they be rooms or some wall but also any chance of having a return of the smoking room:(

You don't have the right to put smoke into the bodies of those around you, which is the entire point of the smoking ban. Now get down off that cross.

No, stay on that cross, OP.

This ban is ridiculous. The government has no right to set the policies of privately-owned businesses. If you don't want smoke put into your body, then don't walk into that establishment. It's really that simple.

you go out of your front door and the toxins you breathe from the traffic is doing far more harm folks...

Source?

and last time I looked...smoking is legal in the UK? then why do I feel like a criminal every time I light up?

Because making other people breath your smoke is inconsiderate. Besides, just because something is legal doesn't mean it's free from criticism. I support the right of racists to be stupid bigots but that doesn't mean I can't look down on them or laugh at their idiocy.

If they dont want us to smoke...instead of telling us when and where to smoke...just ban it

I don't care if you want to fill your lungs and arteries with filth, just don't force me to do the same.

but they wont do that will they? because the economy would probably collapse without our money!

Hyperbole.

That's just about what I meant, just make sure that all smoking bars/restaurants have giant signs proclaiming the fact.

Obviously; I felt it was a simple enough regulation that it didn't need to be stated explicitly. Then again, arguing on the internet....

Why should a minority group be allowed to pursue a hobby/pastime/addiction in a public place where it will negatively affect the majority?

What's that? They shouldn't? Damn right.

You're also forgetting the rights and health of the people who work in those establishments. It's one thing if you sit through dinner in a smoking section. It's another entirely if you spend a few hours in it every day.

All that aside, it's funny how the same arguments and annoyances crop up every time this law expands to a new state/country/area. The smokers piss and moan, but after a few months and people get used to it, everything is fine, and no one seems to mind anymore.

Obviously; I felt it was a simple enough regulation that it didn't need to be stated explicitly. Then again, arguing on the internet....

I meant to emphasize 'giant', meaning that the signs aren't just those 10 pt white scribbles on the corner of the window pane on the door, but something clearly visible. Visible to customers and potential employees.

That's just about what I meant, just make sure that all smoking bars/restaurants have giant signs proclaiming the fact.


exactly!

Why not have bars that dont serve food...have the right to decide whether they can be a 'smokers bar' then everyone would be happy...the non smokers dont have to go in...the smokers get a place to come out of the cold...and everyones a winner...but no...thats not good enough for the lobbyists

SMOKING IS LEGAL

Until someone tells me otherwise...alcohol is legal too...but there are obvious restrictions on when and where you can drink...but nowhere near as stringent as the archaic laws that have been passed for smoking...

this isn't george orwells 1984...but this is a classic example of the masses strong arming the few into toeing the line

you go out of your front door and the toxins you breathe from the traffic is doing far more harm folks...
What's your point?

and last time I looked...smoking is legal in the UK? then why do I feel like a criminal every time I light up?
Persecution complex?

If they dont want us to smoke...instead of telling us when and where to smoke...just ban it
Maybe it's because their concern isn't that you're smoking, but that you could be harming other people in doing so.
but they wont do that will they? because the economy would probably collapse without our money!
What's your point?

exactly!

Why not have bars that dont serve food...have the right to decide whether they can be a 'smokers bar' then everyone would be happy...the non smokers dont have to go in...the smokers get a place to come out of the cold...and everyones a winner...but no...thats not good enough for the lobbyists

SMOKING IS LEGAL

Until someone tells me otherwise...alcohol is legal too...but there are obvious restrictions on when and where you can drink...but nowhere near as stringent as the archaic laws that have been passed for smoking...

this isn't george orwells 1984...but this is a classic example of the masses strong arming the few into toeing the line

And why not set up factories where the employers don't have to obey health and safety regulations, or any kind of labour laws?

This ban is ridiculous. The government has no right to set the policies of privately-owned businesses. If you don't want smoke put into your body, then don't walk into that establishment. It's really that simple.
The government doesn't have the right to set the policies of privately-owned businesses? Really?

Ok, we'll just let food manufacturers put whatever the hell they like in our food, shall we? And we'll let pubs et cetera sell alcohol to whoever the hell they like, shall we (yes, including three-year-olds, if they want it)?

And if I don't want to inhale your smoke (I assume you smoke, as you're protesting the ban - correct me if I'm wrong) then why should I not go to my local pub? I shouldn't have to balance the effect on my health compared to the utility (in economic terms) of going for a pint with some friends.

I tell you what...since we are no longer allowed to smoke indoors from 1st of july in england (everywhere else its already in place) then in the summer all outdoor space should be reseved for smokers...and the non smokers can sit inside and get hot and bothered in a smoke free environment...


Until people start complaining that they can't sit outside if they want to because of smokers.

Trust me..it's going to get a lot worse (I predict it will become illegal to smoke outside of your home where people can see you)so I would enjoy now what you still have.

You're also forgetting the rights and health of the people who work in those establishments. It's one thing if you sit through dinner in a smoking section. It's another entirely if you spend a few hours in it every day.

All that aside, it's funny how the same arguments and annoyances crop up every time this law expands to a new state/country/area. The smokers piss and moan, but after a few months and people get used to it, everything is fine, and no one seems to mind anymore.

Its bigger than a smoking issue don't you see? Its the rescindance of my rights as a human being...first smoking...then what next? its opening a floodgate that could escolate into many things the majority disapprove of...or feel that its in the best interest of the public to ban...im so angry

What about the rights of smokers?

The government are quite willing to take the millions of pounds of tax they weedle out of us every year but we have to hide like children to persue our habit...seems like we are being treated like second class citizens and it really pisses me off

I tell you what...since we are no longer allowed to smoke indoors from 1st of july in england (everywhere else its already in place) then in the summer all outdoor space should be reseved for smokers...and the non smokers can sit inside and get hot and bothered in a smoke free environment...

the world is full of gas guzzling cars...industrial waste and untold amounts of man made pollution probably killing us as we speak...yet when someone wants to spark up a cigarette all the leftys are up in arms...well ive had enough

Its my fucking body and if I want to put smoke into my lungs then I have a right to do so...


yeah but the thing is ur not gonna live long enought to be killed by these other hazards
cars there causin global warmin thats not gonna kill ya in a few years is it it takes ages

Ya tit

You're also forgetting the rights and health of the people who work in those establishments. It's one thing if you sit through dinner in a smoking section. It's another entirely if you spend a few hours in it every day.

Yeah, this is the bit I have trouble with: on the one hand, I think that if the owner of a building wants to allow smoking then that's their business; but on the other I think that employers have a duty to provide a safe working enviroment for their employees, so being obliged to keep the building smoke-free should be equivalent to being obliged to keep it free of asbestos.

Like I say, I'm not really sure where I stand on the law, but I do think smoking should be banned in all public places.

exactly!

Why not have bars that don't serve food...have the right to decide whether they can be a 'smokers bar' then everyone would be happy...the non smokers don't have to go in...

This is all good

But the 'smoking'/'nonsmoking' SECTIONS never works... because it's the same air. So a restaurant has to be either a smoke house or smoke-free. No in-between.

And why not set up factories where the employers don't have to obey health and safety regulations, or any kind of labour laws?

Because people need jobs to make a living. No one needs to go to a restaurant or a shopping mall.

Its bigger than a smoking issue don't you see? Its the rescindance of my rights as a human being...first smoking...then what next? its opening a floodgate that could escolate into many things the majority disapprove of...or feel that its in the best interest of the public to ban...im so angry

Eh, no. It's about protecting the rights of workers in bars and restaurants and the like. Really, someone needs to do an study and find out if this persecution complex thing is actually caused by being a smoker, or if it's just a coincidence.

Its bigger than a smoking issue don't you see? Its the rescindance of my rights as a human being...first smoking...then what next? its opening a floodgate that could escolate into many things the majority disapprove of...or feel that its in the best interest of the public to ban...im so angry

Not being allowed to clog the lungs of other people with your foul smoke is not an attack on your humans rights.Is this really so hard to understand?

Because people need jobs to make a living. No one needs to go to a restaurant or a shopping mall.

Very good point made there. For the work places, no smoking. Same with schools, hospitals, the general outdoor area, etc.

Because people need jobs to make a living. No one needs to go to a restaurant or a shopping mall.

You have restaurants and shopping malls without people working in them? Are they actually open or do you go there after-hours or something?

Because people need jobs to make a living. No one needs to go to a restaurant or a shopping mall.

Quite right. And no one NEEDS to smoke in the hour or three they are in a resturant.

Its bigger than a smoking issue don't you see? Its the rescindance of my rights as a human being...first smoking...then what next? its opening a floodgate that could escolate into many things the majority disapprove of...or feel that its in the best interest of the public to ban...im so angry

I see your point here, but I haven't seen your fears come to fruition. This law has been around for years in some places, and nothing else has come from it. I'm also trying to think of another legal activity that one can engage in by choice, but the product of which harms those around them. Maybe I'm thinking too pragmatically, but nothing is coming.

Why not have bars that dont serve food...have the right to decide whether they can be a 'smokers bar' then everyone would be happy...the non smokers dont have to go in...the smokers get a place to come out of the cold...and everyones a winner...but no...thats not good enough for the lobbyists
Lack of space - if I owned a pub and served food in it, I wouldn't want to only let half the maximum capacity of the pub eat my food, would I? Logically, that restricts my possible takings from sales of food by 50% - not to mention the drinks that those customers who come for a meal would buy.

SMOKING IS LEGAL

Until someone tells me otherwise...alcohol is legal too...but there are obvious restrictions on when and where you can drink...but nowhere near as stringent as the archaic laws that have been passed for smoking...
Yes, both smoking and drinking are legal. However, there are very strict restrictions on where I can drink. I can't drink in any shops. I can't drink in the street (around where I live there's an automatic £50 fine for "street drinking" (not that I've ever even tried to drink a street...). I can drink in a private home, or in a licensed premises. That's pretty much it. I can smoke in the street, and, in case you hadn't noticed, the outside is bigger than the inside.

No one is restricting you from smoking outside, or in the comfort of your home.

Its bigger than a smoking issue don't you see? Its the rescindance of my rights as a human being...first smoking...then what next? <snip>

Sorry, but that's a seriously flawed stance to take.

It's no more a rescindence of your "rights as a human being" than the lack of a "right" to assault a random fellow citizen.

Longhaul; smoker (in fact, smoking); Scottish; amused to see yet another nation's smokers waking up to the fact that they're going to have to change their habits a little.

It's really not that bad a thing, trust me on this.

Quite right. And no one NEEDS to smoke in the hour or three they are in a resturant.

And yet, you don't have the right to dictate whether or not the owner of a private business can allow them to smoke in his establishment.

You have restaurants and shopping malls without people working in them? Are they actually open or do you go there after-hours or something?
This is a valid point. If one stands for worker protection laws, then how can one oppose a smoking ban in this context? Taking that point into consideration, I might actually support this ban. However, I sustain my points about customer and business rights.

This is all good

But the 'smoking'/'nonsmoking' SECTIONS never works... because it's the same air. So a restaurant has to be either a smoke house or smoke-free. No in-between.


thankyou...a voice of reason...

look...alcohol is a drug...smoking is a drug...people dont storm into pubs/bars and ask them to shut down because they are tempting people to drink with there buy on get one free offers...drinkers have a comfortable environment to drink...why should smokers be forced out onto the street?

smoking bars are an ideal solution...advertise the jobs in the aforementioned as smoking bar vacancies...that way potential employees know what they are applying for before they apply...that way if you are a non smoker or indifferent you can make your own mind up about whether to work there or not...and thats the real issue isnt it...the freedom to choose...we as smokers have had the privilige taken away from us...I emphasise again that smoking is legal...we are not heroin users comitting crime to fund our addiction...we have rights just like non smokers...you dont want to breathe our smoke then dont frequent the same bars...I chose to smoke despite the known health risks...but I am a law abiding citizen and demand that I am treated with a little more respect

thankyou...a voice of reason...
Not the only one in this thread. You've just chosen to ignore the ones that don't agree with you.

<snip>
people dont storm into pubs/bars and ask them to shut down because they are tempting people to drink with there buy on get one free offers...

Actually, they don't need to in some parts of the UK. In South Ayrshire licensed premises are not allowed to change their tariffs to run "happy hours" or buy-one-get-one-free offers, and any ridiculously-priced promotions seen to be encouraging binging are subjected to extreme scrutiny and can lead to problems when those premises attempt to renew their liquor license.

As for demanding respect, it strikes me as being more than a little hypocritical to be demanding that which you are so hellbent on denying non-smokers.

No one is restricting you from smoking outside, or in the comfort of your home.

Actually, as I understood it, the restriction applied to all indoor areas. So no, you can't smoke in the comfort of your own home, and that's what really bothers me. As for the working conditions argument, that is a valid one. Although almost every bar and restaurant employee I've known (and there have been quite a few) have smoked. Every break they get, there goes another cigarette. Plus, if you really don't like the smoke? Find somewhere else to work. I'm sure someone bright enough to not smoke should be able to find a job at a non-smoking restaurant.

Not the only one in this thread. You've just chosen to ignore the ones that don't agree with you.


the 'ones' you refer to have a very bias view...I have not always been a smoker...I gave up for 4 years in fact...even if I was a non smoker at this point I would be horrified at how the smoking public have been forced onto the pavement for partaking in a habit that as little as 30 years ago was not only tolerated but encouraged

How honestly can they enforce it in your home? Smoking police knocking at every door to see if you've any ashtrays?

And I thought US restrictions were strict!

http://www.thesite.org/drinkanddrugs/drugsafety/smoking/smokingban

According to this, no place that is considered a residence is banned.

look...alcohol is a drug...smoking is a drug...people dont storm into pubs/bars and ask them to shut down because they are tempting people to drink with there buy on get one free offers...drinkers have a comfortable environment to drink...why should smokers be forced out onto the street?
Because, as has been stated many many times, smoking harms other people. Drinking doesn't (well, getting drunk and attacking someone does, but that's a different issue).

look...alcohol is a drug...smoking is a drug...people dont storm into pubs/bars and ask them to shut down because they are tempting people to drink with there buy on get one free offers...drinkers have a comfortable environment to drink...why should smokers be forced out onto the street?

This has to qualify as one of the stupidest arguments ever, congratulations.

"Hitler was a national leader, Churchill was a national leader. If Churchill's honoured then why shouldn't Hitler be honoured?"

Your logic (if I can call it that) seems to be:

P1. X has quality Q.
P2. Y also has quality Q.
P3. Y is allowed in public places.
C. Therefore X should be allowed in public places.

Honestly, if you could only drink alcohol by forcing everyone else within a five metre radius to drink it as well then it'd be banned.

Actually, as I understood it, the restriction applied to all indoor areas. So no, you can't smoke in the comfort of your own home

actually thats wrong...the ban encompasses enclosed public spaces...you can still smoke in your home

Not the only one in this thread. You've just chosen to ignore the ones that don't agree with you.

Quoted For Truth.

This has to qualify as one of the stupidest arguments ever, congratulations.

"Hitler was a national leader, Churchill was a national leader. If Churchill's honoured then why shouldn't Hitler be honoured?"

Your logic (if I can call it that) seems to be:

P1. X has quality Q.
P2. Y also has quality Q.
P3. Y is allowed in public places.
C. Therefore X should be allowed in public places.

Honestly, if you could only drink alcohol by forcing everyone else within a five metre radius to drink it as well then it'd be banned.

If my arguement is stupid...then your comparison beggars belief...

Actually, as I understood it, the restriction applied to all indoor areas. So no, you can't smoke in the comfort of your own home, and that's what really bothers me. As for the working conditions argument, that is a valid one. Although almost every bar and restaurant employee I've known (and there have been quite a few) have smoked. Every break they get, there goes another cigarette. Plus, if you really don't like the smoke? Find somewhere else to work. I'm sure someone bright enough to not smoke should be able to find a job at a non-smoking restaurant.

How honestly can they enforce it in your home? Smoking police knocking at every door to see if you've any ashtrays?

And I thought US restrictions were strict!

Where will smoking be banned?

Smoking in all indoor public places will be banned. Many places - such as cinemas and public transport - have rarely permitted smoking in recent years, and so it will be places like pubs, restaurants, nightclubs and private members' clubs that feel the biggest impact of the ban.

Where will you be able to smoke?

You'll still be allowed to light up outdoors, in the home or places considered to be 'homes', such as prisons, care homes and hotels.

Smoking could still be banned at certain outdoor locations that are 'substantially enclosed', such as football grounds and railway platforms. No decision has yet been made on smoking inside cars carrying passengers.

link (http://www.thesite.org/drinkanddrugs/drugsafety/smoking/smokingban)

If my arguement is stupid...then your comparison beggars belief...

My comparison was meant to demonstrate how ridiculous your 'logic' was. Apparently it worked.

the 'ones' you refer to have a very bias view...I have not always been a smoker...I gave up for 4 years in fact...even if I was a non smoker at this point I would be horrified at how the smoking public have been forced onto the pavement for partaking in a habit that as little as 30 years ago was not only tolerated but encouraged
So it's biased. And? It doesn't make it any less valid.

Just because it was encouraged a few decades ago doesn't have any bearing on the argument now, mainly because of the overwhelming medical evidence that smoking really isn't very good for you. It's kinda like if it were discovered tomorrow that drinking tea gives you AIDS then arguing in 30 years time "but tea-drinking was encouraged 30 years ago" when they try to ban tea-drinking.

actually thats wrong...the ban encompasses enclosed public spaces...you can still smoke in your home

Ah. In that case, I stand corrected. In that case, I have little problem with the ban. I'd still like to see private businesses have the option to allow smoking on their premises, but that's not likely to happen.

My comparison was meant to demonstrate how ridiculous your 'logic' was. Apparently it worked.

It may be as a non smoker ridiculous to you...but if suddenly the goverment told you that you couldn't go indoors to play say monopoly...you might be an avid fan of the game...you might not play very much at all...but you would still feel like your rights to play monopoly had been encroached...a ridiculous comparison you say?

try being a smoker

It may be as a non smoker ridiculous to you...but if suddenly the goverment told you that you couldn't go indoors to play say monopoly...you might be an avid fan of the game...you might not play very much at all...but you would still feel like your rights to play monopoly had been encroached...a ridiculous comparison you say?

try being a smoker
Still not a valid comparison. Playing Monopoly doesn't negatively affect the health of those around you...unless you get into fights about it.



I totally swear I have posted an almost identical thing before in a different thread about smoking. :confused:

What about the rights of smokers? Oh one of these...hahahahaha...right.

Melkor did it better.

That's right smokers...hide in dingy alleys with the heroin addicts! MUAHAHHAAHA!

It may be as a non smoker ridiculous to you...but if suddenly the goverment told you that you couldn't go indoors to play say monopoly...you might be an avid fan of the game...you might not play very much at all...but you would still feel like your rights to play monopoly had been encroached...a ridiculous comparison you say?

try being a smoker

Monopoly doesn't pose a health risk to the people around the monopoly players.

Your comparison lacks function.

Oh one of these...hahahahaha...right.

Melkor did it better.

That's right smokers...hide in dingy alleys with the heroin addicts! MUAHAHHAAHA!

Does this mean that people will take to prostitution in order to fund their smoking addiction? Cos those needle marks are such a turn off.

Though I can't imagine the smell of smoke would be any better.

What about the rights of smokers?

The government are quite willing to take the millions of pounds of tax they weedle out of us every year but we have to hide like children to persue our habit...seems like we are being treated like second class citizens and it really pisses me off

I tell you what...since we are no longer allowed to smoke indoors from 1st of july in england (everywhere else its already in place) then in the summer all outdoor space should be reseved for smokers...and the non smokers can sit inside and get hot and bothered in a smoke free environment...

the world is full of gas guzzling cars...industrial waste and untold amounts of man made pollution probably killing us as we speak...yet when someone wants to spark up a cigarette all the leftys are up in arms...well ive had enough

Its my fucking body and if I want to put smoke into my lungs then I have a right to do so...
Let's have a look at all the rights in the UK:

*Searches through Magna Carta*
*Searches through English Bill of Rights*
*Searches Human Convention on Human Rights*

*Doesn't find anything to do with smoking*

(Or, incidentally, Immigration, Political Correctness, Sharia Law, or everything else the foaming at the mouth right-wingers likes to lay on the Convention...)

It may be as a non smoker ridiculous to you...but if suddenly the goverment told you that you couldn't go indoors to play say monopoly...you might be an avid fan of the game...you might not play very much at all...but you would still feel like your rights to play monopoly had been encroached...a ridiculous comparison you say?

try being a smoker

How many times does this have to be explained to you? The problem with smoking is that it harms others and infringes on their rights, ok? You're free to play Monopoly but you can't force other people to join in; in the same way, you can smoke in private but you have no right to make other people breath your smoke.

Monopoly doesn't pose a health risk to the people around the monopoly players.

Your comparison lacks function.

fuck the health risks...im just giving you an example of your rights being taken away...

fuck the health risks...im just giving you an example of your rights being taken away...

As has been pointed out already: your rights end where mine begin.

fuck the health risks...im just giving you an example of your rights being taken away...

The health risks to other people are the whole reason behind the smoking ban.

How many times does this have to be explained to you? The problem with smoking is that it harms others and infringes on their rights, ok? You're free to play Monopoly but you can't force other people to join in; in the same way, you can smoke in private but you have no right to make other people breath your smoke.

as I have explained in previous posts...which I will reiterate...if there were smoking bars and no smoking bars it would give people the feedom to choose...my freedom to chose has been taken out of my hands...the health risks are there to see...undeniable...but if smoking is such a cancerous growth on society...dont just whittle away our rights...ban it...simple as that

the government wont ban it because they are scared of the repercussions...so this is a cop out slap on the wrist which will hopefully placate the lobbyists while still keeping the tax money coming in from those who like to smoke

fuck the health risks...im just giving you an example of your rights being taken away...

Competing rights. It's not a difficult concept. You have a right to free speech. I have a right to not have my reputation ruined by your false speech. Two rights, bumping up against one another. So, your right to say spurious, damaging things about me is limited.

You have a right to inhale carcinogenic, addictive substances. I have a right to not be gratuitously exposed to cancer via said substances...let's say that right is couched in the right to life. Curtailing your right does not pose a further risk to life in you...but giving you free reign DOES pose a risk to my life.

Now, if you, as Melkor always did, are going to bring up the terrible emissions from automobiles, and say, 'well if they don't ban that they shouldn't restrict smoking'...I disagree. Yes, there should be heavy, stringent restrictions on automobile emissions. But we don't need to wait for that to happen in order to exercise what damage control IS possible in regards to OTHER harmful emissions.

fuck the health risks...im just giving you an example of your rights being taken away...
So, you admit that your analogy is incorrect.

as I have explained in previous posts...which I will reiterate...if there were smoking bars and no smoking bars it would give people the feedom to choose...my freedom to chose has been taken out of my hands...the health risks are there to see...undeniable...but if smoking is such a cancerous growth on society...dont just whittle away our rights...ban it...simple as that
So, how would you choose which bars are and aren't smoking and non smoking?

How about my right to not have your smoke in my lungs?

And also, that's the drug talking, not you. I'm glad the UK is doing something about smokers. One step at a time. Eventually cars will not be spewing fumes anymore.

Competing rights. It's not a difficult concept. You have a right to free speech. I have a right to not have my reputation ruined by your false speech. Two rights, bumping up against one another. So, your right to say spurious, damaging things about me is limited.

You have a right to inhale carcinogenic, addictive substances. I have a right to not be gratuitously exposed to cancer via said substances...let's say that right is couched in the right to life. Curtailing your right does not pose a further risk to life in you...but giving you free reign DOES pose a risk to my life.

Now, if you, as Melkor always did, are going to bring up the terrible emissions from automobiles, and say, 'well if they don't ban that they shouldn't restrict smoking'...I disagree. Yes, there should be heavy, stringent restrictions on automobile emissions. But we don't need to wait for that to happen in order to exercise what damage control IS possible in regards to OTHER harmful emissions.

I understand yours...and everyone elses views on the passive smoking point...and I genuinely do sympathise...but my point is also relevent...a public place...indoors...where people can smoke...and non smokers can avoid if they so wish...where is the problem with that?

So, how would you choose which bars are and aren't smoking and non smoking?

the owners discretion

Despite being a smoker, and being thoroughly narked that I will no longer be able to smoke in a public place, I must confess the law has more merits than it does flaws. Whilst one does have the right to poison one's own body with any number of substances, these generally do not possess the carcinogenic effects smoke so incontrovertibly does, hence, if one seeks to brandish "ooman rights" as a weapon in the defence of smoking, I rather think it is impossible.

Incidentally, I make a point of hating every demonstrator, half-baked political radical or general ranter who employs their "human rights" as a means by which they can do whatever they want, irrespective of law.

the owners discretion
Because pub and bar owners are going to go for smoking bars, when the vast majority of the adult population are non-smokers...

CYou have a right to inhale carcinogenic, addictive substances. I have a right to not be gratuitously exposed to cancer via said substances...let’s say that right is couched in the right to life. Curtailing your right does not pose a further risk to life in you...but giving you free reign DOES pose a risk to my life.
Yeah Beeker, think of poor Roy Castle... :(

I understand yours...and everyone elses views on the passive smoking point...and I genuinely do sympathise...but my point is also relevent...a public place...indoors...where people can smoke...and non smokers can avoid if they so wish...where is the problem with that?

I'd say my main issue with this is the exposure to staff. Now yes, you could argue, they have a choice not to work in a place that is full of dangerous smoke. However, generally in the West, a worker CAN NOT waive his or her right to safety. Meaning, no, workplaces don't get to decide not to follow safety regulations, and you work there at your own peril. It is recognised that it should not be left up to businesses to decide to protect the health and safety of their workers or not...rather, they MUST. Generally because there is extreme disparity in bargaining power between a company, and an individual worker. Why carve out an exception for smoking establishments?

the owners discretion
So, what 'choice' do I have when all the pubs I live near choose to allow smoking, as they do now? It's all well and good for smokers to wail about how they won't have any choice, but then deny it to others.

So, what 'choice' do I have when all the pubs I live near choose to allow smoking, as they do now? It's all well and good for smokers to wail about how they won't have any choice, but then deny it to others.

hmm.... thats likely to happen? Given that the majority of the population do not smoke, and would presumably appreciate not depreciating their life span any more than necessary on a night out, surely one intelligent publican in such an area would make his pub smoke free?

A smoking ban??? RIDICULOUS!
Quite frankly this is a pitiful mark of how bad politics can become in the world!

What does it matter?? Besides the fact it is my liberty to does as i please with my body, it is quite honestly so pathetic that this is all the government is classing as "reform" today.

This is the politiicisation of the everyday, a pitiful attempt for politicians to engage with people's lives, as they have no other ideas on how to make the coutry a better place.

SO
Try making your country a better place by placing important changes on the country, not "saving people's lungs"

hmm.... thats likely to happen? Given that the majority of the population do not smoke, and would presumably appreciate not depreciating their life span any more than necessary on a night out, surely one intelligent publican in such an area would make his pub smoke free?
I imagine just about every pub would go non-smoking, and then after a short while, some bright spark would make theirs a smoking pub to get the custom of all the smokers in the area.

A smoking ban??? RIDICULOUS!
Quite frankly this is a pitiful mark of how bad politics can become in the world!

What does it matter?? Besides the fact it is my liberty to does as i please with my body, it is quite honestly so pathetic that this is all the government is classing as "reform" today.

Do what you want with your body.

The restriction is on what you can do to the bodies of the people around you.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12701571&postcount=63

I admit that at some points, the smoking bill may be draconian; having no option at all for applying to be a smoking pub or similar seems too harsh to me.

However, when MPs are happily exempting themselves from Freedom of Information, we’re still mired in the occupation of a hell hole and Blair’s away playing Legacy Hunter, trying to avoid both Iraq and cash-for-honours, the smoking ban and the connected ‘human rights’ seem a bit fnord-esque to me.

why is it ok to be legal in homes, but not private businesses? people can still come over your house while you're smoking and be affected, because they choose to. just like people choose to go to private bars where there's smoking...

I'd say my main issue with this is the exposure to staff. Now yes, you could argue, they have a choice not to work in a place that is full of dangerous smoke. However, generally in the West, a worker CAN NOT waive his or her right to safety. Meaning, no, workplaces don't get to decide not to follow safety regulations, and you work there at your own peril. It is recognised that it should not be left up to businesses to decide to protect the health and safety of their workers or not...rather, they MUST. Generally because there is extreme disparity in bargaining power between a company, and an individual worker. Why carve out an exception for smoking establishments?

I think you sum it up nicely :)

I had to repeat this ad nauseum in the last smoking thread that floted around not long ago...

I think you sum it up nicely :)

I had to repeat this ad nauseum in the last smoking thread that floted around not long ago...

Yeah, I'm noticing it's been pretty much ignored by the 'private choice private business' crowd.

Wonder if they'd support deregulating protection for working with asbestos? Or frankly, even exposure to paint fumes on the job?

I imagine just about every pub would go non-smoking, and then after a short while, some bright spark would make theirs a smoking pub to get the custom of all the smokers in the area.

So it amounts to the same conclusion nonetheless; Newer Burmecia's analogy was flawed.

Oh believe me you have my full support to use whatever drugs you want on your own person. The problem is the nature of smoking. Smoke is a gaseous, harmful substance, not easily contained, meaning those near you will also be breathing in amounts of the smoke you choose to inhale.

If they don't want to be inhaling it, then it's your duty to stop smoking in areas where it might force them to be inhaling. As they say, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

hmm.... thats likely to happen? Given that the majority of the population do not smoke, and would presumably appreciate not depreciating their life span any more than necessary on a night out, surely one intelligent publican in such an area would make his pub smoke free?

So it amounts to the same conclusion nonetheless; Newer Burmecia's analogy was flawed.

I wasn't providing an analogy, It was a statement of fact. Publicans, under current law, have the ability to declare their premises smoke free if they wish. Most don't. Where I live, there isn't a single bar that doesn't ban smoking. Therefore, the 'solution' that some pubs shall be smoke free and some won't, and the owner should decide clearly doesn't work.

You're right: it isn't 'likely' to happen, it does happen.

the government wont ban it because they are scared of the repercussions...so this is a cop out slap on the wrist which will hopefully placate the lobbyists while still keeping the tax money coming in from those who like to smoke

Protest it. Don't spend money on smokes so they can't tax you for it. ;)

Yeah, I'm noticing it's been pretty much ignored by the 'private choice private business' crowd.

Wonder if they'd support deregulating protection for working with asbestos? Or frankly, even exposure to paint fumes on the job?
Yeah, work safety and a healthy workplace doesn't seem very important to some of them...

It also surprises me how much some people yell about "my rights" when their rights collide with the rights of others - and some refuse to acknowledge even that - and the excercise of "my rights" is purely for pleasure.

Not to mention unwilling to be curteous and not inflict smoke-related risks upon others...

I'd say my main issue with this is the exposure to staff. Now yes, you could argue, they have a choice not to work in a place that is full of dangerous smoke. However, generally in the West, a worker CAN NOT waive his or her right to safety. Meaning, no, workplaces don't get to decide not to follow safety regulations, and you work there at your own peril. It is recognised that it should not be left up to businesses to decide to protect the health and safety of their workers or not...rather, they MUST. Generally because there is extreme disparity in bargaining power between a company, and an individual worker. Why carve out an exception for smoking establishments?

Health and safety laws arn't really that black and white. Many factory workers have to endure much worse conditions then smokey pubs. If it really is a significant danger to the staff (which I doubt it is), they can wear gas masks.

Health and safety laws arn't really that black and white. Many factory workers have to endure much worse conditions then smokey pubs. If it really is a significant danger to the staff (which I doubt it is), they can wear gas masks.

Oh they are indeed that black and white. It's simply a fact that violations abound.

And your opinion on the level of risk is irrelevant, unless you are a member of an administrative board determining safe levels of exposure.

Second hand smoke is not only dangerous to the lungs, it is harmful to the skin as well. So picture staff in Hazmat suits.

Instead, the government has decided that there is less of a hardship on smokers, requiring them to confine their smoking to their residences, than there would be on staff and non-smoking patrons.

Competing rights.

snip op

GOD DAMN IT YOUR RIGHT!

We need to raise awareness about this terrible injustice.

I know! we should get smokers to hold an event to raise the profile and get media attention.

Let-s all run a MARATHON!

If it really is a significant danger to the staff (which I doubt it is), they can wear gas masks.

...or the smokers can step outside for three to five minutes. Easy. Simple. Less hassle. Places the discomfort on the ones who produce the risks. Cheaper too.

Sometimes, the easiest solution is the best one.

...or the smokers can step outside for three to five minutes. Easy. Simple. Less hassle. Places the discomfort on the ones who produce the risks. Cheaper too.

Sometimes, the easiest solution is the best one.

What a shocking concept! Putting the responsibility on the ones who cause the risk, and coming up with a solution that is the least costly...

My god it's actually...revolutionary!

Oh they are indeed that black and white. It's simply a fact that violations abound.

And your opinion on the level of risk is irrelevant, unless you are a member of an administrative board determining safe levels of exposure.

Second hand smoke is not only dangerous to the lungs, it is harmful to the skin as well. So picture staff in Hazmat suits.

Instead, the government has decided that there is less of a hardship on smokers, requiring them to confine their smoking to their residences, than there would be on staff and non-smoking patrons.

Competing rights.

But I have seen a debate like this before. And there was found to be no evidence of damaging effects to the staffs health in pubs where people smoke.

...or the smokers can step outside for three to five minutes. Easy. Simple. Less hassle. Places the discomfort on the ones who produce the risks. Cheaper too.

Sometimes, the easiest solution is the best one.

No, thats a much more difficult sollution. Not only is it highly contraversial and generally unsupported by the majority of landlords, but it's also a huge annoyance that the government has to decide for you how to meat health and safety regulations. If the pubs can prove that their staff is being protected from second hand smoke, why should the government force the smokers to smoke outside?

But I have seen a debate like this before. And there was found to be no evidence of damaging effects to the staffs health in pubs where people smoke. Really. You saw a debate, and feel qualified now to evaluate all the evidence out there to come to this conclusion. How very nice for you.

Too bad it's not you calling the shots.

No, thats a much more difficult sollution. Not only is it highly contraversial and generally unsupported by the majority of landlords, but it's also a huge annoyance that the government has to decide for you how to meat health and safety regulations. If the pubs can prove that their staff is being protected from second hand smoke, why should the government force the smokers to smoke outside?
The government decides how you meet health and safety regulations ALL THE TIME.

Deal with it.

To all you smokers, wining about the ban: Heres an idea, dont smoke.

The government decides how you meet health and safety regulations ALL THE TIME.


No it doesn't. The government only requires you to meet the regulations and allow your residence to be tested.


Deal with it.

Thats a crappy cop out anyway, "the government is crap, deal with it".

But I have seen a debate like this before. And there was found to be no evidence of damaging effects to the staffs health in pubs where people smoke.
Well, aside from all the other evidence of the effects of passive smoking, the Scottish NHS, for one, disagrees with you (http://www.healthscotland.com/news/news-item/45.aspx).


No, thats a much more difficult sollution. Not only is it highly contraversial and generally unsupported by the majority of landlords, but it's also a huge annoyance that the government has to decide for you how to meat health and safety regulations. If the pubs can prove that their staff is being protected from second hand smoke, why should the government force the smokers to smoke outside?
Just because it's controversial doesn't make it somehow wrong.

To all you smokers, wining about the ban: Heres an idea, dont smoke.

Here's an idea; fuck off.:)

Go and site the soapbox elsewhere. I bet you vote Labour as well.

Here's an idea; fuck off.:)

Go and site the soapbox elsewhere. I bet you vote Labour as well.
And who among here has just proved that they are among the people least qualified to tell someone to "get off their soapbox?"

Well, aside from all the other evidence of the effects of passive smoking, the Scottish NHS, for one, disagrees with you (http://www.healthscotland.com/news/news-item/45.aspx).


I don't care, it's irrellavent to my point tbh.


Just because it's controversial doesn't make it somehow wrong.

It's not about wrong or right. It's about government breaching property rights for their own ends, it's an annoyance that the government has to take your control away from your residence even though it is not needed since there are other ways to protect the health of your staff.

I might add, many jobs are dangerouse to your health and they require you to sign consent forms etc.. why can't the same apply to pubs with smokers in?

I don't care, it's irrellavent to my point tbh.
Well, considering your point was that bar staff aren't effected by second hand smoke, unless you can prove that bar staff either don't breathe while on shift or somehow don't breathe smoke in a smoke filled room, I'd call it relevant.

It's not about wrong or right. It's about government breaching property rights for their own ends, it's an annoyance that the government has to take your control away from your residence even though it is not needed since there are other ways to protect the health of your staff.
And? We have these so-called breaches of 'property rights' all the time to ensure the health and safety of workers in their workplace. When balancing property rights vs. the health of individuals, I'm afraid that health has to come up front. If it's unnecessary, why do so many countries opt for a ban?

I might add, many jobs are dangerouse to your health and they require you to sign consent forms etc.. why can't the same apply to pubs with smokers in?
Prevention is better than form-filling, don't you think?

No it doesn't. The government only requires you to meet the regulations and allow your residence to be tested. Wrong.

Take a look at an electrical code book, for example. The standards are clear and unequivocal. You don't get to choose to comply, or comply according to your particular view of how best to do so. You do it exactly thus, or it is illegal. Yes, you may get away with it...but that doesn't mean that you haven't been told SPECIFICALLY how to comply.

Regulations are LEGAL. They are crafted by administrative boards that have been given their power by legislation.

Now, in certain circumstances, you might have options as to how to comply with a particular standard. Nonetheless, those options are laid out for you, in black and white. You meet the regulations in exactly the manner that is required of you.



Thats a crappy cop out anyway, "the government is crap, deal with it".
The reason there are administrative boards in the first place, is because your average everyday legislator is simply not qualified to craft regulations governing a particular industry. So instead, those that ARE qualified are asked to bring all their research and experience to bear in order to come up with regulatory schemes. Frankly, I have a hell of a lot more confidence in such expertise than in some bloke on the internet 'who saw a debate once'.

It's not about wrong or right. It's about government breaching property rights for their own ends, it's an annoyance that the government has to take your control away from your residence even though it is not needed since there are other ways to protect the health of your staff.

I might add, many jobs are dangerouse to your health and they require you to sign consent forms etc.. why can't the same apply to pubs with smokers in?

Again.

Workers do not get to waive their rights the way you seem to think they can. Jobplaces don't get to decide to compy or not comply. Under most health and regulatory schemes, you as a worker don't have the option of contracting out of your rights...just as your employer can not contract out of his or her responsibilities.

Now unless you propose the complete deregulation of health and safety, across the board, I once again ask...why the fuck should we carve out an exception for smoking?

And who among here has just proved that they are among the people least qualified to tell someone to "get off their soapbox?"

Just? My reputation has taken years to acquire thank you.;)

Well, considering your point was that bar staff aren't effected by second hand smoke, unless you can prove that bar staff either don't breathe while on shift or somehow don't breathe smoke in a smoke filled room, I'd call it relevant.


I said in brackets "(i doubt it)" but I don't really intend to debate this further.


And? We have these so-called breaches of 'property rights' all the time to ensure the health and safety of workers in their workplace.

Again, the breaches don't go beyond what is nescecerry, and they should generally aim to give you as many options as possible. As long as you can meet the standards of health given, why should it matter how you do it?


When balancing property rights vs. the health of individuals, I'm afraid that health has to come up front. If it's unnecessary, why do so many countries opt for a ban?


But it's not at all about balancing property rights vs the health of individuals since in both cases the health of the staff are protected.


Prevention is better than form-filling, don't you think?

Not if the people don't want to be prevented.

Again.

Workers do not get to waive their rights the way you seem to think they can. Jobplaces don't get to decide to compy or not comply. Under most health and regulatory schemes, you as a worker don't have the option of contracting out of your rights...just as your employer can not contract out of his or her responsibilities.

Now unless you propose the complete deregulation of health and safety, across the board, I once again ask...why the fuck should we carve out an exception for smoking?

As opposed to the usual tripe that stops one using a knife unless one has had a weeks training?

Essentially, because it's a known hazard. Just as one can choose to avoid passive smoke by frequenting a different pub, so too an employee can find a job without smoke.

Wrong.

Take a look at an electrical code book, for example. The standards are clear and unequivocal.

If the regulations can only be required through one particular way then there is no other option. However the rules of health and safety for staff are simply standards to be met. Since there are millions of different jobs, the government cannot make a different set of rules for each job, so they make a set of rules that apply to all jobs. If the pub can meet these regulations, why does the government have to interfere?


The reason there are administrative boards in the first place, is because your average everyday legislator is simply not qualified to craft regulations governing a particular industry. So instead, those that ARE qualified are asked to bring all their research and experience to bear in order to come up with regulatory schemes. Frankly, I have a hell of a lot more confidence in such expertise than in some bloke on the internet 'who saw a debate once'.

Whats your point? You havn't show why there can only be one way to meet regulations.

I said in brackets "(i doubt it)" but I don't really intend to debate this further.
Fair enough. It's not really necessary to debate scientific fact all the time.

Again, the breaches don't go beyond what is nescecerry, and they should generally aim to give you as many options as possible. As long as you can meet the standards of health given, why should it matter how you do it?

But it's not at all about balancing property rights vs the health of individuals since in both cases the health of the staff are protected.
How do you propose that the health of staff and clients be protected then?

Not if the people don't want to be prevented.
I would, both when visiting a bar and when (fingers crossed) I get a bar job I've applied for to fill in the time before I go to uni. In any case, since when did health and safety legislation offer exemptions and opt outs? A pub couldn't choose to serve its staff undercooked or dangerous food if it wanted to, even if the staff wanted to be served it. Why should smoke be any different?

Just? My reputation has taken years to acquire thank you.;)
Well, you don't go round blaming Labour for stubbing your toe 'round here and not get noticed.:p

If the regulations can only be required through one particular way then there is no other option. However the rules of health and safety for staff are simply standards to be met. Since there are millions of different jobs, the government cannot make a different set of rules for each job, so they make a set of rules that apply to all jobs. If the pub can meet these regulations, why does the government have to interfere? I just explained to you why you are wrong. The government can not make a different set of rules for each job. Obviously. So they legislate that power to administrative boards which create regulations specific to different occupations. Nice try though. Though entering a debate with some background information might help next time.



Whats your point? You havn't show why there can only be one way to meet regulations.

Do your own homework. I've pointed you to a resource, the electrical code book. It is extremely specific. You must meet regulations in exactly the manner described. Now every once in a while there might be some leeway, depending on circumstances...you have options. Those are regulated options...you choose from a list...you don't just make it up as you go.

So my point is what it has always been. Health and saffety regulations are mandatory and set by the government already. You have given no reason why smoking should be an exception.

As opposed to the usual tripe that stops one using a knife unless one has had a weeks training?

Essentially, because it's a known hazard. Just as one can choose to avoid passive smoke by frequenting a different pub, so too an employee can find a job without smoke.

So the health and safety of employees isn't an issue if they could get a job where they would be less at risk?

So an employer could, say, employee somebody to work in their mine and not provide them with safety gear?

*watches this thread go in the same circle all smoking threads fall into*

I'm a smoker, but I don't mind stepping outside or putting it out if I'm asked nicely. I'm sure it bothers some people, just like pissing and whining about it bothers me. Me sniping my smoke solves both problems.

But being a shit to me or trying to lecture is just going to see me blow smoke in your face. I was once accosted by a very angry lady -outside- of a movie theater. I had been smoking quietly near the ash-trays they have, in the open air, maybe twenty feet from the entrance to the theater, when this lady veers out of her way to stare me down. So superior, she lifted her bitch nose in the air and began to lecture me on 'respect' and the dangers of smoking. Having heard it all before, I tired of her tirade quickly and replied "With any luck, I'll die of cancer soon and never again risk running into you on the street. You'll die of heart disease soon anyway, from being monstrously fat. Go jog and leave me the fuck alone."

How do you propose that the health of staff and clients be protected then?


I'm sure there are ways, I mentioned gas masks earlier.


I would

If you want to prevent yourself, don't go to pubs with second hand smoke in.


In any case, since when did health and safety legislation offer exemptions and opt outs?

I'm not suggesting an exemption, i'm suggesting a change in legislation.


A pub couldn't choose to serve its staff undercooked or dangerous food if it wanted to

It could, but it would end up getting sued.

even if the staff wanted to be served it.

Thats because it's a much more direct danger to your health. Food poisoning has an immediate effect.

I just explained to you why you are wrong. The government can not make a different set of rules for each job. Obviously. So they legislate that power to administrative boards which create regulations specific to different occupations.

Previously, these regulations to specific occupations have (as far as i'm aware) been what the standard must be, not how they are met. I know this is different for equipment (such as electricals which you mentioned earlier).


Do your own homework. I've pointed you to a resource, the electrical code book. It is extremely specific. You must meet regulations in exactly the manner described. Now every once in a while there might be some leeway, depending on circumstances...you have options. Those are regulated options...you choose from a list...you don't just make it up as you go.


Again, equipment regulations and staff safety regulations are different.


So my point is what it has always been. Health and saffety regulations are mandatory and set by the government already. You have given no reason why smoking should be an exception.

I never said smoking should be an exception to regulation, i'm saying that they should at least have the right to choose how to meet these regulations.

As opposed to the usual tripe that stops one using a knife unless one has had a weeks training?

Essentially, because it's a known hazard. Just as one can choose to avoid passive smoke by frequenting a different pub, so too an employee can find a job without smoke.
In an economy where there are more people than jobs available (hence, unemployment) that argument doesn't hold. People would rather have a job, even if it could damage their health, then be unemployed. A hospital couldn't not provide radiographers with lead aprons and then turn around and tell complaining doctors to get another job, so why not with smoke?

And, what if you are in a situation where the only pubs nearby don't ban smoking, as is the case where I live? Nobody would argue that, if health and safety legislation over food were repealed, that people should have to accept eating dangerous food if all locals insisted in serving undercooked food and stale drink, so again, why should people have to accept danger from smoke?

Well, you don't go round blaming Labour for stubbing your toe 'round here and not get noticed.:p

Indeed not. Well, everybody else blames dear old Maggie....:(

Previously, these regulations to specific occupations have (as far as i'm aware) been what the standard must be, not how they are met. I know this is different for equipment (such as electricals which you mentioned earlier). Um...when the code says, 'install this switch exactly 1.2 metres from x', you don't really have a lot of options as to how to meet that regulation. Unless you decide to stand on your head while doing it, just for the hell of it. Then there are procedural regulations, step one, followed by step two and so on. You can sing 'Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner' while you follow the steps...that doesn't mean you have changed HOW the standard must be met.



Again, equipment regulations and staff safety regulations are different. Equipment regulations ARE safety regulations. The electrical code book is ALL about safety, and how to operate equipment and conduct procedures in the safest manner.

"Meat must have reached an internal heat of at least xdegree before serving." You would probably take that to mean, 'oh hey, I can start a camel dung fire and fry up some steaks on it, because I get to choose how to meet the standard'. Except as you flip through the regulatory guide, that is most assuredly dealt with as well under 'regulated methods of cooking meat'.

All of which is besides the point. You attempted at the beginning to pretend that health and safety regulations (which equipment regulations are) were WIDE open, just vague standards you could meet anyway you pleased. You are wrong. Sometimes it's a good thing to just admit when you have erred, and then move on.


I never said smoking should be an exception to regulation, i'm saying that they should at least have the right to choose how to meet these regulations.
I can understand the argument that owners should have the option to install expensive, powerful fans to suck out smoke, etc etc. I'm not totally adverse to that. But certain substances are deemed dangerous...and if there is no real need for them to be present, they are banned outright. Asbestos, for example. Now, it appears, cigarettes have made that list. Unless you can come up with a compelling argument for the usefulness of cigarettes and the smoke they create, I can't see you changing the mind of any legislator.

I'm sure there are ways, I mentioned gas masks earlier.
So, people causing harm are allowed to continue while those trying to prevent it for themselves are put out. Should we, then, repeal food standards laws and instead recommend to people who don't want salmonella food poisoning to bring a portable stove when going out to a meal, and cook it thoroughly for themselves?

If you want to prevent yourself, don't go to pubs with second hand smoke in.
Aren't any within driving distance where I live. And again, why should it be someone who isn't causing anyone any harm who it put out?

I'm not suggesting an exemption, i'm suggesting a change in legislation.
You wanted people to be able to opt out if people don't want to be prevented from breathing second hand smoke.

It could, but it would end up getting sued.
Ditto smoking after June 1st. If you have the ability to sue if the bar endangers your health through food, then why not through smoke? THe principle is the same.

Thats because it's a much more direct danger to your health. Food poisoning has an immediate effect.
Why should the length of time matter if it risks disease in any case? Is, say lung cancer after 20 years somehow more trivial than having the runs the next day?

Indeed not. Well, everybody else blames dear old Maggie....:(
I blame her for being blamed for everything.;)

Well, everybody else blames dear old Maggie....:(
Well, she is a ****.

But then, so is Blair.

So, everyone's happy!

The way I see it:
People smoke because it is an enjoyable activity; it’s relaxing and is still seen as a social thing, mainly among young people. Smokers don’t start smoking so they can go out covertly murder people by following them about, standing near them and blowing smoke in there faces. Because that’s really what second hand smoke has to be like to cause any significant damage.
People who complain about catching a few wisps of smoke ever now and then are just hypochondriac killjoys.
Every time you drive on the road you face risk to your health from other people yet you don’t complain about it, how is second hand smoking any different.

P.S I don’t smoke but spend a lot of time around people who do.

No, thats a much more difficult sollution. Not only is it highly contraversial and generally unsupported by the majority of landlords, but it's also a huge annoyance that the government has to decide for you how to meat health and safety regulations. If the pubs can prove that their staff is being protected from second hand smoke, why should the government force the smokers to smoke outside?

...I don't see your point at all. Sending the smokers outside, how is that a difficult solution? Of course the landlords won't be supportive - they will fear economic losses - but appart from that, how is it difficult? Sure is a helluva lot easier than to build non-smokin sections, or smoking rooms, or making regulatons on how much smoke is to be allowed in a room, isn't it?

A blanket ban is the easy solution. And for once, the easy solution, the wise solution and the cheap solution are all the same: Send the smokers outside for the 3-5 minutes it takes to smoke a cigarette.

People who complain about catching a few wisps of smoke ever now and then are just hypochondriac killjoys.

How many hours a night do you think someone would work behind a bar? How many nights a week? How many weeks a year? That's a bit more than a few wisps of smoke, and that's who the ban is protecting.

The way I see it:
People smoke because it is an enjoyable activity; it’s relaxing and is still seen as a social thing, mainly among young people. Smokers don’t start smoking so they can go out covertly murder people by following them about, standing near them and blowing smoke in there faces. Because that’s really what second hand smoke has to be like to cause any significant damage.

You're gonna get sooo much shit for that. But it's completely true. Because it would be unethical to perform lab studies on humans to see if you can give them cancer by exposing them to second-hand cigarette smoke, the only viable studies on it are case studies and statistics. Case studies are not statistically all that relevant. Statistics themselves are not scientifically that rigorous - most secondhand smoke studies are done on people who a) live with a cigarette smoker who b) smokes in the house and c) live for a long time (years) together.

The problem is the anti-smoking propaganda, which in the US at least starts from elementary school and goes from there, has people worried that because of the above, any inhalation of any smoke any time is going to KILL YOU.

People who complain about catching a few wisps of smoke ever now and then are just hypochondriac killjoys.

I agree.


Every time you drive on the road you face risk to your health from other people yet you don’t complain about it, how is second hand smoking any different.

I'll tell you how it's different. Cigarette smokers are a minority. People who drive, or ride in, cars, are not. Minority is much easier to oppress and harass and demonize.

The way I see it:
People smoke because it is an enjoyable activity; it’s relaxing and is still seen as a social thing, mainly among young people. Smokers don’t start smoking so they can go out covertly murder people by following them about, standing near them and blowing smoke in there faces. Because that’s really what second hand smoke has to be like to cause any significant damage.
Have you ever set foot in a smoke-filled bar?

People who complain about catching a few wisps of smoke ever now and then are just hypochondriac killjoys.
What about them that have to work in said smoke-filled bar?

Every time you drive on the road you face risk to your health from other people yet you don’t complain about it, how is second hand smoking any different.
'course I don't complain - because it's heavily regulated so the risks are about as minimized as you get them.

How many hours a night do you think someone would work behind a bar? How many nights a week? How many weeks a year? That's a bit more than a few wisps of smoke, and that's who the ban is protecting.

Someone who is afraid of cigarette smoke but works at a bar is kind of like a zoophobist who works at a vet clinic.

Someone who is afraid of cigarette smoke but works at a bar is kind of like a zoophobist who works at a vet clinic.

So cigarette smoke can only harm you if you're afraid of it?

Someone who is afraid of cigarette smoke but works at a bar is kind of like a zoophobist who works at a vet clinic.

To repost:
I'd say my main issue with this is the exposure to staff. Now yes, you could argue, they have a choice not to work in a place that is full of dangerous smoke. However, generally in the West, a worker CAN NOT waive his or her right to safety. Meaning, no, workplaces don't get to decide not to follow safety regulations, and you work there at your own peril. It is recognised that it should not be left up to businesses to decide to protect the health and safety of their workers or not...rather, they MUST. Generally because there is extreme disparity in bargaining power between a company, and an individual worker. Why carve out an exception for smoking establishments?

Someone who is afraid of cigarette smoke but works at a bar is kind of like a zoophobist who works at a vet clinic.

I don't think you'll find the people afraid of smoking working in bars. They most likely haven't given it much thought. The risks increase for them regardless though.

So cigarette smoke can only harm you if you're afraid of it?

It's like how gays smell fear, so homophobes can't walk around freely in San Fran.

To repost:
Allow me:
What a shocking concept! Putting the responsibility on the ones who cause the risk, and coming up with a solution that is the least costly...

My god it's actually...revolutionary!

So cigarette smoke can only harm you if you're afraid of it?

It's only an *issue* if you're afraid of it. As most anti-smokers are, and as most smokers are not.

Sure, it might harm you, but then so might the air and auto pollution everyone has zero problems inhaling every day anyway. It is just one more risk, and I think in this case, a very minor one.

I'd say my main issue with this is the exposure to staff. Now yes, you could argue, they have a choice not to work in a place that is full of dangerous smoke. However, generally in the West, a worker CAN NOT waive his or her right to safety. Meaning, no, workplaces don't get to decide not to follow safety regulations, and you work there at your own peril. It is recognised that it should not be left up to businesses to decide to protect the health and safety of their workers or not...rather, they MUST. Generally because there is extreme disparity in bargaining power between a company, and an individual worker. Why carve out an exception for smoking establishments?

...or for stress, for that matter? You know, working in a bar is very stressful. Stress is a health risk. I think we need legislation to protect bars against the onslaught of drunken assholes, annoying sluts and unnecessarily loud music. Think of the poor workers!

...or for stress, for that matter? You know, working in a bar is very stressful. Stress is a health risk. I think we need legislation to protect bars against the onslaught of drunken assholes, annoying sluts and unnecessarily loud music. Think of the poor workers! This is actually too lame to even bother typing a long reply to.

But because I love you so, I shall.

Second hand smoke has only fairly recently been seen as a health threat. Asbestos was used for decades before the full extent of the health threat it posed was understood. Yet asbestos was banned long before a definitive link between it and asbestosis, a particularly horrible form of cancer, was proven.

A blanket ban is the easiest, most cost effective method to get a harmful susbtance OUT of the workplace. And you have still failed to deal with my argument that you simply cannot contract out of your rights to health and safety standards.

But because I love you so, I shall.

Awww. Let's get NSG-married soon. How's your next Saturday look?

Second hand smoke has only fairly recently been seen as a health threat. Asbestos was used for decades before the full extent of the health threat it posed was understood. Yet asbestos was banned long before a definitive link between it and asbestosis, a particularly horrible form of cancer, was proven.

Yes, but what does this have to do with the fact that studies show stress IS a health threat? In fact, stress is a causal factor in heart disease, which is the #1 killer in the US today. I think we need to look at eliminating all stressful circumstances from the workplace, not just that conveniently-blamed smoking minority.

A blanket ban is the easiest, most cost effective method to get a harmful susbtance OUT of the workplace. And you have still failed to deal with my argument that you simply cannot contract out of your rights to health and safety standards.

For now I am agreeing with it, and applying those same standards to the fact that people and music in bars cause stress, which is a health risk. Why no blanket-ban there? Is not health important?

It's only an *issue* if you're afraid of it. As most anti-smokers are, and as most smokers are not.

Sure, it might harm you, but then so might the air and auto pollution everyone has zero problems inhaling every day anyway. It is just one more risk, and I think in this case, a very minor one.

Sure, the unhygienically cooked food in the staff cafeteria might kill you, but that's only and issue if you're afraid of death, as most anti-death people are.

Sorry, employees can't sign away their rights to work in a safe and healthy environment.

Sure, the unhygienically cooked food in the staff cafeteria might kill you, but that's only and issue if you're afraid of death, as most anti-death people are.

If you're going to start eliminating anything that "might" cause harm, you're going to find there is absolutely nothing in the world remaining.

Sorry, employees can't sign away their rights to work in a safe and healthy environment.

So you also support the ban on stress? I think all bars and restaraunts should have mandatory zen meditation breaks every 15 minutes. We must protect the proletariat.

Awww. Let's get NSG-married soon. How's your next Saturday look? I might be in the middle of a gangbang...would that interfere? :P
Yes, but what does this have to do with the fact that studies show stress IS a health threat? In fact, stress is a causal factor in heart disease, which is the #1 killer in the US today. I think we need to look at eliminating all stressful circumstances from the workplace, not just that conveniently-blamed smoking minority. Then by all means...begin lobbying the government with strategies to reduce stress in the workplace. Some of the things that HAVE been done to address this have been couched in equality legislation, such as anti-sexist, anti-racist, or anti-homophobic policies, policies aimed at helping disabled workers have access to the workplace, so on and so forth. Actually, a tremendous amount of work has been put into dealing with the various factors that cause stress. If there is work yet to be done (as no doubt there is), then please...think of some good strategies and pass them on to a competent administrative board!

For now I am agreeing with it, and applying those same standards to the fact that people and music in bars cause stress, which is a health risk. Why no blanket-ban there? Is not health important?
Hey, I have no doubt that there are groups out there right now doing studies on how decibel levels in bars negatively impact health. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if that noise level did become regulated in the near future.

As I've said before...no point waiting until EVERYTHING gets dealt with all at once. Might as well deal with things as you can, and as the evidence is found that there needs to be a strategy in place.

So you also support the ban on stress? I think all bars and restaraunts should have mandatory zen meditation breaks every 15 minutes. We must protect the proletariat.
Second hand smoke is caused by one factor...people smoking.

Stress is caused by a multitude of things. As I've pointed out, there is already much being done to deal with various aspects that are known to cause unhealthy stress. By the way...not all stress is bad. Eustress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustress) is actually good for you.

Point being, if there are stress-causing factors that haven't been dealt with yet, then I think you've just found yourself a cause.

If you're going to start eliminating anything that "might" cause harm, you're going to find there is absolutely nothing in the world remaining.
Ah, well in that case I guess we'll just throw out all health and safety legislation and go back to the good old days where people worked themselves to an early death because it was that or starve.


So you also support the ban on stress? I think all bars and restaraunts should have mandatory zen meditation breaks every 15 minutes. We must protect the proletariat.

Sounds wonderful.

Second hand smoke is caused by one factor...people smoking.

Stress is caused by a multitude of things. As I've pointed out, there is already much being done to deal with various aspects that are known to cause unhealthy stress.

Mmm, so it's easier to harass smokers. Thus more important to do!

And sure, they want to eliminate some causes of stress. The ones that the government cares to acknowledge. The ones that aren't considered "necessary" or "acceptable," like how cars are "necessary" so getting lung cancer from an SUV is acceptable. It's not about health, it's about people's pet peeves.

By the way...not all stress is bad. Eustress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustress) is actually good for you.

That's true, but I think most can agree that stupid people and loud music is not qualifying.

Point being, if there are stress-causing factors that haven't been dealt with yet, then I think you've just found yourself a cause.

But that's only if I agreed with your viewpoint to begin with, that everything and everywhere should be made "safe." Safety is the "post-9/11 world"s hardon, not mine. I don't chase chimeras. I take my risks, just like I suck up all the second-hand auto pollution from all the anti-smokers. They're murdering me much faster than I can murder them. I just want to take away their self-righteous jizzballism in the process, that's all.

I might be in the middle of a gangbang...would that interfere? :P

Ewwwww. Marriage cancelled!

Sure, it might harm you, but then so might the air and auto pollution everyone has zero problems inhaling every day anyway. It is just one more risk, and I think in this case, a very minor one.
...one that might increase the risk of lung cancer 15-20% if you work in a smoke-filled environment. Minor?

Regardless of that, why not remove this "minor" risk? Why is it so difficult to simply step outside for those magical three - five minutes, and remove the risk to others? Why is this so difficult?

Stress is a health risk.
Have you seen any research? How big is the risk? I don't know, so I'm asking.
I might be in the middle of a gangbang...would that interfere? :P
See? I stand by my previous statement. You guys DO have all the fun! ;)

Ewwwww. Marriage cancelled!

Prude.

I wasn't coming to the ceremony a virgin either ya know.

Ah, well in that case I guess we'll just throw out all health and safety legislation and go back to the good old days where people worked themselves to an early death because it was that or starve.

No, we don't need either extreme. See on one hand there is no regulations. On the other hand, absolutely anything and everything is regulated. Is the latter really safer? Does it make everyone's plastic bubble secure?


Sounds wonderful.

Yeah well, maybe it does. But a bartender is not "proletariat" even by Marx's whiny definitions. We're all bourgeoise, so I see no reason why we should be spared.

...one that might increase the risk of lung cancer 15-20% if you work in a smoke-filled environment. Minor?

Source?

Regardless of that, why not remove this "minor" risk? Why is it so difficult to simply step outside for those magical three - five minutes, and remove the risk to others? Why is this so difficult?

Oh, but it doesn't remove the "risk to others." You see, they'll still smell it on my clothing. OHNOES MY EMPHASIMA! They'll still smell it coming in or going out. OHNOES LUNG CANCER! It'll still go into the air. OHNOES GLOBAL WARMING! Cigarette butts will still be hard to recycle. OHNOES GROUNDWATER POLLUTION!

It's never good enough for the anti-smoking crowd, never until all smoking is banned completely. And then it'll be something *else.* First they came for the smokers...

Have you seen any research? How big is the risk? I don't know, so I'm asking.

How would they study something like that? I imagine calling someone up and asking if they think their work environment is stressful. And then asking if they have any health problems. If yes to both, adds to correlation. Thus, causation. Thus, we need government to step in and protect us!

No, we don't need either extreme. See on one hand there is no regulations. On the other hand, absolutely anything and everything is regulated. Is the latter really safer? Does it make everyone's plastic bubble secure?
I guess you shouldn't have mentioned one extreme in the first place.




Yeah well, maybe it does. But a bartender is not "proletariat" even by Marx's whiny definitions. We're all bourgeoise, so I see no reason why we should be spared.

I guess you shouldn't have mentioned the proletariat either.

I guess you shouldn't have mentioned one extreme in the first place.

Why not? You see, its the logical conclusion of the argument. If health is so important that any possible risk must be eliminated...

I don't think it is, you see, so your extreme wasn't the natural result of my thinking at all.

I guess you shouldn't have mentioned the proletariat either.

And you shouldn't have agreed with it.

Oh, but it doesn't remove the "risk to others." You see, they'll still smell it on my clothing. OHNOES MY EMPHASIMA! They'll still smell it coming in or going out. OHNOES LUNG CANCER! It'll still go into the air. OHNOES GLOBAL WARMING! Cigarette butts will still be hard to recycle. OHNOES GROUNDWATER POLLUTION!

It's never good enough for the anti-smoking crowd, never until all smoking is banned completely. And then it'll be something *else.* First they came for the smokers...

Yes, that anti smoking crowd sure are a load of extremists. I mean, they say they just want to protect people from second-hand smoke, but I know they really want to destroy all smokers everywhere. And then they'll become so powerhungry that they'll destroy absolutely everything!

What do you mean "How do I know this?"? It's obvious! You must be one of them! Guards! Get him!

Yes, that anti smoking crowd sure are a load of extremists.

I'd say so.

I mean, they say they just want to protect people from second-hand smoke, but

But what they really want is to protect themselves from an icky smell that inconveniences them when they go out to get drunk and plays on their hypochondriac fears of death. In fact, from a classical Greek standpoint, it's cathartic - once they vent their fear about slow death against cigarette smoke, they feel safe. They feel happy. Cigarettes, to them, embody every unseen health risk there is. That's why many anti-smokers call me a murderer, but not one calls anyone who drives a car a murderer. It's become the scapegoat and summary of all their fears. Because they are stupid.

I know they really want to destroy all smokers everywhere. And then they'll become so powerhungry that they'll destroy absolutely everything!

Nah. Not the smokers themselves. Just the actions of others, which they seek to control such that they no longer feel afraid.

A carrot for the donkey to keep it going... a donkey that will never get fed.

Why not? You see, its the logical conclusion of the argument.
Not at all. I don't see how "ban all health risks" can be the logical conclusion of "Your right to smoke violates my right to work in a safe environment, thus you shouldn't be allowed to smoke in my workplace".

I'd say so.



But what they really want is to protect themselves from an icky smell that inconveniences them when they go out to get drunk and plays on their hypochondriac fears of death. In fact, from a classical Greek standpoint, it's cathartic - once they vent their fear about slow death against cigarette smoke, they feel safe. They feel happy. Cigarettes, to them, embody every unseen health risk there is. That's why many anti-smokers call me a murderer, but not one calls anyone who drives a car a murderer. It's become the scapegoat and summary of all their fears. Because they are stupid.



Nah. Not the smokers themselves. Just the actions of others, which they seek to control such that they no longer feel afraid.

A carrot for the donkey to keep it going... a donkey that will never get fed.

It's amazing how you can read the minds of people and divine their true intentions. You should be a detective or something, you could drive around cities and point out wrong doers to police, and save them the trouble of investigating crimes or gathering evidence.

It's amazing how you can read the minds of people and divine their true intentions. You should be a detective or something, you could drive around cities and point out wrong doers to police, and save them the trouble of investigating crimes or gathering evidence.

Isn't it though? Look, I know anti-smokers pretty well, being a smoker myself, they're the ones who will tend to harass me for what I do. I'm not an idiot, I have a good grasp of psychology and sociology and can read expressions and words. My sister is an anti-smoker. You don't need to be a telepath to read the writing on the wall, I don't need a weathervane to tell which way the wind is blowing.

Not at all. I don't see how "ban all health risks" can be the logical conclusion of "Your right to smoke violates my right to work in a safe environment, thus you shouldn't be allowed to smoke in my workplace".

"Your right to $causehealthrisk$ violates my right to work in a safe environment, thus you shouldn't be allowed to $causehealthrisk$ in my workplace."

Voila.

Isn't it though? Look, I know anti-smokers pretty well, being a smoker myself, they're the ones who will tend to harass me for what I do. I'm not an idiot, I have a good grasp of psychology and sociology and can read expressions and words. My sister is an anti-smoker. You don't need to be a telepath to read the writing on the wall, I don't need a weathervane to tell which way the wind is blowing.
Yes, and your sister and people who harass you are totally indicative you everyone who supports this ban.



"Your right to $causehealthrisk$ violates my right to work in a safe environment, thus you shouldn't be allowed to $causehealthrisk$ in my workplace."

Voila.

Still doesn't follow. Banning things that cause health risks to the people around you isn't the same as banning all health risks.

Yes, and your sister and people who harass you are totally indicative you everyone who supports this ban.

They are indicative of what I call "anti-smokers." There are actually smokers who support this ban, so I am not labelling anyone who supports the ban "anti-smoker."


Still doesn't follow. Banning things that cause health risks to the people around you isn't the same as banning all health risks.

Oh for nitpicking sake, very well, "to the people around you." Happy? Now it follows.

Source?
Remember that I said "might"...
5.2 Human carcinogenicity data

Lung cancer

Involuntary smoking involves exposure to the same numerous carcinogens and toxic substances that are present in tobacco smoke produced by active smoking, which is the principal cause of lung cancer. As noted in the previous IARC Monograph on tobacco smoking, this implies that there will be some risk of lung cancer from exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke.

More than 50 studies of involuntary smoking and lung cancer risk in never-smokers, especially spouses of smokers, have been published during the last 25 years. These studies have been carried out in many countries. Most showed an increased risk, especially for persons with higher exposures. To evaluate the information collectively, in particular from those studies with a limited number of cases, meta-analyses have been conducted in which the relative risk estimates from the individual studies are pooled together. These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding. The excess risk increases with increasing exposure. Furthermore, other published meta-analyses of lung cancer in never-smokers exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke at the workplace have found a statistically significant increase in risk of 12–19%. This evidence is sufficient to conclude that involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never-smokers. The magnitudes of the observed risks are reasonably consistent with predictions based on studies of active smoking in many populations.
Source (http://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol83/02-involuntary.html)

Oh, but it doesn't remove the "risk to others."
Yes it does.

You see, they'll still smell it on my clothing. OHNOES MY EMPHASIMA! They'll still smell it coming in or going out. OHNOES LUNG CANCER! It'll still go into the air. OHNOES GLOBAL WARMING! Cigarette butts will still be hard to recycle. OHNOES GROUNDWATER POLLUTION!
So you don't have an argument, just irrelevant rants?

It's never good enough for the anti-smoking crowd, never until all smoking is banned completely. And then it'll be something *else.* First they came for the smokers...
Yup. Irrelevant rants.

How would they study something like that?
I'm sure they have their ways. Animal testings is one way to go.

I imagine calling someone up and asking if they think their work environment is stressful. And then asking if they have any health problems. If yes to both, adds to correlation. Thus, causation. Thus, we need government to step in and protect us!
But as of now you cannot back it up. So research does not conclude that it is a serious factor which should be removed at present. As such, we'll ignore your argument for the time being.

Remember that I said "might"...

Furthermore, other published meta-analyses of lung cancer in never-smokers exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke at the workplace have found a statistically significant increase in risk of 12–19%. This evidence is sufficient to conclude that involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never-smokers. The magnitudes of the observed risks are reasonably consistent with predictions based on studies of active smoking in many populations.

Only if there are no other factors in getting lung-cancer. Alas, there are. Anyway, I'd say a 12% risk is pretty minor when pro-rated out for all the time one spends working somewhere. It's not a daily risk, after all.


Yes it does.

So you don't have an argument, just irrelevant rants?

My "irrelevant rant" directly contradicts your "yes it does."

Yup. Irrelevant rants.

Yes, that would be irrelevant if it wasn't true.

But as of now you cannot back it up. So research does not conclude

Wait wait wait, when did MY "backing it up" here translated to "research" in general? If I don't back something up, research does not conclude it?

I mean, wow.

I knew I rocked, but I didn't know I rocked THAT MUCH.

that it is a serious factor which should be removed at present. As such, we'll ignore your argument for the time being.

OK, you go on pretending that stress is not (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/stresswk.html) a health risk (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=36020) if it makes you feel better.

Only if there are no other factors in getting lung-cancer. Alas, there are. Anyway, I'd say a 12% risk is pretty minor when pro-rated out for all the time one spends working somewhere. It's not a daily risk, after all.
...okay. Please do. I wouldn't. 12-19% is something I'd rather avoid.

My "irrelevant rant" directly contradicts your "yes it does."
How so? You remove the risk by sending the smokers outside. You then go on about "smelling it" and global warming - but the risk is still removed. As such, your rant is irrelevant.


Yes, that would be irrelevant if it wasn't true.
No. To this particular discussion it is irrelevant. But hey, prove that anti-smokers are ban-fanatics.


Wait wait wait, when did MY "backing it up" here translated to "research" in general? If I don't back something up, research does not conclude it?
It's easy to find research on smoking and it's effects. If stress was such a huge and direct problem as smoking and second-hand smoking seems to be, I would expect you to be able to provide some evidence for it.

I mean, wow.

I knew I rocked, but I didn't know I rocked THAT MUCH.
You rock my world, baby! :cool:

OK, you go on pretending that stress is not (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/stresswk.html) a health risk (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=36020) if it makes you feel better.
I didn't say it wasn't. I said that I have yet to see results such as from the tobacco-research - 10-20% increase in general risk of serious health problems - especially connected to one thing: Lights, volume, whatever.

They are indicative of what I call "anti-smokers." There are actually smokers who support this ban, so I am not labelling anyone who supports the ban "anti-smoker."
Fair enough



Oh for nitpicking sake, very well, "to the people around you." Happy? Now it follows.

You have a problem with stopping people from exposing non-consenting people around them to health risks?

God's sake...the government is talking about suspending the right to liberty and all you can complain about is not being able to smoke inside when you're down the pub.

Some people really have their priorities completely wrong.

It's like how gays smell fear, so homophobes can't walk around freely in San Fran.

:-D

Well, I guess that means either 1) I am gay or 2) I am straight but not homophobic. 3)Oh wait, my sarcasm detector just went off the scale!

For a very intersting and thought provoking essay on smoking, without the religious blind faith anti-smokers have in the word of 'experts'follow this link:-

http://www.forestonline.org/files/pdf/SMOKE,%20LIES%20A4%20v5b.pdf

hopefully the link will work, and hopefully people will read it fully and carefully. There are more sides to the arguement than many people think. This is not really a 'them and us' issue.

I beleive many people after reading this will have more of an understanding of the smoking issue and perhaps realise that if they don't like smoking it is not because you beleive that smokers are commiting an act of attempted murder everytime they light up, but the fact in reallity it is just that you don't like the smell of burning leaves.

Read fully before making judgement.


How do you explain then that I love the smell of cigar smoke but don't want to be exposed to the health risks of second hand smoke?

You will see that in reality, your essay does not hold true.

Scotland has had the smoking ban in place for 14 months now. No smoking is allowed in public areas - shopping malls, restaurants, pubs, bars, cafes, night clubs, sports facilities. Anywhere public and indoors. Even Bus shelters - anywhere that more than 50% of the erection is walled/enclosed.

There was little resistance when it was first introduced. Local Authorities employed Smoking Policy Enforcement Officers, and there were little/no need for them. People accepted it.

Most smokers wish they didn't spoke - so this was seen as an opportunity to quit. Cut down at the very least.

I am personally in two minds about the Smoking Ban. I smoke a few ciggies when i'm drinking - and not at all during the week. I'm an anti-social smoker as i now call it. I've never smoked in a restaurant. I can see both sides of the arguement, and think that there should at least be a choice. There should be smoking bars and non smoking bars.

Alcohol kills and costs Britains NHS more money than smoking related illness. People also don't hospitalise others for having on fag too many. I've known someone who's mother was an alcoholic - significantly harmful to others. My friend has also finished a PHD specialising in cancer and smoking. all the research she has carried out has resulted in no specific link between smoking and lung cancer. she said that in no case she has come across the tests/study has not been able to link the cancer with smoking 100% certainty.

i think there are more pressing matters in society in terms of saving lives and choice shouldn't be completely removed.

I live in a country where many of my most important medical decisions are now being put to a popular vote. Considering that so many of my fellow citizens appear to believe my internal organs are public property, it doesn't surprise me that they also presume to dictate what goes into or out of my lungs.

You don't have the right to put smoke into the bodies of those around you, which is the entire point of the smoking ban. Now get down off that cross.
Several people have made this type of comment, but I just randomly picked this one to quote. Don't take it personally.

As long as private citizens are permitted to own and operate cars which generate harmful emissions, I think your argument fails. Apparently he DOES have the right to put smoke into the bodies of those around him, it's just that the government has selected one particular type of smoke to ban.

[If it matters, I am not--nor have I ever been--a regular smoker. I do sometimes smoke socially, but it's pretty rare. Maybe a couple of times a year. My lover started smoking at 16 and quit around age 20-21.]

Several people have made this type of comment, but I just randomly picked this one to quote. Don't take it personally.

As long as private citizens are permitted to own and operate cars which generate harmful emissions, I think your argument fails. Apparently he DOES have the right to put smoke into the bodies of those around him, it's just that the government has selected one particular type of smoke to ban.

The society in most developed countries would need to be drastically changed in order to cope without cars. When we can fully implement green cars, I like to think we will, but until then they're a necessary evil. Letting people smoke in pubs isn't.

The society in most developed countries would need to be drastically changed in order to cope without cars. When we can fully implement green cars, I like to think we will, but until then they're a necessary evil. Letting people smoke in pubs isn't.
Then that's just a matter of your opinion. You happen to believe it's okay to ban cig smoke but not okay to ban car smoke. Doesn't change the fact that even you recognize that your fellow citizens do have the right to "put smoke in your body." You just want to get to dictate which kinds of smoke they put in your body.

Personally, I think that's crap. Car emissions are a far more serious health hazard. Heck, cars themselves are a hazard, too.

It's okay if you don't like smoking. I don't like cars. Just don't try to claim that your motivation is all about public health, if you're completely willing to allow far more dangerous forms of smoke because you happen to think they're "necessary evils."

The society in most developed countries would need to be drastically changed in order to cope without cars. When we can fully implement green cars, I like to think we will, but until then they're a necessary evil. Letting people smoke in pubs isn't.

heh and I would ask what makes a car green?

Then that's just a matter of your opinion. You happen to believe it's okay to ban cig smoke but not okay to ban car smoke. Doesn't change the fact that even you recognize that your fellow citizens do have the right to "put smoke in your body." You just want to get to dictate which kinds of smoke they put in your body.

Personally, I think that's crap. Car emissions are a far more serious health hazard. Heck, cars themselves are a hazard, too.

It's okay if you don't like smoking. I don't like cars. Just don't try to claim that your motivation is all about public health, if you're completely willing to allow far more dangerous forms of smoke because you happen to think they're "necessary evils."

No, I think it'd be great if we could ban car emissions, they are a more serious hazard. But that's not going to happen, not until we have a feasible alternative for transporting people and goods.
heh and I would ask what makes a car green?

The paint. *nods*

No, I think it'd be great if we could ban car emissions, they are a more serious hazard. But that's not going to happen, not until we have a feasible alternative for transporting people and goods.


The paint. *nods*

Bwhahahaha yeah cheers! :D

No, I think it'd be great if we could ban car emissions, they are a more serious hazard. But that's not going to happen, not until we have a feasible alternative for transporting people and goods.

We do have feasible alternatives. And if we took all the money and staff and energy away from fighting cigs and drugs, and put that money toward improved urban planning, mass transit options, and "green" alternatives, we'd be just fine. If, instead of trying to dictate what private individuals consume, we actually focused on making reduced-emissions living a viable reality, we'd be doing a shitload more for public health.

Thing is, if you live your whole life in cities (as I do), the odds of you getting lung cancer are hardly going to be impacted by banning smoking in public places. Your odds of lung cancer are primarily dictated by the other emissions that surround you all the time. If you don't want to add cig smoke to the mix, then don't go to public places that permit smoking. Don't waste your breath (har har) throwing a fit over smoking, when you're lungs have much bigger problems to worry about.

Here's an idea; fuck off.:)

Go and site the soapbox elsewhere. I bet you vote Labour as well.

Labour? Fuck no! And you havent seen me soapboxing yet buddy:



I am so fucking sick of these idiot smokers whining about this ban infringing their rights. You smokers, how about my rights not to have my lungs filled with tar? You can smoke yourself silly when your in your house but not when other people who dont smoke are around. You engoy smoking? Hey thats cool, just dont shove it (litrally) down our non-smoking necks!

but they wont do that will they? because the economy would probably collapse without our money!

Just the NHS...

I live in a country where many of my most important medical decisions are now being put to a popular vote. Considering that so many of my fellow citizens appear to believe my internal organs are public property, it doesn't surprise me that they also presume to dictate what goes into or out of my lungs.

That's not really what these laws are about. Well, it is, kinda. It's about letting people decide for themselves to some degree what goes into and out of their lungs. But more than that, it's an issue about the right to work in a healthy environment.

These laws don't stop you from smoking your lungs out outside or in your own home.

Labour? Fuck no! And you havent seen me soapboxing yet buddy:



I am so fucking sick of these idiot smokers whining about this ban infringing their rights. You smokers, how about my rights not to have my lungs filled with tar? You can smoke yourself silly when your in your house but not when other people who dont smoke are around. You engoy smoking? Hey thats cool, just dont shove it (litrally) down our non-smoking necks!

Idiot smokers???

hmmmmm

The government are quite willing to take the millions of pounds of tax they weedle out of us every year but we have to hide like children to persue our habit...
Going outside is hardly hiding. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite.

seems like we are being treated like second class citizens and it really pisses me off
Well, if first-class citizens are those able to harm others without consequence, I hope all people are treated as second-class.

Its my fucking body and if I want to put smoke into my lungs then I have a right to do so...
Your body, fine. My body, not fine.