This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- UK governments to ban disposable vapes
- Rishi Sunak considering banning cigarettes for the next generation
- Vaping ‘linked to cancer and damages body like smoking’
- Should mobile phone use be banned in schools?
- Kallisto's Sunday Question: Smoking
- Never start vaping, says 12-year-old girl with lung damage
- 2023 King's Speech
- how many people here smoke?
- Girlfriend's mum is a very bitter and jealous person
- I am I gay or straight
- Group 1 Carcinogens
- Glasgow city centre Studio room merchant studios tenancy takeover
- Tenancy takeover Liverpool URGENT
- So will we be banned from driving petrol cars in 2030
- Make it More Ciggy-ey !!
- Shoplifting
- Watched straight and gay porn
- Ombudsman... what is the worst thing that could happen?
- gcse 5 marker
- My complaint to Cadbury's.
Full smoking ban!
Scroll to see replies
But most of all consider this – just how many jobs would survive this putative ‘no risk ever’ test. That wraps it up for mining, scaffolders and farmers for sure. Salesmen, despatch riders and pizza boys are goners too. At least the government will be able to take action to protect the people statistically most likely to be assaulted in their jobs – even though I not sure how we’ll run hospitals if nurses aren’t allowed to deal with patients.
Of course, there’s the obvious point that this act offends against the basic principles on which our society is based. Security of property, free trade, self-ownership, freedom of association, presumption of liberty – y’know, the little stuff. This Act marks another turn on the ratchet. Free enterprise is being choked off in this county – that’s been true for a while but there’s something extra here. It was hinted at in the patronising drivel the prohibs came out with when it was suggested that pubs could allow smoking if no food was served. That couldn’t be allowed, said the prohibs, because these pubs tended to be in poorer areas, and you know what those people are like.
Equally, take the rhetoric about smokers themselves. Bad enough though the prohibs patronising drivel is when talking to smokers directly, there’s something truly psychotic about how some of them talk about smokers: dirty, smelly, contaminating the air for decent people. You’d be in prison for hate crimes if you talked about Islamopaths the way the prohibs talk about smokers. And no, you don’t need to perform statistical yoga to prove that blowing up tube trains is a risk to health.
The whole prohibitionist argument rests on a fundamentally absurd premise. These people claim that allowing smokers to smoke in the Captain’s Bar of The Ship means that smokers will inflicting their smokerness on their noble prohib selves. But what would they be doing down there in the first place ? In what parallel universe is it in which health freaks stop off on the way home from the gym to dive into the Captain’s Bar and announce they want 10 double vodkas, and their mate will have the same ? As if.
Of course, the prohibs always claim that they would go to the Red Lion, if only it wasn’t for the smokers, ‘cause you know, you can’t expect them to down ten pints if they’re going to be exposed to a dangerous narcotic while doing so. Or to put it another way, while everyone talks about how this new law means some of our top drinkers will be exiled, it also means the pub will fill up with people drinking eco-friendly organic Perrier water. In case you’re wondering, this is supposed to be an argument in favour.
This is exactly why these people have to use the power of the State to enforce their writ, because there’s so much demand for smoker-free pubs. Or something.
That’s it, that’s what gives me this killing rage. This isn’t about whether people set fire to rolled-up tubes full of dried leaves or not. This is, in the fullest sense of the word, the latest front in the culture wars. Forget the junk science claiming that everyone in the pub will die if Dave lights that fag. What it’s about is what it’s always about: a bunch of collectivist weasels want to inflict their whiny cry-baby lifestyle on the rest of us.
Of course, there’s the obvious point that this act offends against the basic principles on which our society is based. Security of property, free trade, self-ownership, freedom of association, presumption of liberty – y’know, the little stuff. This Act marks another turn on the ratchet. Free enterprise is being choked off in this county – that’s been true for a while but there’s something extra here. It was hinted at in the patronising drivel the prohibs came out with when it was suggested that pubs could allow smoking if no food was served. That couldn’t be allowed, said the prohibs, because these pubs tended to be in poorer areas, and you know what those people are like.
Equally, take the rhetoric about smokers themselves. Bad enough though the prohibs patronising drivel is when talking to smokers directly, there’s something truly psychotic about how some of them talk about smokers: dirty, smelly, contaminating the air for decent people. You’d be in prison for hate crimes if you talked about Islamopaths the way the prohibs talk about smokers. And no, you don’t need to perform statistical yoga to prove that blowing up tube trains is a risk to health.
The whole prohibitionist argument rests on a fundamentally absurd premise. These people claim that allowing smokers to smoke in the Captain’s Bar of The Ship means that smokers will inflicting their smokerness on their noble prohib selves. But what would they be doing down there in the first place ? In what parallel universe is it in which health freaks stop off on the way home from the gym to dive into the Captain’s Bar and announce they want 10 double vodkas, and their mate will have the same ? As if.
Of course, the prohibs always claim that they would go to the Red Lion, if only it wasn’t for the smokers, ‘cause you know, you can’t expect them to down ten pints if they’re going to be exposed to a dangerous narcotic while doing so. Or to put it another way, while everyone talks about how this new law means some of our top drinkers will be exiled, it also means the pub will fill up with people drinking eco-friendly organic Perrier water. In case you’re wondering, this is supposed to be an argument in favour.
This is exactly why these people have to use the power of the State to enforce their writ, because there’s so much demand for smoker-free pubs. Or something.
That’s it, that’s what gives me this killing rage. This isn’t about whether people set fire to rolled-up tubes full of dried leaves or not. This is, in the fullest sense of the word, the latest front in the culture wars. Forget the junk science claiming that everyone in the pub will die if Dave lights that fag. What it’s about is what it’s always about: a bunch of collectivist weasels want to inflict their whiny cry-baby lifestyle on the rest of us.
segat1
Um, schizophrenia? Psychotic episodes? Depression? Far less devastating? Please....
Yes, drink can give you cancer, cirrohsis and a drink driving fatalities. Smoking can give you cancer, wrinkles and a predisposition to glaucoma.
The govt isn't hypocritical, the govt enjoys a large tax bounty from ciggies and liquor. I doubt you'll get alcohol banned
Ciggies - too much pressure from tobacco companies Pot - well, who knows.... cocaine seems to be the middle class drug of choice these days...
Yes, drink can give you cancer, cirrohsis and a drink driving fatalities. Smoking can give you cancer, wrinkles and a predisposition to glaucoma.
The govt isn't hypocritical, the govt enjoys a large tax bounty from ciggies and liquor. I doubt you'll get alcohol banned
Ciggies - too much pressure from tobacco companies Pot - well, who knows.... cocaine seems to be the middle class drug of choice these days...not true, it costs the government more in hospital fees and medical treatment for cigarette smokers and drinkers than they make in taxes from them.
ninman
not true, it costs the government more in hospital fees and medical treatment for cigarette smokers and drinkers than they make in taxes from them.
Who said I was talking about hospital fees? The tax revenue is HUGE!Vienna
Equally, take the rhetoric about smokers themselves. Bad enough though the prohibs patronising drivel is when talking to smokers directly, there’s something truly psychotic about how some of them talk about smokers: dirty, smelly, contaminating the air for decent people. You’d be in prison for hate crimes if you talked about Islamopaths the way the prohibs talk about smokers. And no, you don’t need to perform statistical yoga to prove that blowing up tube trains is a risk to health.
...What it’s about is what it’s always about: a bunch of collectivist weasels want to inflict their whiny cry-baby lifestyle on the rest of us.
...What it’s about is what it’s always about: a bunch of collectivist weasels want to inflict their whiny cry-baby lifestyle on the rest of us.
This reminds me somewhat of a local story I read recently, it's short and simple, so bare with me. A local student fell into the Thames whilst drunk one night, and drowned. Now his parents are campaigning for a fence to be put across the bank (only in the particular section where their son died) to prevent more people plopping into the river. What a complete waste of time and effort - why not try and educate people to take responsibilities for their decisions (i.e. it was the boys fault he fell, or a tragic accident, not the river's fault) and be safe rather than removing other people's freedom by constructing the fence?
It reminds me of this situation....
black_mamba
This reminds me somewhat of a local story I read recently, it's short and simple, so bare with me. A local student fell into the Thames whilst drunk one night, and drowned. Now his parents are campaigning for a fence to be put across the bank (only in the particular section where their son died) to prevent more people plopping into the river. What a complete waste of time and effort - why not try and educate people to take responsibilities for their decisions (i.e. it was the boys fault he fell, or a tragic accident, not the river's fault) and be safe rather than removing other people's freedom by constructing the fence?
Indeed, it's not surprising that with more state inteference comes greater dependence and less responsibility. Its hard to teach children to be good citizens when they see the state as the answer for everything.
segat1
What's not true - that the gov doesn't get tax revenue from ciggies and booze? That they don't get donations from tobacco companies? Nice one! Who said I was talking about hospital fees? The tax revenue is HUGE!
Who said I was talking about hospital fees? The tax revenue is HUGE!I'm talking about the British government, I can't speak for Australia. Whatever the British government gets in revenues is less than what they spend treating people for smoking related illnesses
ninman
I'm talking about the British government, I can't speak for Australia. Whatever the British government gets in revenues is less than what they spend treating people for smoking related illnesses
Thats not what the facts say,
According to the British Medical Association, smoking related illness costs the NHS approximately £1.75 billion in 2004.
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/humancosttobacco~UKpicture
According to HM Customs and Excise, tax revenue on tobacco was over £8 billion for the tax period 2004-2005.
http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/downloadFile?contentID=HMCE_PROD1_025022
forgive me for not reading all the other posts. The long and short of it is that many, many people would be in favour of a complete ban. But the fact is that the tobacco companies have such power that the government would be unwilling to draft legislation. For instance, think about the huge amounts of revenue generated by tax. This money is spent on things like the health service. Harsh as it may sound, smoking supports public services. A better solution is to force smokers and the obese to pay for their NHS treatment (obviously there should be exceptions). So much money is linked to the tobacco industry that a ban wouldn't be that straightforward. I'm not saying that this is a major objection to a ban, but an example of how extensive the industry's links is its sponsorship of snooker (and previously formula 1). The effects of a ban would be wider than you suspect. Think of who would be in favour of it - employers (employees wouldn't be taking 'fag breaks' all the time) - non-smokers, perhaps publicans (who wouldnt mind bringing back people who hate smoking without sacrificing smoking customers) and perhaps even many smokers themselves. In principle, I'm in favour of it, too - just the economics don't add up.
why don't they tax people who have big cars to make up for it. Big cars like jeeps and whatever have a higher fuel consumption, therefore create more pollution. So by a similar logic one could argue that people who drive small hatchbacks with a low fuel consumption should be rewarded by paying lower taxes and people who drive big American style SUV's should be punished.
ninman
why don't they tax people who have big cars to make up for it. Big cars like jeeps and whatever have a higher fuel consumption, therefore create more pollution. So by a similar logic one could argue that people who drive small hatchbacks with a low fuel consumption should be rewarded by paying lower taxes and people who drive big American style SUV's should be punished.
Surely those whose vehicles consume more fuel are paying more in taxes anyway.
And here in the uk, if you drive a vehicle registered before March 2001 that's under 1549cc, you pay about a third less in
Vehicles registered after March 2001 are slotted into categories for road tax purposes according to their CO2 emissions, and whether they're petrol. diesel, or alternatively-fuelled.
ninman
why don't they tax people who have big cars to make up for it. Big cars like jeeps and whatever have a higher fuel consumption, therefore create more pollution. So by a similar logic one could argue that people who drive small hatchbacks with a low fuel consumption should be rewarded by paying lower taxes and people who drive big American style SUV's should be punished.
They do, petrol is taxed.
i think its stupid.
some of my friends smoke, and when we go to a non smoking bar i have to go outside with them so they can smoke and its freezing cold!!
anyway thats not the point.
the point is it should be up to the owner of the place, i.e. pub, restaurant, shop etc whether to make it smoking ir non- smoking.
if customers dont like they just shouldnt go there.
if a place is smoking and they feel they are making a loss then by all means turn it into a non smoking place.
some of my friends smoke, and when we go to a non smoking bar i have to go outside with them so they can smoke and its freezing cold!!
anyway thats not the point.
the point is it should be up to the owner of the place, i.e. pub, restaurant, shop etc whether to make it smoking ir non- smoking.
if customers dont like they just shouldnt go there.
if a place is smoking and they feel they are making a loss then by all means turn it into a non smoking place.
Melana
So as long as you own the property, you should be able to do whatever you like, even if that means killing the other people inside? Granted it's their choice to be there, but consent doesn't make murder any more legal.
i think you are over reacting slightly?
maybe we should put a complete ban on cars and puclic transport etc cos owners of these cars etc (i.e. smokers) are killing us!
Related discussions
- UK governments to ban disposable vapes
- Rishi Sunak considering banning cigarettes for the next generation
- Vaping ‘linked to cancer and damages body like smoking’
- Should mobile phone use be banned in schools?
- Kallisto's Sunday Question: Smoking
- Never start vaping, says 12-year-old girl with lung damage
- 2023 King's Speech
- how many people here smoke?
- Girlfriend's mum is a very bitter and jealous person
- I am I gay or straight
- Group 1 Carcinogens
- Glasgow city centre Studio room merchant studios tenancy takeover
- Tenancy takeover Liverpool URGENT
- So will we be banned from driving petrol cars in 2030
- Make it More Ciggy-ey !!
- Shoplifting
- Watched straight and gay porn
- Ombudsman... what is the worst thing that could happen?
- gcse 5 marker
- My complaint to Cadbury's.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
