This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Full smoking ban!

Reply 100

Vienna

12

Daveo

When someone comes and sits next to me in bar,pub,bench or anywhere and smokes, should I move?

Bar/pub: if you're bothered, yes.
Bench: where's the bench?

Reply 101

Daveo

16

Tonight Matthew

I'm not denying that smoking kills. I'm just saying that by your logic in your previous post, a landlord also shouldn't be allowed to sell alcohol, after all, it "ultimately could lead to the death of his customers" (your words). Yes, alcohol in moderation may not be a problem, but how many pubs are frequented solely by people drinking in moderation? Very few I'd imagine. Thus the vending of alcohol is a behaviour is certainly something that "ultimately COULD lead to the deaths of his customers".

The basic point is, people are aware smoking can kill, people are aware alcohol can kill, so you make up your own mind as to whether you want to take that risk and enter the landlord's property, his pub. If you aren't willing to take that risk, don't go to the pub. Quite simple really.

Going to the pub is not some inalienable human right. It's a choice you make. It's just a shame that so many people are apparently unwilling to take responsibility for the risks their own decisions might carry and thus require the government to meddle in people's property and business rights.

Smoking actively kills other people, the smoker doesnt have to do anything other than light up in a public place, yes alcohol no doubt does have its problems with alcohol fueled violence but that depends on the person drinking it and requires them to do something in order to cause damage.
Why should I have to goto a pub if i want to drink in moderation and be happy only for a smoker to come and cover me in smoke? I'm making the choice that I want to goto the pub but i dont want to be surrounded by smoke or smell of smoke afterwards...as I currently cant do that I look forward to being able to now the government has finally got its act together.

Reply 102

Vienna

12

Melana

If you decide you don't like the smoking ban, don't go to a bar or club, or don't smoke in it. Your choice.

Its the state's choice. Not the bar owners, not the landowners, not the councils and certainly not mine.

Reply 103

blissy

15

Vienna

Bar/pub: if you're bothered, yes.
Bench: where's the bench?

Why on earth did the smoker's right to smoke used to take precedent over the nonsmoker who was there first, settled and not invading anyone else's breathing space? It's nonsensical. Hooray for the government.

Reply 104

Daveo

16

Vienna

Bar/pub: if you're bothered, yes.
Bench: where's the bench?

So you're saying I should Actively HAVE to move in order to protect my health just beacuse someone wants to smoke? pfft.

And the bench could be anywhere. (in a public place :smile:

)

Reply 105

Vienna

12

mipmapped

Free markets are not inherantly bad. Infact they are very good. They just cease to function with no government input. The injection of a small amount of politics into freemarkets corrupts them. The only way of correcting this is adding further politics in the form of regulation.

Erm, ok

This 'nanny state'

Well I'm glad someone recognises what this represents.

Reply 106

Vienna

12

Daveo

So you're saying I should Actively HAVE to move in order to protect my health just beacuse someone wants to smoke? pfft.

What rights do you have otherwise?

And the bench could be anywhere. (in a public place :smile:

)

Smoking shouldnt be permitted in a state owned or funded area.

Reply 107

Daveo

16

Vienna

What rights do you have otherwise?
.

The right not to have my health harmed by someone else?

Reply 108

Melana

14

Vienna

Its the state's choice. Not the bar owners, not the landowners, not the councils and certainly not mine.

It's not your choice whether you smoke there or not, but it's your choice whether you go there.

Smokers not smoking V Non-smokers having to leave a pub.

Smokers are harming other people, non-smokers are not, therefore they're the ones that should have to change.

Reply 109

mipmapped

13

This 'nanny state'

the power of the out-of-context quote!

I'm not necessarily in favour of this sort of control, but ultimately, we have to accept that the state makes decisions on the behalf of its citizens. Our government is elected. It [should] reflect the will of the people. And if it's the will of the many to be nannied so be it.

Reply 110

Vienna

12

blissy

Why on earth did the smoker's right to smoke used to take precedent over the nonsmoker who was there first, settled and not invading anyone else's breathing space? It's nonsensical.

They dont have any rights, only those afforded to them by the landowner. I dont come into your home and demand rights that fit in with my idea of whats best for us all. Are you honestly advocating that the state ensure we are all polite to one another?

Reply 111

Tyler Durden

17

Vienna

You reject the effects of THC?

The effects? No, I don't. But various studies have suggested that the effects of smoking cigarettes (seeing as people tend to smoke more of them) are as harmful - if not more so - than those of smoking cannabis. Certainly it's not clear cut.

It doesnt have rights, we give it the power to do so. To follow this argument is fine, but then you would also support outlawing smoking entirely, as other drug abuse is. Thats not what this ban is about.

I wouldn't support a total ban on cigarettes currently. But there is quite simply a difference between a pub and a private home. In your mind you might equate the two, but there are differences - legal definitions see the black and the white, but rarely the grey. Two people having sex on a pub table might well be arrested for public indecency (even if the landlord himself didn't mind). Or, more realistically, someone might be arrested for being drunk and disorderly whereas in a private home they wouldn't. So if you accept that a pub and a private home are not entirely similar, then why can the government not outlaw a practice which is harmful to everyone in the building?

I dont smoke pot, so I wouldnt go to that pub.

That's not my point as you well know. If a landlord decided he wanted to allow people to smoke dope on his private property, should he be allowed to do so?

Reply 112

Vienna

12

mipmapped

the power of the out-of-context quote!
I'm not necessarily in favour of this sort of control, but ultimately, we have to accept that the state makes decisions on the behalf of its citizens. Our government is elected. It [should] reflect the will of the people. And if it's the will of the many to be nannied so be it.

As I said, you recognise that this is what such a ban represents.

Reply 113

mipmapped

13

'Nanny state' does not have positive connotations. I qualified its use by saying that it's a good thing, so long it is what the people demand.

Anyway.

The property argument is compelling. However, you can only do as you wish within your own property as defined in law. If you disregard this, you are effectively giving the nod to anarchy.

If you don't like the laws that the state outlines, you can lobby for their change via democratic processes. Or leave. Or become leader of a coup.

Reply 114

Vienna

12

englishstudent

The effects? No, I don't. But various studies have suggested that the effects of smoking cigarettes (seeing as people tend to smoke more of them) are as harmful - if not more so - than those of smoking cannabis. Certainly it's not clear cut.

I dont know much of the medical detail to disagree, but saying that cigarettes are more dangerous because you conume more of them, seems like one of the poorer arguments.

I wouldn't support a total ban on cigarettes currently.

So you dont believe they pose that necessary threat to the society in general.

But there is quite simply a difference between a pub and a private home. In your mind you might equate the two, but there are differences - legal definitions see the black and the white, but rarely the grey. Two people having sex on a pub table might well be arrested for public indecency (even if the landlord himself didn't mind). Or, more realistically, someone might be arrested for being drunk and disorderly whereas in a private home they wouldn't. So if you accept that a pub and a private home are not entirely similar, then why can the government not outlaw a practice which is harmful to everyone in the building?

Well firstly, I'd love to know which law prohibits you from being drunk in a bar despite the consent of the bar owner. And the law regarding indecent exposure would be far harder to prosecute in your case than if they were seen in the high street. Nevertheless, the state does interfere because businesses are regulated to some extent. I agree with some of the regulation and disagree with the rest. The anarchist disagrees with any, the communist agrees with all. We're somewhere in the middle, but I dont accept that banning smoking justifies the loss of individual liberty. Its clear that im significantly closer to the freedom end of the scale than the majority of the forum.

That's not my point as you well know. If a landlord decided he wanted to allow people to smoke dope on his private property, should he be allowed to do so?

In my opinion yes.

Reply 115

Vienna

12

mipmapped

'Nanny state' does not have positive connotations.

Not for me, no.

I qualified its use by saying that it's a good thing, so long it is what the people demand.

But you disagree with what the market demands?

The property argument is compelling. However, you can only do as you wish within your own property as defined in law. If you disregard this, you are effectively giving the nod to anarchy.

We're discussing what should be made law, not whether we should disobey it.

Reply 116

mipmapped

13

The effects? No, I don't. But various studies have suggested that the effects of smoking cigarettes (seeing as people tend to smoke more of them) are as harmful - if not more so - than those of smoking cannabis. Certainly it's not clear cut.

Cannabis burns hotter and deposits more tar. Cannabis is usually smoked with tabacco. Cannabis is certainly not the 'healthy alternative'.

Reply 117

Tonight Matthew

2

Daveo

Why should I have to goto a pub if i want to drink in moderation and be happy only for a smoker to come and cover me in smoke?

Well, you don't have to go to a pub.

Daveo

I'm making the choice that I want to goto the pub

Therefore you should accept the terms and conditions that the landlord sets out within their pub. Paying £3 for a pint, not taking seats from certain areas, putting up with people smoking, etc.

Reply 118

Melana

14

Vienna - this law here - Section 91, sub-Section 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967:

"It is an offence for any person who whilst drunk in a public place to be guilty of disorderly behaviour.

Public place includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have, or are permitted to have, access whether on payment or otherwise."