quote:

Originally posted by Joobs_too:

quote:

Originally posted by Heselbine:
I don't really see the problem of this. However, the default should be no smoking as far as I'm concerned.

Fine, I personally think the Mods should have asked those people who actually have been living under the new laws for the past year to give their opinion on its effects rather than asking you to conjecture on what may or may not entail when it is enacted in your area of Britain.

From my perspective, no one up here is too bothered. Yeah it is inconvenient having to go outside for a puff but that's the way it is so it happens. It really isn't even an issue which anyone even bothers or talks about. Like everything the media tries to hype up into a big burning issue it'll just be exposed as a damp squib.

It is like the whole question of ID cards - there is little doubt it will eventually happen so what. I carried one for over 20 years it wasn't a problem. Most people on the continent don't have any problem with them, it really is just another non-issue. How many people work in jobs which require them to wear an ID card - do they refuse or object, what's the problem?

I totally and completely concur. It's inevitable. Let's put the blasted things in now instead of having an endless debate.

In my job I manage changes in a small company. I can't get 150 people to agree on what we can do, and I have to endlessly ask them their opinions. Imagine extrapolating that to 60 million people! I have some sympathy.

quote:

Originally posted by DanDare:
No Heslebine I loathe the Daily Mail! I was merely trying to point out that, 10 years on, we have to look back and see what has happened to our civil liberties collectively, not just one ban here and then maybe one there. Look at the whole infringement of The Terrorism Act upon most people. I can't go to within a mile of the Houses of Parliament and wear a t-shirt saying 'Make Love, Not War'. It's comes under the legislation of being a terrorist threat! I'm not jumping on the paranoia bandwagon - these are facts.

Are you having a laugh? You can't go within a mile of the HoP and wear a t-shirt? If you think that's an infringement of civil liberties I suggest you go to a country where this is really true.

If that's the best 'infringement of civil liberties' you can come up with I think your argument is pretty feeble.

quote:

Originally posted by insight:

However, it is the "peripheral" uses that this Government will put them to

Like what? Your response seems like the classic response to change - "all change must be bad".

quote:

Originally posted by insight:
I too have carried ID cards, and have no objection to the concept as a whole. However, it is the "peripheral" uses that this Government will put them to, the lack of security - especially with all your eggs in one basket, and the complete lack of need that I object to.

Fine, then we make checks and balances to ensure or at least try to ensure that such manipulation does not occur. Heck, are you so naive to believe or suggest that the government and many commercial organisations don't already have masses of info on you? At least with the ID card you know some of what they actually have.

My only real misgivings over it are the cost of it all. Is it worth the expense. But that is a different issue and since I am not really privy to all the details of costings both of the proposed or any alternative schemes I can't really argue about that.

As for civil liberties - really. Civil liberties are "infringed" on many sections of minorities of our society for the benefit of the larger percentage. A convicted and time-served paedophile does not have the same freedoms as you or I but we legitimise his ongoing restrictions because we can see a reason. However, from a purist POV he is still having his civil liberties infringed. Personally I wouldn't care if they just locked them up and threw away the key or castrated them but there are lots of civil liberties people that say that is going too far - That's the problem civil liberties is such a subjective thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Joobs_too:
Fine, then we make checks and balances to ensure or at least try to ensure that such manipulation does not occur. Heck, are you so naive to believe or suggest that the government and many commercial organisations don't already have masses of info on you? At least with the ID card you know some of what they actually have.

My only real misgivings over it are the cost of it all. Is it worth the expense. But that is a different issue and since I am not really privy to all the details of costings both of the proposed or any alternative schemes I can't really argue about that.

Believe me, Joobs, naivety is something that I do not suffer from.
If you fondly imagine that “checks and measures” will be anything more than a mechanism in the draft legislation to get the proposal past the myopic MPs and onto the Statute Books; you are sadly mistaken. Such “checks and measures” exist in most areas of legislation – and are routinely ignored or manipulated. Indeed, in this case it would be governed by, amongst others, the DPA and FOIA; both of which have so many caveats as to be virtually worthless. And do you think for one minute that the Government will not allow commercial plundering of the database to offset the ever-rising costs?

Yes, I know the Government and its various client groups have, and sell, my information. But, unlike ID cards, I know what information is held because it is generally function-specific. I also have some control over that in that I do not have unnecessary things, for instance store cards. But none of them have any biometric information, and they are all relatively disjointed and not routinely communicating with each other unless you are doing something you shouldn’t. By virtue of that – they cannot be used for social engineering purposes, or to spy on me every moment of the day.

You should have misgivings over the cost; you will be bearing it – and, as always, it is going up £millions per day. It is the greatest white elephant ( outside the EU ) in recent times.

quote:

As for civil liberties - really. Civil liberties are "infringed" on many sections of minorities of our society for the benefit of the larger percentage. A convicted and time-served paedophile does not have the same freedoms as you or I but we legitimise his ongoing restrictions because we can see a reason. However, from a purist POV he is still having his civil liberties infringed. Personally I wouldn't care if they just locked them up and threw away the key or castrated them but there are lots of civil liberties people that say that is going too far - That's the problem civil liberties is such a subjective thing.

“Civil liberties are "infringed" on many sections of minorities of our society for the benefit of the larger percentage.” An interesting point – especially as in the context of ID cards the reverse applies; the “Civil Liberties” of the majority will be encroached upon in order to satisfy a minority cause. Actually that’s not strictly true as ID cards are a privacy matter and not civil liberty per se – quite distinct.
Civil liberties exist, to a greater or lesser degree, dependant upon your behaviour. Allegedly, if you behave and do everything you are supposed to do ( ie if you’re completely “invisible” ) your CLs won’t be affected as things stand currently.
As far as the “convicted, time-served paedophile” is concerned; by virtue of their [alleged] crimes they have “voluntarily” relinquished their rights and liberties as we know them. Assuming you refer to one who is in the community, but still monitored, their liberties are not infringed but their rights might be – as you say – in order to satisfy the protection of others. By and large, the only rights that might be affected are those of absolute privacy, and other specific areas such as travel or activities likely to cause reoffending ( or place others in danger ). In reality, their liberties still exist up to the point where they may demonstrate them; their rights are somewhat curtailed to prevent or detect that. As far as locking them up forever; that is impractical, and castration is possible without infringement upon human rights or liberties because their potential actions are criminal offences.

Smoking is a stupid thing to do, and anyone who smokes, including myself, is a fool. But this ban is ridiculous. Lets say you have a pub which has an outside area, and all the smokers go there to smoke. Then it gets a bit cold so they put up some sort of tent. Then it gets colder, so they cover up the smoking area some more. Then someone comes to tell them that the smoking area is now an enclosed space because its too covered up, and they have to either disallow smoking, or make it less covered up. But who cares? people still know that that is the smoking area, and non smokers still have their area, and everyone has a choice. In other words, this ban is not about smoking, because there are so many simple alternatives. Its about controlling behaviour. You cant even smoke at an overground station platform, which is about as enclosed as the average street.


Then we have the excuses, like the ban will help you to quit. Whether someone quits or not is no ones business. Thats just an excuse to make the ban seem like its a good thing. Its not. And there are a lot of non smokers who also think its a stupid rule.

The fact is this: smoking in proximity to others damages their health. No-one has the right to willfully damage someone else's health. Therefore, the ban is a good idea. Leafar - the picture you paint of an outdoor area getting more enclosed to keep out bad weather is pointless and irrelevant. You can concoct situations to illustrate any point you want to, so your story doesn't carry any weight.

To think the smoking ban is a way of controlling behaviour in an Orwellian sense is worse than paranoid. It's plain ignorant.

I, incidentally, am a smoker and have been for many years. I'm not proud of it. I support the ban for not only my sake, but for the sake of others.

Yes, smoking is bad for the smoker and others close by, and yes its true that people shouldnt be forced to be around smoke if they dont want to be. I agree. But that does not make the ban a good idea at all, simply because it forces smokers to smoke outdoors, when all you have to do is have smoking areas indoors. And the picture that i paint is very relevant because it illustrates the ridiculousness of the ban. Why do smokers have to smoke outside, when all you have to do is provide indoor areas? Sure, if you want to make smokers smoke in certain areas only, thats fine, but it neednt be outdoors.

quote:

it neednt be outdoors

The ban was for the benefit of people working in such establishments. If you are a waitress in a restaurant with a smoking area, you have to go in there. Hence the ban.

The ban should also be about encouraging people to give up a vile and socially damaging addiction that benefits no one.

The ban is way too simplistic. Every situation is slightly different, and requires its own approach. If a pubs customers are 90% smokers, then that pub should not have such a ban, otherwise theyll lose a lot of customers, and many pubs have closed down because of this. They could just simply have a little non smoking area, and perhaps a non smoking at the bar / toilets rule, and then everyone would be satisfied. Now that makes sense. Some places may require a total ban, fair enough, but in many places it would be unnecessary and impractical. Thats what im trying to get across. The ban is impractical you apply it to every single establishment.

As for the ban being a good idea because in might encourage people to smoke, thats nonsense. Smokers smoke, its what they do. We all know that smoking is addictive so the ban is only going to help those smokers who are already very determined to quit. Most smokers will just use the new outdoor areas, and ironically theyll be joined by their non smoking friends, making the ban even more ridiculous. On a more serious note about this aspect of the ban, how would you feel if there was some sort of drinking ban, and a ban on fatty food, and all the other things that are bad for us? Be serious. Smoking may be bad for you, but theres such a thing as choice, and this ban goes too far. You dont even have to be a smoker to know this.

Having smoking areas in pubs/restaurants doesn't work, because smoke doesn't just stay directly over the smokers, it drifts around affecting the health of other patrons. You'd have to be mildly homocidal to think that this is in any way acceptable.
The "alcohol" or "fatty foods" ban arguments do not hold water, as just a small amount of thought will show. Those things are only bad for the health of the person consuming them. You don't get heart disease from sitting next to someone eating a deep-fried lard burger, now do you? Your liver doesn't call it a day if you sit next to someone necking a bottle of gin. Your lungs, however, are damaged my sitting not just next to but in the vicinity of someone smoking. End of.

Indoor smoking areas do not work. Smoke is a capricious beast, and will drift around. The argument about banning alcohol or fatty foods because they are bad for you doesn't hold any water at all, as just a small amount of thought will show. You don't get heart disease from sitting next to someone tucking into a big greasy lard-burger. You don't get liver damage from sitting next to someone necking a litre of cheap gin. You DO get lung damage, possibly fatal, from sitting not just next to a smoker, but anywhere in the vicinity. Therein lies the difference, and the reason why the ban is a good thing. I kinda think maybe they marketed it wrong. Instead of a smoking ban, why not call it a health revolution? Or a clean air bonanza?!

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:
The ban is way too simplistic. Every situation is slightly different, and requires its own approach. If a pubs customers are 90% smokers, then that pub should not have such a ban, otherwise theyll lose a lot of customers, and many pubs have closed down because of this. They could just simply have a little non smoking area, and perhaps a non smoking at the bar / toilets rule, and then everyone would be satisfied. Now that makes sense. Some places may require a total ban, fair enough, but in many places it would be unnecessary and impractical. Thats what im trying to get across. The ban is impractical you apply it to every single establishment.

Did you read what I said about the ban being to protect employees. By having a smoke-filled establishment, you are saying that the bar staff/waitresses etc have to breathe in other peoples' poison. Or do you suggest that we should say that only smokers can work in certain places - that really would be ridiculous (not to mention illegal).

quote:

As for the ban being a good idea because in might encourage people to not smoke, thats nonsense. Smokers smoke, its what they do. We all know that smoking is addictive so the ban is only going to help those smokers who are already very determined to quit.

As a result of the smoking ban, 30% of people are smoking less and an additional 2% have quit (BBC Radio 4 this morning). The ban is just another reason we can give to smokers to stop smoking. To say that its addictive and therefore we shouldn't bother is apathetic.

quote:

Most smokers will just use the new outdoor areas, and ironically theyll be joined by their non smoking friends, making the ban even more ridiculous.

Firstly, passive smoking is not really a problem outdoors. Secondly - do you ever go to the pub. Unless it happens to be nice weather outside, you don't follow the smokers out. They pop out for a fag and then come back in.

quote:

On a more serious note about this aspect of the ban, how would you feel if there was some sort of drinking ban, and a ban on fatty food, and all the other things that are bad for us? Be serious. Smoking may be bad for you, but theres such a thing as choice, and this ban goes too far. You dont even have to be a smoker to know this.

This is a slippery slope argument (a type of fallacy, btw). People do not have a human right to smoke, especially because their actions harm other people. I could equally well as say that there is such a thing as the choice to smoke cannbis, or inject heroin. There has to be a line of what is and is not socially acceptable and should be banned. Don't forget that people like me are paying taxes so that smokers can get treatment for their dumb habit on the NHS.

As for fatty foods and alcohol. I think there is a good case to be made for prohibiting the advertising of fatty foods at children. Ditto alcohol (which already can't associate booze with sex by law). The thing is that fatty foods and alcohol, it eaten/drunk in moderation are not necessarily bad things. Smoking is always bad, full stop. Hence you comparison, along with being a slippery slope, is also a strawman. I'm impressed

^ Two more good points regster.

Regster, something needs to pointed out here. There are 2 ways around the problem. One is to physically close off smoking areas. Not all venues will be able to do this, fair enough. But the other, much easier way is to allow pubs to make their "outdoor" areas as enclosed as possible so that people dont freeze in the winter. But as we know, this wouldnt be allowed, even though it would make perfect sense. Or do you think it doesnt? And also, an overground train station is about as enclosed as a street (ie its not). Youre right about fatty foods, gin etc, but my argument is that smoking areas should not be forced to be outdoors, when they can be covered up nicely without hurting non smokers.

Welshwarlock, if you have a no smoking at the bar / toilet rule, and you have a smoking area thats cut off but still indoors (or outside but well covered), then bar staff will be fine. Again, the point that i want to get across is that to have such a uniform ban for all places makes no sense.
In free countries, you dont have laws telling you not to smoke in public enclosed areas because its good for your health.

I do see what you mean leafar, and I suppose on the face of it why shouldn't there be indoor smoking areas, if they are separate rooms? I don't know, but suspect that the logistics of enforcing this would be beyond a joke. However, I still support a total indoor ban as I think that outdoors is the only place where smoking will only impact on the person doing the smoking. Even in a separate indoor room, you could argue that some smoke and therefore risks will linger and affect people outside the room.

I used to be a smoker, and must confess that the atmosphere (and smell of clothing and body) is far more pleasant post ban. But.......

Surely, as we are all agreed that smoking isn't the most healthy of pursuits, those who choose to smoke should be allowed establishments where all (from owner to staff to patrons) are agreed that it's Cowboy Killer Central once you enter those doors. Seems only fair in a liberal democracy, no?.....

Regster, the more you really look into the practicalities of the ban, and the sensible alternatives, its easy to see that its a very stupid law. So many people (including non smkers) are very much against it (ive seen the forums), and lots of pubs are closing, and many are simply not going along with it. Its just that you dont see that on the news.

Also, lets say that a pub happened to have a small separate building in the beer garden and wanted to use it as a smoking area, well away from non smokers where theres no way it can disturb them. This wouldnt be allowed, as it would be an enclosed space. Does anyone have the intelligence to begin seeing how this is not practical?

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:
Regster, the more you really look into the practicalities of the ban, and the sensible alternatives, its easy to see that its a very stupid law. So many people (including non smkers) are very much against it (ive seen the forums), and lots of pubs are closing, and many are simply not going along with it. Its just that you dont see that on the news.

Have you got any evidence to back this up?

A few weeks ago i did a bit of research on google and it came up with forums that discuss the ban. I cant remember the names of any of them, but if youd like to see what non smokers etc say about it, or anything to support what i say, i suggest that you do a bit bit of research yourself. It shouldnt take too long to find something relevant.

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:
A few weeks ago i did a bit of research on google and it came up with forums that discuss the ban. I cant remember the names of any of them, but if youd like to see what non smokers etc say about it, or anything to support what i say, i suggest that you do a bit bit of research yourself. It shouldnt take too long to find something relevant.

*SIGH*

Does it possibly occur to you that you found things which supported your pre-existing viewpoint? I am sure if I googled the same subject I could similarly find support for my pre-existing viewpoint. I won't bother.

The scientific method, which clearly you are ignorant of or have no respect for, helps to enforce an objective evaluation of evidence. Your anecdotal assertions are of no value to any debate whatsoever. If you find some actual evidence, let me know where it is and I'll look at it. If all you've got is "loads of people think this 'cos I found it on the internet" then I will treat your posts with the contempt they deserve.

You seem to know a lot about what ive found, considering that ive barely gone into any detail. So let me tell you basically what i have come across : smokers who agree with the ban, non smokers who agree with the ban (a lot), smokers who disagree with it (a hell of a lot, naturally), and i hate to disappoint, but i also saw evidence of a large number of non smkoers who disagree strongly with the ban for many reasons.

Obviously, you can always find evidence for what you already believe. We all know that. My point is, however, that you asked me about evidence for what i said earlier, and im letting you know that it exists. If you dont wish to see it, thats up to you. If you wish to seek it, go ahead. But its there. Your willingness or otherwise to look into what i claim is youraffair. Im not on trial. Check it for yourself if you like. Dont expect me spoonfeed you when google is 3 seconds away. Theres no excuse.

One of the reasons why i might not give links to something is simply because i dont know of any, so my suggestion would be to go to a search engine.
Another reason is because, as has been said, we can all find evidence for anything we like, so if were to give a link, thats the response id get, and i would have wasted my time.
Another reason is this : I presume that if youre posting on this thread, that theres a very good chance that youre the sort of person who is at least remotely interested in the truth about things. So what problem do you have with going to google and checking things out yourself? Ive already done it, and i know what ive read, and i know that im not making it up. If youre interested in the truth of things, go ahead and do the same. Go to google and type in "smoking ban", opposition, civil disobedience, etc. It wont take 2 minutes. But you dont have to if you dont want to.