Political Crossfire Forums

[Lord Hargreaves]

Quote: Cabinet agrees England smoke ban

Ministers have agreed plans for a ban on smoking in enclosed public places in England - with exemptions for clubs and pubs not serving food.

The U-turn comes after days of wrangling and means a return to the pledge set out in Labour's manifesto.

It is seen as a blow for Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt who wanted a wider ban.

The British Medical Association branded the move an "utter disappointment" and a "wasted opportunity".

The plans include a commitment to a review after three years

Blair Broadcasting

I'll leave aside the issue of what appears to have been political infighting and its implications for Tony Blair, because frankly i don't care.

What i'd like to know is - am i the only one who thinks this bill is overly authoritarian? Why is it the government's business where people smoke? Does it not have better things to do?

It appears that there is widespread support for this, so i'm wondering - how come people are so willing to give up their liberties nowadays? Whether people can smoke in a pub should depend on the owners, since smoking is still legal (for the time being anyway) and whether or not legal things take place on what is essentially private property is not a matter for Westminster.

Personally, I don't smoke and don't much like it - but i've never been that bothered by others smoking near me. Sure in small local pubs it can get very smokey and this will put off non-smoking customers - but so what? Shouldn't banning smoking be a decision for the establishment based on attracting business rather than authoritarian legislation?

We had fox hunting, and now this - its going too far IMHO. Next I can see taxes being placed on fast food like they are now on cigarettes, for the "public good" of course. It always is with this terrible nanny state.

Another victory for the health fascists...?

[thundertaker]

I have a big problem with smokers smoking around other people. Frankly, whether they endanger their own lives by smoking is up to them. They shouldn't force others to suffer for their addiction. My Grandad was a non-smoker who died of lung cancer. Watching what happened to him made me lose whatever sympathy I might have had for smokers banished outside in the cold and rain to feed their habit, where they belong, as far as I'm concerned.......

[Lord Hargreaves]

thundertaker wrote: They shouldn't force others to suffer for their addiction.

when did attending a public house become involuntary? Who is "forcing" anyone to stay and drink in a smokey pub?

If you don't like the smoke, find a non-smoking pub or a less smokey pub, or stay at home. The BBC describes a ban against "enclosed public spaces" - yet how many bars and pubs are government owned? Is a public place now defined as anywhere in which a member of the public can enter? Will I be arrested if I gain an alcohol license for my own house and allow people to smoke while they're there?

Having said all this, I fully understand that the great majority of people do not smoke and that second hand smoke can cause health problems - and I would be willing to compromise. Perhaps as well as allowing sealed off smoking rooms like the bill is proposing; pub owners shouild be allowed to apply for a "smoking license" with their alcohol license, with a sign outside telling customers that smoking is allowed. Would that be acceptable?

[thundertaker]

Bar staff have a right to safe working conditions. And before you say 'Oh well, they don't have to work there if they don't want to', they probably said the same things about about women and children working down the mines and mills for 16 hours a day back in the early 19th century. But they needed the money, and so do the people who work in pubs, they at least have the right to work in safe conditions......

[Lord Hargreaves]

well this isn't the 19th century, its the 21st, and Britain is one of the richest nations in the world - so i am afraid i will say, if you don't want to work there, don't. Besides with our public sector now taking on Soviet style proportions its easier than ever to work for the state - and hey, if there isn't a job for you, they'll create it.

[Ssushi]

Everyone loved it when it was introduced in Ireland!

But on the undermining my civil liberties front, why is that I cannot:

Drive without using my seatbelt.
Ride a motorbike without a helmet.
Work on a building site without a hardhat, steel toecapped boots etc...
Smoke cannabis
Inject heroin
blah blah blah

The fact is that non-smoking bills are great news for everyone! Most smokers don't want to smoke but are addicted and most non-smokers don't want to breath smoke in!

The real point ot me is why non-smokable tabacco is not available outside Sweden? This is the best way for nicotine addicts to get their fix without affecting others... I switched from tabs to snus 8 years ago and am clearly more healthy for it...

[Lord Hargreaves]

Ssushi wrote:

But on the undermining my civil liberties front, why is that I cannot:

Drive without using my seatbelt.
Ride a motorbike without a helmet.
Work on a building site without a hardhat, steel toecapped boots etc...
Smoke cannabis
Inject heroin
blah blah blah


Yes indeed, these are great points. Certainly it is strange objecting over laws that are meant to protect other people while there are already laws that are meant to protect the individual from themselves.

However, I would still argue my original point, because evidence of previous authoritarianism is not a great argument for more, aside from the consistency point. The harmful effects of second-hand smoking are not really comparable to your examples, where life and death are literally on the line most of the time.

Essentially, I am trying to draw a line between "health" and "safety", if such a line can realistically be drawn. What I eat is my business, I don't need the government wasting taxpayer money on advertising campaigns to tell me that fat drenched hamburgers are unhealthy in excess (this govt has spent more on advertising than any in history) - or, if i smoked, i would probably say the same about quit smoking campaigns.

Anyway, does anyone have an opinion on my proposal for "smoking licenses"? Would that not be a good compromise?

[Eton]

Our liberties are being curtailed more relentlessly by the anti-terrorist legislation. So I think I can live with this anti-smoking bill.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Eton wrote: Our liberties are being curtailed more relentlessly by the anti-terrorist legislation. So I think I can live with this anti-smoking bill.

Well its lack of importance isn't an effective argument for it is it?

[antonio62]

I'm not sure a smoking ban is necessary allot of the large chain pub are already making them no smoking and so are allot of other pubs. I actually think its a good thing. I would prefer not to have the Smokey smell stick to me. I also don't like having to breathe it in.

[Eton]

The anti-snoking bill will actually save more lives than the anti-terrorist bill!

[Lord Hargreaves]

Eton wrote: The anti-snoking bill will actually save more lives than the anti-terrorist bill!

yes, and banning cars would save a great deal more. Your comment says nothing about either set of laws.

[Windy]

Ssushi wrote: Everyone loved it when it was introduced in Ireland!

But on the undermining my civil liberties front, why is that I cannot:

Drive without using my seatbelt.
Ride a motorbike without a helmet.
Work on a building site without a hardhat, steel toecapped boots etc...
Smoke cannabis
Inject heroin
blah blah blah

The fact is that non-smoking bills are great news for everyone! Most smokers don't want to smoke but are addicted and most non-smokers don't want to breath smoke in!

The real point ot me is why non-smokable tabacco is not available outside Sweden? This is the best way for nicotine addicts to get their fix without affecting others... I switched from tabs to snus 8 years ago and am clearly more healthy for it...



Because most people aren't addicted to the tabacco its the 1001 things they put into it.

[Windy]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Ssushi wrote:

But on the undermining my civil liberties front, why is that I cannot:

Drive without using my seatbelt.
Ride a motorbike without a helmet.
Work on a building site without a hardhat, steel toecapped boots etc...
Smoke cannabis
Inject heroin
blah blah blah


Yes indeed, these are great points. Certainly it is strange objecting over laws that are meant to protect other people while there are already laws that are meant to protect the individual from themselves.

However, I would still argue my original point, because evidence of previous authoritarianism is not a great argument for more, aside from the consistency point. The harmful effects of second-hand smoking are not really comparable to your examples, where life and death are literally on the line most of the time.

Essentially, I am trying to draw a line between "health" and "safety", if such a line can realistically be drawn. What I eat is my business, I don't need the government wasting taxpayer money on advertising campaigns to tell me that fat drenched hamburgers are unhealthy in excess (this govt has spent more on advertising than any in history) - or, if i smoked, i would probably say the same about quit smoking campaigns.

Anyway, does anyone have an opinion on my proposal for "smoking licenses"? Would that not be a good compromise?

Yes it would if the safety to the staff were not involved and it was just an issue about patrons.
I agree with you about the government health campaigns- some are necessary however, salt for example (I brought it up on here once and someone actually said that you can't have too much of it), but ones saying don't eat so much fat or drugs are bad really are a waste of time.
Put the pictures or slogans on the front of a pack but don't waste millions telling people what they already know.

[JDnCoke]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: yes, and banning cars would save a great deal more. Your comment says nothing about either set of laws.

300? More people are murdered in New York City alone annually.

[Lord Hargreaves]

JDnCoke wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: yes, and banning cars would save a great deal more. Your comment says nothing about either set of laws.

300? More people are murdered in New York City alone annually.

It would save more, not more than. It was badly phrased I apologise

[johnz]

"cough" "cough"

[Lord Hargreaves]

johnz wrote: "cough" "cough"

yo dude quit smoking - its bad for you

[johnz]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: johnz wrote: "cough" "cough"

yo dude quit smoking - its bad for you

so is hanging around american political forums! dude!

























hehehe

[Ssushi]

johnz wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: johnz wrote: "cough" "cough"

yo dude quit smoking - its bad for you

so is hanging around american political forums! dude!

























hehehe

Forgive LHG, he's your enough to believe Americanisms are kewl :lol: