Political Crossfire Forums

[Lord Hargreaves]

Quote: Plans for a partial ban on smoking in public places in England are "unfair, unjust, inefficient and unworkable", an influential committee of MPs says.

The Commons health select committee says a total ban is the "only effective means" of protecting public health.

The Health Bill would allow smoking to continue in private clubs and pubs which do not serve food.

Health minister Caroline Flint said this represented "a huge step forward for public health".

BBC


Interestingly the story comes at the issue from the angle that a partial ban on smoking in public places is not far enough. When will this god awful government start caring about our civil liberties and stop telling every one of us how we should live?

Am I going to see people being arrested for smoking in the street? What an absurd waste of police resources. This nanny state has gone far enough and quite frankly i'm fed up. It is none of your business what I eat, what I drink, or what I smoke :x

[antonio62]

I'm listening to an interview with him just now. I completely disagree with him. It should be the owners choice whether they ban smoking on there premises.

[Snow Patrol]

Ugh... they passed it in Scotland a while ago, i had higher hopes of the rest of Britain though.

[Pebble]

To a certain extent I agree, though i'd change it to the following:

Quote: It is none of your business what I eat, what I drink, or what I smoke unless it harms others.

The principle reason that smoking is being cracked down on is that smokers adversely affect the health of those around them because of passive smoking.

[Krysis]

Quote: It is none of your business what I eat, what I drink, or what I smoke

Exactly right Hargreaves. Now just because you want to kill yourself doesn't give you the right to take me down aswell. Now take that disgusting (death inducing) smog away from me and smoke somewhere else.

[thefranzkafkafront]

This is what happens when you legislate morality.

[Krysis]

How exactly is this legislating morality? Its a pretty simple formula.

Premise
People want to smoke, this smoking kills them.
Others don't smoke and dont want to be killed by this smoke
Smokers willingly choose to smoke.

Conclusion
Don't subject the healthy people to this smoke and thus ban smoking in public places.

Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

[antonio62]

Why not ban cars as well. Do you know how many breathing problems they cause?

[Lord Hargreaves]

Krysis wrote: Quote: It is none of your business what I eat, what I drink, or what I smoke

Exactly right Hargreaves. Now just because you want to kill yourself doesn't give you the right to take me down aswell. Now take that disgusting (death inducing) smog away from me and smoke somewhere else.

My liberty means nothing to you?

You're the kind of person who'd scream bloody murder if the government cracked down on civil liberties in the interests of national security - but on abstract concepts as "health"? - thats fine, go for it! Such sensational hypcrisy :roll:

After all - getting blown up? Whats that compared to a 2% increased chance of getting lung cancer? :lol:

BTW I'd be interested to learn how my smoking in the street as you walk past has anything other than a negligable effect on your health; and i'd also be interested to know the last time you unknowingly went to a pub thinking it was a health spa (since they want to ban smoking in pubs, so the binge drinkers don't have to worry about their health being endangered)

[Ssushi]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Krysis wrote: Quote: It is none of your business what I eat, what I drink, or what I smoke

Exactly right Hargreaves. Now just because you want to kill yourself doesn't give you the right to take me down aswell. Now take that disgusting (death inducing) smog away from me and smoke somewhere else.

My liberty means nothing to you?

You're the kind of person who'd scream bloody murder if the government cracked down on civil liberties in the interests of national security - but on abstract concepts as "health"? - thats fine, go for it! Such sensational hypcrisy :roll:

After all - getting blown up? Whats that compared to a 2% increased chance of getting lung cancer? :lol:

BTW I'd be interested to learn how my smoking in the street as you walk past has anything other than a negligable effect on your health; and i'd also be interested to know the last time you unknowingly went to a pub thinking it was a health spa (since they want to ban smoking in pubs, so the binge drinkers don't have to worry about their health being endangered)

LHG it amazes me that you take such issue with this. This has been implemented in other countries and almost everyone is happy with it. Everyone knows that smoking is bad for non-smokers so why should bar staff be subjected to this? They shouldn't. Why should I be subjected to it when I go out for a pint? I shouldn't. Admit it, this isn't about smoking, this is yet another Americanised BS view you have based on your 'Liberties' - it's like talking to a pro-gunner: guns are bad but they want to have guns as they represent their liberty...

[Jajo]

I agree with you to an extent Hargreaves, you should not tell people what they can and can not do on there own land be it a pub, restaurant or your own home. It should be left to the pubs to work out if a ban on smoking will be economically beneficial for them or not, you will then find in my view that as has happened with buses they will workout that more people prefer to have a smoke free environment which will in turn lead to a ban on smoking in a majority of pubs with a minority catering to people who want to destroy there lungs as well as there liver

However when the land is in public ownership my view is that the Government should ban smoking on it. As they are the owner they have the right to do this, and although some rights of way are owned by the farmer with a right to pass over it most public streets are owned by the council and as such they should ban smoking on them.

oh and come on think about this 'After all - getting blown up? Whats that compared to a 2% increased chance of getting lung cancer?' there is a much smaller change of getting blown up by a terrorist than there is getting lung cancer, I know 2 people who have had lung cancer 1 of them is dead now I know nobody who has been blown up, that is probably the same here for everyone, cancer is a much more pressing matter than terrorism in the amount of people it kills.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Ssushi wrote:
LHG it amazes me that you take such issue with this.

It amazes me how people can so gleefully surrender their liberties.

Ssushi wrote: This has been implemented in other countries and almost everyone is happy with it.

Not an argument in itself is it?

Ssushi wrote: Everyone knows that smoking is bad for non-smokers

"everyone knows" ? Of course smoking cannot have a positive impact on the health of those around them, but passive smoking has such a negligable effect on say people who merely go to pubs on a Saturday night that its absurd it should be banned. You're more likely to get lung cancer from inhaling the fumes of other cars as you drive to work.

Ssushi wrote: so why should bar staff be subjected to this? They shouldn't.

Its ultimately a choice whether you work in a bar. But having said that, I would support legislation stopping smoking around the immedidate bar itself where people purchace their drinks.

Ssushi wrote: Why should I be subjected to it when I go out for a pint? I shouldn't.

What exactly are you being "subjected" to? Who dragged you kicking and screaming into a smokey pub? A pub is not a damn health clinic, if you cared that much about your health you wouldn't even be in the pub.

There is about a 1% chance of you dying from lung cancer. This raises to 2% if you are a "consistent passive smoker". While people like you scream that the chance of getting lung cancer has doubled and demand the government provide everyone with gas masks in case a lone rebel dares to light a cigarette within a 5 mile radias of a public place; most sensible people realise this is not a sufficient mandate for drastically impacting the rights and lifetstyle of one quarter of the entire population, especially when you are more likely to drown in a bath tub than die of passive smoking.

Ssushi wrote: Admit it, this isn't about smoking, this is yet another Americanised BS view you have based on your 'Liberties' - it's like talking to a pro-gunner: guns are bad but they want to have guns as they represent their liberty...

Of course the core issue is not smoking, but liberty (its sad that even caring about that is now considered merely a bizarre American disease). It is not a positive thing when the government tells us where we can and cannot smoke - its frankly frightening. What next - will they tell us what to eat next? Or how much we can drink?

Ooops, too late

Oh and guns are bad? Why because they kill people - is that not their purpose? This country would be much safer if it was teeming with firearms.

[battleax86]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Quote: Plans for a partial ban on smoking in public places in England are "unfair, unjust, inefficient and unworkable", an influential committee of MPs says.

The Commons health select committee says a total ban is the "only effective means" of protecting public health.

The Health Bill would allow smoking to continue in private clubs and pubs which do not serve food.

Health minister Caroline Flint said this represented "a huge step forward for public health".

BBC


Interestingly the story comes at the issue from the angle that a partial ban on smoking in public places is not far enough. When will this god awful government start caring about our civil liberties and stop telling every one of us how we should live?

Am I going to see people being arrested for smoking in the street? What an absurd waste of police resources. This nanny state has gone far enough and quite frankly i'm fed up. It is none of your business what I eat, what I drink, or what I smoke :x
Even though I agree with you on most issues, I must disagree here. Banning smoking in people's homes is one thing and violates the principles of civil liberties. Banning smoking in common areas is another and serves to protect the health of people who do not wish to subjected to second-hand smoke.

[Ssushi]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Ssushi wrote:
LHG it amazes me that you take such issue with this.

It amazes me how people can so gleefully surrender their liberties.

Ssushi wrote: This has been implemented in other countries and almost everyone is happy with it.

Not an argument in itself is it?

Ssushi wrote: Everyone knows that smoking is bad for non-smokers

"everyone knows" ? Of course smoking cannot have a positive impact on the health of those around them, but passive smoking has such a negligable effect on say people who merely go to pubs on a Saturday night that its absurd it should be banned. You're more likely to get lung cancer from inhaling the fumes of other cars as you drive to work.

Ssushi wrote: so why should bar staff be subjected to this? They shouldn't.

Its ultimately a choice whether you work in a bar. But having said that, I would support legislation stopping smoking around the immedidate bar itself where people purchace their drinks.

Ssushi wrote: Why should I be subjected to it when I go out for a pint? I shouldn't.

What exactly are you being "subjected" to? Who dragged you kicking and screaming into a smokey pub? A pub is not a damn health clinic, if you cared that much about your health you wouldn't even be in the pub.

There is about a 1% chance of you dying from lung cancer. This raises to 2% if you are a "consistent passive smoker". While people like you scream that the chance of getting lung cancer has doubled and demand the government provide everyone with gas masks in case a lone rebel dares to light a cigarette within a 5 mile radias of a public place; most sensible people realise this is not a sufficient mandate for drastically impacting the rights and lifetstyle of one quarter of the entire population, especially when you are more likely to drown in a bath tub than die of passive smoking.

Ssushi wrote: Admit it, this isn't about smoking, this is yet another Americanised BS view you have based on your 'Liberties' - it's like talking to a pro-gunner: guns are bad but they want to have guns as they represent their liberty...

Of course the core issue is not smoking, but liberty (its sad that even caring about that is now considered merely a bizarre American disease). It is not a positive thing when the government tells us where we can and cannot smoke - its frankly frightening. What next - will they tell us what to eat next? Or how much we can drink?

Ooops, too late

Oh and guns are bad? Why because they kill people - is that not their purpose? This country would be much safer if it was teeming with firearms.

LHG - It's all so easy to have an idealistic view of the world when you're sitting in the student union, debating the world.... See it this way; smoking kills people so the more restrictions the better...

WRT Liberties; when weas the last time you genuinely thought that your individual liberties were being restricted? We live in a free and easy society, gay unions have just been allowed (an increase in general liberties), drinking hours extended (more liberties still)... You've picked up on one restriction which is frankly good for us all and ommitted to think of the overall balance of the subject... Yet again another example of your obsession with the USA and their ideals...

[Lord Hargreaves]

Ssushi wrote:

LHG - It's all so easy to have an idealistic view of the world when you're sitting in the student union, debating the world.... See it this way; smoking kills people so the more restrictions the better...

WRT Liberties; when weas the last time you genuinely thought that your individual liberties were being restricted? We live in a free and easy society, gay unions have just been allowed (an increase in general liberties), drinking hours extended (more liberties still)... You've picked up on one restriction which is frankly good for us all and ommitted to think of the overall balance of the subject... Yet again another example of your obsession with the USA and their ideals...

I'm not sure you fully considered all of what I had just written. First you accuse me of having an American style obsession with liberty, which a) Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice, and b) the one American on this thread actually agrees with you!

Second - this idea that I haven't thought of "balance", even though I make the case that 1/4 of the entire UK population will be affected for a negligeable health risk. Are you sure its me who hasn't got things in proportion?

[Pebble]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Ssushi wrote:

LHG - It's all so easy to have an idealistic view of the world when you're sitting in the student union, debating the world.... See it this way; smoking kills people so the more restrictions the better...

WRT Liberties; when weas the last time you genuinely thought that your individual liberties were being restricted? We live in a free and easy society, gay unions have just been allowed (an increase in general liberties), drinking hours extended (more liberties still)... You've picked up on one restriction which is frankly good for us all and ommitted to think of the overall balance of the subject... Yet again another example of your obsession with the USA and their ideals...

I'm not sure you fully considered all of what I had just written. First you accuse me of having an American style obsession with liberty, which a) Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice, and b) the one American on this thread actually agrees with you!

Second - this idea that I haven't thought of "balance", even though I make the case that 1/4 of the entire UK population will be affected for a negligeable health risk. Are you sure its me who hasn't got things in proportion?


Quote: Passive smoking may kill 30 people a day in the UK

Each week in the United Kingdom, passive smoking may cause the death of at least one employee in the hospitality industry and more than 200 people who are exposed to tobacco smoke at home. Jamrozik's estimates of the number of deaths that may be due to passive smoking (p 812) are based on national databases. Although sensitivity analyses showed that these may be overestimates by two thirds, they also showed that if smoking in public places was banned and the general prevalence of smoking fell to under 25% of middle aged adults, all deaths attributable to passive smoking at work would eventually disappear.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/330/7495/0%20


LHG, these people's lives matter, they don't smoke and yet they are dying just because others do.

Look at it from the other side of the coin, these people deserve the 'liberty' to move around in public without being killed by someone elses problem.

[Ssushi]

Quote: Are you sure its me who hasn't got things in proportion?

Errrr, yes.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Pebble wrote:

Quote: Passive smoking may kill 30 people a day in the UK

Each week in the United Kingdom, passive smoking may cause the death of at least one employee in the hospitality industry and more than 200 people who are exposed to tobacco smoke at home. Jamrozik's estimates of the number of deaths that may be due to passive smoking (p 812) are based on national databases. Although sensitivity analyses showed that these may be overestimates by two thirds, they also showed that if smoking in public places was banned and the general prevalence of smoking fell to under 25% of middle aged adults, all deaths attributable to passive smoking at work would eventually disappear.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/330/7495/0%20


LHG, these people's lives matter, they don't smoke and yet they are dying just because others do.

Look at it from the other side of the coin, these people deserve the 'liberty' to move around in public without being killed by someone elses problem.

Seems like bunk science. I wouldn't take any of that seriously.

[battleax86]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Pebble wrote:

Quote: Passive smoking may kill 30 people a day in the UK

Each week in the United Kingdom, passive smoking may cause the death of at least one employee in the hospitality industry and more than 200 people who are exposed to tobacco smoke at home. Jamrozik's estimates of the number of deaths that may be due to passive smoking (p 812) are based on national databases. Although sensitivity analyses showed that these may be overestimates by two thirds, they also showed that if smoking in public places was banned and the general prevalence of smoking fell to under 25% of middle aged adults, all deaths attributable to passive smoking at work would eventually disappear.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/330/7495/0%20


LHG, these people's lives matter, they don't smoke and yet they are dying just because others do.

Look at it from the other side of the coin, these people deserve the 'liberty' to move around in public without being killed by someone elses problem.

Seems like bunk science. I wouldn't take any of that seriously.
Do you have any science that contradicts it?

[Krysis]

Quote: My liberty means nothing to you?

If was part of your 'liberty' to kill me, then you'd have a point. Since it isn't, no i don't care for it. I maintain that you can do whatever you want to yourself just as long as you don't kill me with you. It really can't get any simpler then that.

Your right when you say:
Quote: It is none of your business what I eat, what I drink, or what I smoke

So why the hell do you have to make it my business by smoking in my face?