|
Post by sinatogen on Nov 1, 2006 0:38:00 GMT
so are you in favour of banning smoking in public places? what about banning smoking altogether?
|
|
|
Post by God's Work Experience Student on Nov 1, 2006 17:03:08 GMT
Banning smoking should be up to the property owner so if by public places you mean government buildings, then I don't object, but there should be no smoking ban on private property.
People should be responsible for their own health so if a person chooses to smoke that should be their choice. Equally, if a person chooses to go into a smoky bar that should be their choice too. If people want to make pubs smoke free then they should do it by giving their custom to landlords who decide to ban smoking on their own property. I don't like pubs that only serve lager but I don't want to ban it or force pubs to serve bitter because lots of people do like to drink lager. So instead I try to go to places that serve beer I like, and avoid places that don't. That's what non-smokers should do - create a market for smoke-free pubs but don't deny smokers the right to choose to go to pubs that allow them to smoke.
|
|
|
Post by Graham was disembowelled on Nov 2, 2006 18:38:17 GMT
i'm inclined to agree except that i can't help looking forward to next year when smoking is banned in pubs - but of course i would say that i dont smoke! i'm slightly worried that they won't stop at smoking (not that i'm defending smoking at all), and start to try to meddle with alcohol and whatever else. if they can start to ban smoking in public places (as they are starting to do with drinking) and now in bars/pubs then what next? start limiting the amount of alcohol we can consume???
in fact i was reading about the new scheme they have intruduced in Yeovil - where you have to give a fingerpring every time you go to the bar to buy alcohol. the landlords who didnt want to accept the scheme were threatened with having their licenses revoked. for starters it stupid - someone who is banned from buying drinks would just get someone else to buy it for them.
|
|
|
Post by pyromaniac on Nov 2, 2006 19:01:34 GMT
This is a tricky one for me - as a Liberal, I'm not comfortable with the 'ban anything that's unhealthy' view. But as an asthmatic, it's clear to me that it's not just a personal choice. Why whould a person have the right to smoke in a pub if that makes other people ill, and damages the health of the staff - and if you take a job in a pub atm, chances are you'll be exposed to smoke. Non-smokers are in the majority, so shouldn't pubs for smokers be the exception, not the rule?
I think there's a definite argument to be made for banning smoking at places which provide some form of entertainment - so anywhere that's not simply a pub, for example theatre bars, or my local comedy venue in Bath, which is in a smoky hell-hole pub basement. That way everyone has access to things which can be classed as entertainment, but people can still choose smokers pubs or ones with oxygen according to preference.
|
|
|
Post by God's Work Experience Student on Nov 3, 2006 18:07:48 GMT
Graham's leg is right to ask where does this end. The government is giving serious consideration to fat taxes. I can't help but wonder how long it will be before someone tries to introduce rationing (and maybe people who don't exercise will have their rations cut).
I'm not advocating a positive "right to smoke". If a landlord wants to ban smoking then they should be able to. However the state has no right to make that decision. Anyone who visits or takes a job in a pub should accept the decision of the property owner/employer or go somewhere else.
I certainly do not think that the majority should set the rules for the minority. A free country must respect the rights of a minority and therefore defend individual liberty - which a smoking ban patently does not do. Whether smoking pubs should be the exception or the rule is not something that should be decided from the top down, but by individuals through free action (i.e. a market) which doesn't just take into account the views of the majority but also the avoidance cost (quite simply whether they are willing to put their money where there mouth is) - something the central planners have quite clearly ignored.
|
|
|
Post by Cowboys on Nov 8, 2006 21:19:10 GMT
i just dont see this being an easy transition to a non smoking socioty, certainly places like rockworld and such are going to find enforcment completely impractical
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 14, 2006 11:55:28 GMT
it will be interesting to see what happens and how it works.
|
|
|
Post by Graham was disembowelled on Nov 14, 2006 18:12:34 GMT
yeh from what i've heard they're going to threaten to take away licenses of places who dont enforce it. i think it'll be a bit ridiculous too. might even start smoking just to be a pain.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Mar 30, 2007 17:11:58 GMT
some lorry driver was telling me about this guy that lit up a cig in the cab of his lorry down in scotland somewhere and after he had done that he opened his window. then got pulled over by the police who got him done for driving without care and attention. so smoking in the car will be out the window.
|
|
|
Post by Cowboys on Jul 11, 2007 19:39:26 GMT
so now the ban is in whats are people thinkin about it, its crazy outside the ritz on a monday not been to rockworld yet so not sure what its like but 30+ people outside all the time is such a bad idea
|
|
|
Post by Graham was disembowelled on Jul 13, 2007 15:56:56 GMT
yeh. but it's a great way of trying to get in for free.
|
|