Smoking ban for public places - Opinions

[Cyclone]

Yes it does logically follow.

 

So your argument rests on, non smoking bars vs smoking bars and you only being able to access one of them whereas I could access both?? Okay

Nearly, but more accurately it goes like this.

I should be safe from second hand smoke in any public place.

Regardsless of our opinions on this, as clearly we aint gonna find any common ground at all...

Did you miss this comment, does it not look like common ground?

"That said, if they'd made it part of the license and allowed councils to keep a balance of smoking and non smoking venues that would have suited me, but since they didn't the current situation also suits. ""

. Surely, SURELY you can see it as more than simply being allowed to smoke in public places or not, do you not recognise that there is a MASSIVE link to govt intervention into our lives and the social control evident during the New Labour govt?

Yes, but this is one of the few things they did that I actually support though.

 

This is kinda the point i'm trying to make here...(And DO bear in mind that Im not one of those who would make people endure my smoking at all, as I hopefully made clear in my first post) However, I am one of these that feels that if I choose to smoke, along with other people who also do, I should have the right to do this is an environment that states its for smokers. Unfortunately that choice is gone for me now and I am left with my smoking being a criminal offence in public places. Not only does this impact on my life in a legal aspect but also due to the fine, it also becomes an economic consideration.

There's no way to balance the rights of people who choose not to smoke with providing for smoking venues though. Unless you want to actually ban non smokers from them, and ban them from hiring non smoking staff.

 

I still strongly feel that smokers should be allowed legally to smoke in clubs/pubs that are designated as smoking environments, that way both smokers and non smokers have a choice as to wether or not they enter, or whether they use an alternative establishment, ie you would have the CHOICE.

Given the freedom to allow or not allow smoking all pubs would allow it. This was a common argument before the ban was introduced, that non smokers had the choice not to come into the smokey environment. It is a choice, but it's not a fair one to force on someone.

[SnailyBoy]

Given the freedom to allow or not allow smoking all pubs would allow it. This was a common argument before the ban was introduced, that non smokers had the choice not to come into the smokey environment. It is a choice, but it's not a fair one to force on someone.

 

Especially for the people who have to work there, which was one of the reasons the ban was brought in.

[rubydazzler]

Stop people smoking in the street!! It's disgusting getting a mouthful of fag smoke when you're walking along, and your kids have to walk through an evil carcinogenic cloud on the way home from school

 

I'd prefer them to smoke inside the pub, than cluttering our public spaces up, and littering the place. Most streets with pubs on them now look like some dossers paradise, with degenerates slouching about in the doorways and on the pavements from mid morning onward.

 

At least you have the choice whether or not to enter if smoking's confined to indoors.

 

... and breathe

[Cozmo]

Nearly, but more accurately it goes like this.

I should be safe from second hand smoke in any public place.

 

 

And as I pointed out, if there were places that catered for smokers then you would have the choice not to frequent them and use an alternative venue that catered for non-smokers, therefore you would be safe from secondhand smoke.

 

Did you miss this comment, does it not look like common ground?

"That said, if they'd made it part of the license and allowed councils to keep a balance of smoking and non smoking venues that would have suited me, but since they didn't the current situation also suits. ""

 

Yes, I missed the comment

 

 

 

Yes, but this is one of the few things they did that I actually support though.

 

I disagree for the reasons I have outlined, I would be criminalised for smoking in public places simply because govt do not cater for smokers in public.

 

 

 

There's no way to balance the rights of people who choose not to smoke with providing for smoking venues though. Unless you want to actually ban non smokers from them, and ban them from hiring non smoking staff.

 

There is a way, very simply people should have the choice, ie if a smokey environment is not for you, then use an alternative venue that is a non smoking venue, simple really.

 

 

 

Given the freedom to allow or not allow smoking all pubs would allow it. This was a common argument before the ban was introduced, that non smokers had the choice not to come into the smokey environment. It is a choice, but it's not a fair one to force on someone.

Again, I disagree because prior to the ban, non smokers had no choice as there was no alternative option, either put up with secondhand smoke or do not come in, that is not a choice. If both smokers and non smokers were catered for then again, there would be choice involved.

 

Futhermore, as we all know, the introduction of govt policy very rarely 'ends there', it is often the case that a precident is set and further policy ie control is implemented as a result. There has been ongoing discussion as to the outlawing of individuals smoking in THEIR OWN CARS...(?????) and also in their own homes if they are being visited by say for example a non-smoking health worker or professional, I mean, where will it end?

 

 

 

 

As You can tell, I have not got my head around multi quoting messages!

[SnailyBoy]

There is a way, very simply people should have the choice, ie if a smokey environment is not for you, then use an alternative venue that is a non smoking venue, simple really.

 

And who should work there?

[Cyclone]

Surely any argument about smoking in your own car is about the ability to control the vehicle, and nothing to do with health.

[Cozmo]

Surely any argument about smoking in your own car is about the ability to control the vehicle, and nothing to do with health.

 

Eh?? This discussion (for me anyway) is not about health at all. As I hope I made clear earlier I have NO argument towards anyones choice towards a healthy lifestyle....let me clarify this in case theres any doubt....

I COZMO fully support an individuals choice NOT to be around smoke if they choose not to! Okay, thats clear now right?

 

The dicussion is about CHOICE or rather lack of it, as far as I know, there has not really been any issue since the bloody motorcar was invented that suggests having a fag in your mouth means you cant control a car....(???)

 

 

Awaits the inevitable response which begs to difffer........

[Cozmo]

And who should work there?

 

Maybe someone who CHOOSES to, say for example a smoker, or even a non smoker who doesnt object to being in that environment

[SnailyBoy]

Maybe someone who CHOOSES to, say for example a smoker, or even a non smoker who doesnt object to being in that environment

 

So there should be jobs specifically for smokers? For someone so pro-CHOICE it seems pretty divisive. Surely the current situation is better for all employees?

[knowsbetter]

There are no further restrictions that can be imposed upon smokers that are enforceable. I have reason to visit a local hospital that is supposedly smokefree in its grounds. Security personnell policed the ban successfully for some time. Now however people smoke in the grounds again and if they are approached by a security officer they merely tell him to go away. They do so.