Smoking ban

[Puskas]

I don't have any real appetite for this debate anymore, as I'm afraid I am prepared to recline in the smug and selfish knowledge that the new law represents my interests and prejudices quite well, so I'm happy. When my plane touched down at Stansted this morning and the pilot announced (after it had slipped my mind) that England is now a non-smoking area, I actually cheered.

Once upon a time most legal disputes in England were settled by the two parties either having a fight to the death, or one party being branded by a hot iron and using the wound to gauge his innocence. This practice, despite continuing for a considerable lenght of time, was eventually considered to be anachronistic and was replaced by juries, professional judges, and detailed consideration of facts. Smoking in public (or indeed, altogether) has, in my opinion, become similarly anachronistic and it is no argument at all to say that something should continue because it has been the state of affairs that has prevailed for a long period.

DSB's example is an interesting one - would any of the unhappy smokers on here be happy to smoke around babies or small children? If not, does the increased resilience that humans acquire as they get old entirely justify their being treated differently?

You don't actually provide a single shred of evidence for your argument here, do you? You could equally well say, "Drinking in public (or indeed altogether) has, in my opinion, become similarly anachronistic" without having to change the post. There are arguments for a smoking ban, just as there arguments against it. To ignore them all is not merely lazy, it's dangerous - we are, after all, talking about restricting the ability of an individual to behave in a certain. If we're not prepared to justify why we're making that restriction, we're heading down to a society that will become increasingly unpleasant to live in.
As for the point about children - they require more protection, and we treat children differently in all sorts of ways. You want an example - would you be prepared to have sex with a consenting adult? You see the point (albeit an extreme one). Children are not the same as adults, and should not be treated as such.

[Puskas]

these cocks of landlords who "want their day in court" are misguided and no doubt misadvised. The tobacco industry is happy to cough up a few grand but the landlords will get nowhere, it's an open and shut case, the law itself doesn't have to be justified, all that has to be shown is it being broken - appearing in a national newpaper saying you're breaing the law is quite a clear admission of guilt. He'll be pissed off when he loses his licence.

It's quite true that to convict the landlords the law does not need to be justified, but in a democracy, surely all laws should be justified (or else it starts to cease being a democracy). Or are you claiming that there's no such thing as an unjust law, and once it has been passed we should all meekly accept it, and never try to change it, no matter how bad it may appear?
I don't, in fact, think that's the case with the anti-smoking legislation. The key argument is the rights of the employees to work in a safe environment, and that, I suspect, means a smoke-free environment. But we must remember that we are restricting the rights of the individual to behave in a certain way, and so we need to be sure we have good reasons for doing that.

[communistworkethic]

these cocks of landlords who "want their day in court" are misguided and no doubt misadvised. The tobacco industry is happy to cough up a few grand but the landlords will get nowhere, it's an open and shut case, the law itself doesn't have to be justified, all that has to be shown is it being broken - appearing in a national newpaper saying you're breaing the law is quite a clear admission of guilt. He'll be pissed off when he loses his licence.

It's quite true that to convict the landlords the law does not need to be justified, but in a democracy, surely all laws should be justified (or else it starts to cease being a democracy). Or are you claiming that there's no such thing as an unjust law, and once it has been passed we should all meekly accept it, and never try to change it, no matter how bad it may appear?
I don't, in fact, think that's the case with the anti-smoking legislation. The key argument is the rights of the employees to work in a safe environment, and that, I suspect, means a smoke-free environment. But we must remember that we are restricting the rights of the individual to behave in a certain way, and so we need to be sure we have good reasons for doing that.

all laws are justified by the mandate given a government by the electorate. Or are you suggesting a referendum for every new law? To moan about the restriction of the rights of the individual is taking the piss, apart from those "undeniable human rights" as determined by the Human Rights Act, you only have those rights the law allows you to have - it' s not your right to drive without a seatbelt as the law says otherwise, it's not your right to have sex in a public park - the law says so, it's not your right to harm another person - the law says so, and so on ad infinitum

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I don't have any real appetite for this debate anymore, as I'm afraid I am prepared to recline in the smug and selfish knowledge that the new law represents my interests and prejudices quite well, so I'm happy. When my plane touched down at Stansted this morning and the pilot announced (after it had slipped my mind) that England is now a non-smoking area, I actually cheered.

Once upon a time most legal disputes in England were settled by the two parties either having a fight to the death, or one party being branded by a hot iron and using the wound to gauge his innocence. This practice, despite continuing for a considerable lenght of time, was eventually considered to be anachronistic and was replaced by juries, professional judges, and detailed consideration of facts. Smoking in public (or indeed, altogether) has, in my opinion, become similarly anachronistic and it is no argument at all to say that something should continue because it has been the state of affairs that has prevailed for a long period.

DSB's example is an interesting one - would any of the unhappy smokers on here be happy to smoke around babies or small children? If not, does the increased resilience that humans acquire as they get old entirely justify their being treated differently?

You don't actually provide a single shred of evidence for your argument here, do you? You could equally well say, "Drinking in public (or indeed altogether) has, in my opinion, become similarly anachronistic" without having to change the post. There are arguments for a smoking ban, just as there arguments against it. To ignore them all is not merely lazy, it's dangerous - we are, after all, talking about restricting the ability of an individual to behave in a certain. If we're not prepared to justify why we're making that restriction, we're heading down to a society that will become increasingly unpleasant to live in.
As for the point about children - they require more protection, and we treat children differently in all sorts of ways. You want an example - would you be prepared to have sex with a consenting adult? You see the point (albeit an extreme one). Children are not the same as adults, and should not be treated as such.

The arguments have been well-rehearsed elsewhere and I make no apology for the fact I was offering a bare statement of personal opinion. The official website summarises some reasons by way of justification: http://www.smokefreeengland.co.uk/whysmokefree/

I don't find your child-related analogy convincing either. That's a question of emotional develpment more than physical development. Just out of interest then, what age does a child have to be before you are prepared to smoke next to them?

[Batman]

Speaking of which did anyone see that docu about the dobber from Salford who got her 8yr old hooked on cigs?

[Bruce Rioja]

I saw Our Fold play at The Soundhouse, in December. They're nothing more than a piss-poor Foo Fighters sound-alike band. Still, if that's what floats your boat!

I wasn't planning on posting anything else, but I know a couple of members of the band so I go watching a fair bit, and they're by far the best band in Bolton. They also sound nothing remotely like Foo Fighters.

No, in spite of their desperate efforts to.

[superjohnmcginlay]

It were quite nice last night sat outside - entire teatime crowd sat in t'beer garden, the only time anyone but the barmaid went inside was for another beer.
Wont be as much fun in November though.

[Puskas]

<snip>

I don't find your child-related analogy convincing either. That's a question of emotional develpment more than physical development. Just out of interest then, what age does a child have to be before you are prepared to smoke next to them?

I would suggest they would have to be an adult, not a child.
A rather arbitrary legal definition, rather than any genuine physical one, but it seems to suffice in most cases.

[Puskas]

these cocks of landlords who "want their day in court" are misguided and no doubt misadvised. The tobacco industry is happy to cough up a few grand but the landlords will get nowhere, it's an open and shut case, the law itself doesn't have to be justified, all that has to be shown is it being broken - appearing in a national newpaper saying you're breaing the law is quite a clear admission of guilt. He'll be pissed off when he loses his licence.

It's quite true that to convict the landlords the law does not need to be justified, but in a democracy, surely all laws should be justified (or else it starts to cease being a democracy). Or are you claiming that there's no such thing as an unjust law, and once it has been passed we should all meekly accept it, and never try to change it, no matter how bad it may appear?
I don't, in fact, think that's the case with the anti-smoking legislation. The key argument is the rights of the employees to work in a safe environment, and that, I suspect, means a smoke-free environment. But we must remember that we are restricting the rights of the individual to behave in a certain way, and so we need to be sure we have good reasons for doing that.

all laws are justified by the mandate given a government by the electorate. Or are you suggesting a referendum for every new law? To moan about the restriction of the rights of the individual is taking the piss, apart from those "undeniable human rights" as determined by the Human Rights Act, you only have those rights the law allows you to have - it' s not your right to drive without a seatbelt as the law says otherwise, it's not your right to have sex in a public park - the law says so, it's not your right to harm another person - the law says so, and so on ad infinitum

No, I'm not arguing for a referendum for each new law - it would be impractical, and negate the point of representative democracy. I am merely making the point that people cast their vote for the candidate they agree with most (or disagree with least, possibly taking into account their chances of winning) - they do not agree with all the policies put forward by that party, and, indeed, you would not expect every candidate to agree with all the policies put forward by their party. That's why, before laws come in (and, indeed, even after they've been passed) people agitate, protest, write letters and so on. This is perfectly reasonably behaviour in a democracy.
As for your second point - I ask again: Is every law just, simply because it's law? That seems to be what you're saying. One hundred years ago, I would not have had the right to vote, because the law said I didn't. Is that reasonable, simply because it's the law? This is, however, getting away from the topic, so I'll stop.
I stress, again, that overall I am in favour of the ban on smoking in public workplaces. I just think people need to be aware of the threat of allowing governments to dictate every aspect of their lives.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

<snip>

I don't find your child-related analogy convincing either. That's a question of emotional develpment more than physical development. Just out of interest then, what age does a child have to be before you are prepared to smoke next to them?

I would suggest they would have to be an adult, not a child.
A rather arbitrary legal definition, rather than any genuine physical one, but it seems to suffice in most cases.

So your smoking in the past has been conducted in line with an arbitrary legal definition which has no direct application here?

I agree that laziness is this kind of argument is not helpful, so perhaps it would be useful if you could pinpoint the reason you would smoke next to an 18 year old but not an 8 year old, and whether the basis for that distinction is physiologically sound.

[Puskas]

<snip>

I don't find your child-related analogy convincing either. That's a question of emotional develpment more than physical development. Just out of interest then, what age does a child have to be before you are prepared to smoke next to them?

I would suggest they would have to be an adult, not a child.
A rather arbitrary legal definition, rather than any genuine physical one, but it seems to suffice in most cases.

So your smoking in the past has been conducted in line with an arbitrary legal definition which has no direct application here?

I agree that laziness is this kind of argument is not helpful, so perhaps it would be useful if you could pinpoint the reason you would smoke next to an 18 year old but not an 8 year old, and whether the basis for that distinction is physiologically sound.

You seem to assume I'm a smoker. I haven't said I am. In any event, the argument isn't a physiological one (I don't know about the effects of passive smoking on children as opposed to adults, though I would suspect it's greater. But that may be nonsense) - it's to do with their ability to leave. An adult can get up and walk away from our hypothetical smoker if he chooses. A child is generally bound to go where its parents take it. Thus its ability to leave if it isn't comfortable is impacted. Hence the distinction. But if people went into pubs that aren't non smoking (before Sunday) they were making a choice. The reason I'm more or less in favour of the ban is that the people who worked in those pubs didn't have that choice.

[David Lee's Hair]

3 days without a cig. I would currently kill members of my own family for one, and am a pleasure to be working with!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

it's to do with their ability to leave. An adult can get up and walk away from our hypothetical smoker if he chooses. A child is generally bound to go where its parents take it. Thus its ability to leave if it isn't comfortable is impacted. Hence the distinction. But if people went into pubs that aren't non smoking (before Sunday) they were making a choice. The reason I'm more or less in favour of the ban is that the people who worked in those pubs didn't have that choice.

Well, if the key element in the discussion is autonomy, is it not arguable that those who worked in pubs chose to do that as a job, understanding that people would be smoking there?

What if a chemical company wanted to build a plant next to my house an pump noxious fumes my way? I would be 'able' to leave, but thankfully the state intervenes and says that I shouldn't have to.

If a new product came onto the market with the same cost-benefit analysis as smoking, there's no way it would get the rubber stamp from the state and be allowed to be produced, marketed and sold. Is it not correct that steps should be taken to minimalise the anomaly of the fact that the only reason cigarettes exist is because they were invented before their effects on health were known and people have now got used to them?

[Puskas]

it's to do with their ability to leave. An adult can get up and walk away from our hypothetical smoker if he chooses. A child is generally bound to go where its parents take it. Thus its ability to leave if it isn't comfortable is impacted. Hence the distinction. But if people went into pubs that aren't non smoking (before Sunday) they were making a choice. The reason I'm more or less in favour of the ban is that the people who worked in those pubs didn't have that choice.

Well, if the key element in the discussion is autonomy, is it not arguable that those who worked in pubs chose to do that as a job, understanding that people would be smoking there?

To an extent, but we have legislation to protect worker's health - quite rightly - and that should be paramount there (which is, as I said, why I'm in favour of the ban).

What if a chemical company wanted to build a plant next to my house an pump noxious fumes my way? I would be 'able' to leave, but thankfully the state intervenes and says that I shouldn't have to.

If a new product came onto the market with the same cost-benefit analysis as smoking, there's no way it would get the rubber stamp from the state and be allowed to be produced, marketed and sold. Is it not correct that steps should be taken to minimalise the anomaly of the fact that the only reason cigarettes exist is because they were invented before their effects on health were known and people have now got used to them?

Two different scenarios - you don't want the chemical company, but some people, despite knowing the risks, may still choose to smoke (because they enjoy it). If they can do that in a way which doesn't affect other people who don't want to breathe it in, why shouldn't they?

[TANGODANCER]

I agree that laziness is this kind of argument is not helpful, so perhaps it would be useful if you could pinpoint the reason you would smoke next to an 18 year old but not an 8 year old, and whether the basis for that distinction is physiologically sound.

I don't remember my parents standing over our cots and blowing smoke on us. To be honest, although they both smoked and we lived in a small terraced house, I don't remember smoke dominating our lives (unless it was the coal fire blowing it all over the house on windy days). My relations smoked a variety of pipes and cigars and I don't remember anyone having coughing fits because of it. It was the times and acceptable. I also remember being told not to smoke and getting a crack off my dad when I walked into the house at sixteen doing so.

Now then: A day in the life of a smoker on day one of this fiendish invasion of our rights. :

Yesterday, I smoked just three cigarettes in our designated mini barn with a leaking roof. This is mainly because I go to work to work and don't take advantage of the company's generaly generous attitude towards its employees (unlike, I might add, the cafe-latte, bacon sandwich, nip out for a beer at lunch time and then spend an hour in a yoga class brigade.)
But of course, as non-smokers, they belong to a different level of society.

Despite there being a large receptacle for packets etc, and a sizable stub-out area, the floor is littered with cigarette stubs. This is not a fault of smokers but of people, much like this debate is not just down to opinions or facts,but people. There is therefore going to be no amicable solution because not all people are amicable. I complied with the rules, didn't take advantage and used the facility correctly. I will continue to do so. Others didn't. No, I am not overjoyed because I only smoked three cigarettes because the choice wasn't mine. I will never be appeased by smarmy, concillatory "look how much you saved: look how long you just extended your life by" remarks from people who just want to win arguments and have all their own way because their beliefs are different than mine. The choice was not mine and that is the crux of the matter.

As for the arguments about children (boy, have the anti-brigade used and abused kids in their advertising campaigns. "Twinkle, twinkle little star" cue for big clouds of pumped smoke and sighs of what a shame) How about we try a long-established tradition of something that wasn't born with this generation. It's called "common sense". It applies to all parents and not just todays. My parents didn't do a bad job by applying it, but eventually, the choices were ours, as they will become some time with every child. "Age of consent" does not only apply to pregnancy practise, believe it or not. My brother has never smoked a cigarette in his life. If I ever stop it will be for the reason I choose to. I am not unique, no one is, we are people and fallible. The same people hammering us about smoking will stagger home legless and maybe throw up all over the bathroom floor. It's called life. Life, and comon sense have got us this far without a police-state existence. For me, long live common -sense!"

All this, I hasten to add, is my personal opinion. Feel free to choose how you see it. I'm off for a fag.

Anyway.

[Batman]

I agree that laziness is this kind of argument is not helpful, so perhaps it would be useful if you could pinpoint the reason you would smoke next to an 18 year old but not an 8 year old, and whether the basis for that distinction is physiologically sound.

All this, I hasten to add, is my personal opinion. Feel free to choose how you see it. I'm off for a fag.

Anyway.

allegedly

[fatshaft]

Is it me? Or is half this thread missing?

Anyway I've taken up smoking meth-amphetamine. You know it makes sense.

Well I'm sure I posted on this at the weekend

[fatshaft]

Don;t accept it then. Get better management in. Christ, I only ever go at lunch. it's not like half the women here don't piss off for a coffee or some other food during working hours.

yeah, I'll just turf the management out from a $1,000 billion company, because someone gets a fag break.

the point is that in ANY company there are smokers who seem to think they are entitled to time to smoke in addition to their alotted breaks.

Agreed, and it's bloody annoying, they have a right to smoke and get extra breaks???

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Don;t accept it then. Get better management in. Christ, I only ever go at lunch. it's not like half the women here don't piss off for a coffee or some other food during working hours.

yeah, I'll just turf the management out from a $1,000 billion company, because someone gets a fag break.

the point is that in ANY company there are smokers who seem to think they are entitled to time to smoke in addition to their alotted breaks.

Agreed, and it's bloody annoying, they have a right to smoke and get extra breaks???

and what about those people that spend 20 minutes on the bog every day, or the ones that go and make coffee every hour and chat for 10 minutes whilst doing it? Its not just smokers that have 'extra breaks' most people do it for one reason or another.

Smokers are easy targets, and yes some take the piss, but I can tell you that where I work its not the smokers that are taking the piss the most...its your Starbucks mob. The smokers spend about 5 minutes each time. The Starbuckers spend about 20 minutes a time and do it about 4 times a day!

Might I sugest that people worry about themselves and let managers in companies worry about the piss takers. If they don't raise it. If nothing happens tough. deal with it or leave...you have a choice

[superjohnmcginlay]

and what about those people that spend 20 minutes on the bog every day, or the ones that go and make coffee every hour and chat for 10 minutes whilst doing it? Its not just smokers that have 'extra breaks' most people do it for one reason or another.

Smokers are easy targets, and yes some take the piss, but I can tell you that where I work its not the smokers that are taking the piss the most...its your Starbucks mob. The smokers spend about 5 minutes each time. The Starbuckers spend about 20 minutes a time and do it about 4 times a day!

Might I sugest that people worry about themselves and let managers in companies worry about the piss takers. If they don't raise it. If nothing happens tough. deal with it or leave...you have a choice

and what about those workers who piss about on messageboards all day?