Smoking ban
-
Apparently, the House of Commons is classed as a "palace" which means the bars will be exempt from the ban. If true, then it shows what a bunch of fucking hypocrites these people are. As a smoker (I fell off the wagon at New Years), I actually welcome this, as every time I have tried to quit in the past, it has been the combination of smoky pub/booze that has pushed me back on the fags. It will make it easier to give up, but I know a few publicans who are terrified of this ban losing them business. Still, the writing has been on the wall for a long time now, and the stupid "partial ban" was never going to fly. All or nothing I guess. Next summer will be an interesting time. Hell, if bars in Dublin can survive without smoking, I'm sure things won't be that bad. However, the cynic in me does wonder whether the powers that be really give a flying fuck about the public health issue - let's face it, the Treasury makes over £7 BILLION a year form duty on cigarettes (and, BTW, it costs the NHS ~£1.2 billion to treat smoking related illnesses). I think this is more do to with the fear of cancer-riddled ex-bar workers suing in the future.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote:
it costs the NHS ~£1.2 billion to treat smoking related illnesses
In 1997 the cost for the French "Securité Sociale" was estimated to ~ €3billion. This cost was one-third of the losses caused by tobacco, the others parts coming from a shorter life, loss in productivity and loss of uncollected taxes.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote:
the powers that be really give a flying f*** about the public health issue
IMO, public deciders are corrupted by the tobacco lobbies. It is illogical that an industry causing so many deaths, so much harm, can continue its business without intervention of the public powers.
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote:
it costs the NHS ~£1.2 billion to treat smoking related illnesses
In 1997 the cost for the French "Securité Sociale" was estimated to ~ €3billion. This cost was one-third of the losses caused by tobacco, the others parts coming from a shorter life, loss in productivity and loss of uncollected taxes.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote:
the powers that be really give a flying f*** about the public health issue
IMO, public deciders are corrupted by the tobacco lobbies. It is illogical that an industry causing so many deaths, so much harm, can continue its business without intervention of the public powers.
-
Actually, I think the government would prefer it if people dropped dead the day after they retire! Then the whole thorny issue of pensions goes away! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote:
I think the government would prefer it if people dropped dead the day after they retire!
I've had that feeling for a while now. At least I'm not alone in thinking that.
- I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. --Voltaire (1694-1778)
-
The problem is, the entire society has to deal with the cost of damages created by tobaccos. So IMO your proposal could be valid if smokers would assume entirely the cost of the healthcares they will need. As long as their choice has an impact on everybody else's life, then everybody has his/her words to say.
K(arl) wrote:
As long as their choice has an impact on everybody else's life, then everybody has his/her words to say.
Which is the best indication of just how the social welfare state inevitably eats away at personal liberty. You could justify the termination of just about any freedom imaginable by that same logic. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
digital man wrote:
smoking will still be allowed in the Commons bar, for instance
And the problem with that is...? :rolleyes:
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
Good point: I think it should be actively encouraged. :laugh: www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.com -
Actually, I think the government would prefer it if people dropped dead the day after they retire! Then the whole thorny issue of pensions goes away! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
Sorry do you mean it's banned in your country or that yes you're in favour of a ban? Are you gonna bark all, day little doggy. Or are you gonna bite. - Mr Blonde
Probably both. :)
-
I don't know what blood sausage is, but black pudding is held together with congealed blood. ColinMackay.net "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucius "If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him, for an investment in knowledge pays the best interest." -- Joseph E. O'Donnell
That's so disgusting. I still remember the days in school when they served that garbage. :shudder: It still makes me want to puke!
-
I keep alternating my view on the proposed smoking ban in the UK. Mostly depending on who I talk to. Pros and cons anyone? Is public smoking banned in any of your countries? Are you gonna bark all, day little doggy. Or are you gonna bite. - Mr Blonde
Public smoking inside buildings, offices, restaurants, and bars is banned here in Ontario. So you see groups of smokers outside of buildings gathered together for a puff session. However, I think building owners can construct inside smoking facilities, but there is a long list of rules and regulations that the inside smoking facility must conform to, that makes this very expensive. On a side note, I think the biggest reason for this change in society's view of smoking can be directly placed upon the cigarette manufacturers themselves. The best way to grow their market was to induce people to smoke more and more. By changing the additives in cigarettes to induce this addiction/craving, people eventually came to view smoking as unhealthy and stopped entirely. If the tobacco manufacturers were to go back to producing cigarettes with *no* additives and was purely tobacco, I think you would see smoking become acceptable again. Incidentally even though I'm a pretty fit guy who runs half-marathons and triathlons, I still enjoy a good cigar now and then. I just try to never let one interfere with the other. :) Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] When I want privacy, I'll close the bathroom door. [Stan Shannon] BAD DAY FOR: Friendly competition, as Ford Motor Co. declared the employee parking lot at its truck plant in Dearborn, Mich., off limits to vehicles built by rival companies. Workers have to drive a Ford to work, or park across the street. [CNNMoney.com] Nice sig! [Tim Deveaux on Matt Newman's sig with a quote from me]
-
K(arl) wrote:
As long as their choice has an impact on everybody else's life, then everybody has his/her words to say.
Which is the best indication of just how the social welfare state inevitably eats away at personal liberty. You could justify the termination of just about any freedom imaginable by that same logic. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
You could justify the termination of just about any freedom imaginable by that same logic.
Just depends of your definition of what freedom is.
Stan Shannon wrote:
social welfare state inevitably eats away at personal liberty
And it enables to the ones who can't afford it to access to health care and not die like dogs on the pavement. What is the importance of a freedom if you can't use it?
Pull the tapeworm out of your ass Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
farmer giles wrote:
Is public smoking banned in any of your countries?
Yes, public in-doors is mostly banned here in Florida and in many other states of the US. Not long ago we went to a restaurant while driving through Georgia (or South Carolina, I forgot which) and were surprised when the hostess asked us whether we preferred the smoking or non-smoking section. I still don't get how people can enjoy a meal while breathing smoke. Alvaro
Don't make me come down there. - God
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
I still don't get how people can enjoy a meal while breathing smoke.
You can't unless you're a smoker. I think Calinforna has the same ban, and I hope all the states get one. If people want to kill themselves, fine. Just don't make all of us suffer with them. Jeremy Falcon
-
As an ex-smoker, I am totally in favor of such a ban. If people have the right to smoke, people also have the right to live with it. The second category has to endure the consequences of the choices of the first one, not the opposite. Then in public places the will of the second category should prevail. Freedom is the power to do anything which does not harm another. So clearly smoking in public places is not a freedom.
Pull the tapeworm out of your ass Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
As an ex-smoker, I am totally in favor of such a ban.
I'm also an ex-smoker, and I totally agree with you. Jeremy Falcon
-
farmer giles wrote:
Is public smoking banned in any of your countries?
Yes, public in-doors is mostly banned here in Florida and in many other states of the US. Not long ago we went to a restaurant while driving through Georgia (or South Carolina, I forgot which) and were surprised when the hostess asked us whether we preferred the smoking or non-smoking section. I still don't get how people can enjoy a meal while breathing smoke. Alvaro
Don't make me come down there. - God
We still have smoking/non-smoking sections here in South Carolina. It's not up to you to understand why people smoke. Personally, I think bans on smoking are just another ridiculous way to let us know we're all too damn stupid to live without the government putting it's 2 cents in. For the record, I do smoke, but not when I'm out in public (except drinking out at a bar). BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wright -
Stan Shannon wrote:
You could justify the termination of just about any freedom imaginable by that same logic.
Just depends of your definition of what freedom is.
Stan Shannon wrote:
social welfare state inevitably eats away at personal liberty
And it enables to the ones who can't afford it to access to health care and not die like dogs on the pavement. What is the importance of a freedom if you can't use it?
Pull the tapeworm out of your ass Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
And it enables to the ones who can't afford it to access to health care and not die like dogs on the pavement. What is the importance of a freedom if you can't use it?
Thats fine if you prefer security to freedom. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Public smoking inside buildings, offices, restaurants, and bars is banned here in Ontario. So you see groups of smokers outside of buildings gathered together for a puff session. However, I think building owners can construct inside smoking facilities, but there is a long list of rules and regulations that the inside smoking facility must conform to, that makes this very expensive. On a side note, I think the biggest reason for this change in society's view of smoking can be directly placed upon the cigarette manufacturers themselves. The best way to grow their market was to induce people to smoke more and more. By changing the additives in cigarettes to induce this addiction/craving, people eventually came to view smoking as unhealthy and stopped entirely. If the tobacco manufacturers were to go back to producing cigarettes with *no* additives and was purely tobacco, I think you would see smoking become acceptable again. Incidentally even though I'm a pretty fit guy who runs half-marathons and triathlons, I still enjoy a good cigar now and then. I just try to never let one interfere with the other. :) Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] When I want privacy, I'll close the bathroom door. [Stan Shannon] BAD DAY FOR: Friendly competition, as Ford Motor Co. declared the employee parking lot at its truck plant in Dearborn, Mich., off limits to vehicles built by rival companies. Workers have to drive a Ford to work, or park across the street. [CNNMoney.com] Nice sig! [Tim Deveaux on Matt Newman's sig with a quote from me]
Chris Meech wrote:
the tobacco manufacturers were to go back to producing cigarettes with *no* additives and was purely tobacco
Nicotine is contained in tobacco, right?
Chris Meech wrote:
I think you would see smoking become acceptable again
I don't think so. For me the reason of this ostracism against tobacco is the extension of life expectancy. When this expectancy was under 60 years, the consequences of tobacco were hidden: people were dead before cigarettes could killed them. Now this expectancy reaches 75 years, and smokers realize that because of tobacco they 'lose' 15 years of potential life. They also begin to realize that it is not a lottery, the risk does not become bigger but ineluctable: 90% of the smokers have at least a starting cancer when they die.
Pull the tapeworm out of your ass Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
K(arl) wrote:
And it enables to the ones who can't afford it to access to health care and not die like dogs on the pavement. What is the importance of a freedom if you can't use it?
Thats fine if you prefer security to freedom. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
I thought the liberal ethic of freedom basically states that as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else, you should be free to do it. How does smoking in a smoking section in a restaurant hurt anybody? Or is this because Tobacco companies make a lot of money.
-
K(arl) wrote:
As an ex-smoker, I am totally in favor of such a ban.
I'm also an ex-smoker, and I totally agree with you. Jeremy Falcon
-
I thought the liberal ethic of freedom basically states that as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else, you should be free to do it. How does smoking in a smoking section in a restaurant hurt anybody? Or is this because Tobacco companies make a lot of money.
espeir wrote:
the liberal ethic of freedom basically states that as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else,
Why 'liberal'? Do conservatives believe that freedom states whatever the consequences for anybody else?
espeir wrote:
How does smoking in a smoking section in a restaurant hurt anybody?
I have never seen for the moment a restaurant with a smoking section totally separated from the non-smoking section. Putting twoi signs on the walls is not enough. But if such a restaurant exists, there is of course no problem.
-
K(arl) wrote:
it is about the most basic right: the one to live.
But that doesn't square with ... The problem is, the entire society has to deal with the cost of damages created by tobaccos. If you want to live, don't smoke and don't go to places where other people do so. But if your life is so important to you that you give the state the power to protect you at all costs, and because of that you have to stop everyone from smoking, your right to life is superceeding every other personal liberty in society. You have turned your society into nothing more than a benevolent dictatorship - determined to protect its citizens from themselves regardless of how much freedom they have to deny. "You get that which you tolerate"