| Author |
Topic |
|
n/a
deleted
240 Posts |
Posted - 17/05/2007 : 13:03:15
|
I just remember when smoking got too much for me, that when I decided to give up I was working in a night club at the time and I gave up my job because I couldn't give up smoking unless I came out of that smoking atmosphere. How much better is going to get for people that cannot afford to give up theIr jobs and they haven't had a choice for too many years, only they will tell.
Totally agree with Moon, and Miriam you have not give us any alternative yet. |
 |
|
|
moon23
Calaspia
649 Posts |
 Posted - 17/05/2007 : 13:08:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke of Uranus
quote:
So is the smoking ban on public transport justified becuase people can't leave the bus easily?
No, the smoking ban on public transport is justified because a lot of people have no CHOICE whether they use public transport or not.
So people who need the money and work in bars don't really have a huge amount of choice. There are not a huge number of jobs in a place like Brighton and much of the work is in bars and Clubs.
Why is the choice between a smoke free pub and smoke free public transport any different? |
http://www.moon23.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
5229 Posts |
Posted - 17/05/2007 : 13:11:24
|
Alternative to what? A nanny state? There is no alternative to a nanny state quest apart from allowing people choice. You either accept that we are all a bunch of lemmings that need big brother to sanitise the world we live in because without his superior wisdom and guidance we would flounder or you accept that we are in the main mature responsible adults who are capable of making our own decisions.
So if you are looking to me to give you an alternative, apart from leaving people the option of choice, you are looking to the wrong person. |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
moon23
Calaspia
649 Posts |
Posted - 17/05/2007 : 13:19:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
Alternative to what? A nanny state? There is no alternative to a nanny state quest apart from allowing people choice. You either accept that we are all a bunch of lemmings that need big brother to sanitise the world we live in because without his superior wisdom and guidance we would flounder or you accept that we are in the main mature responsible adults who are capable of making our own decisions.
So if you are looking to me to give you an alternative, apart from leaving people the option of choice, you are looking to the wrong person.
A Nanny statism is one in which the state tells people who to behave and live their lives, e.g. Obesity.
Smoking ban is protecting people from other people.
This is why I would be strongly against banning smoking alltogther. I'm happy for people to smoke and have no desire to change their behaviour, but when it causes me or others discomfort they can get lost.
|
http://www.moon23.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
240 Posts |
Posted - 17/05/2007 : 13:25:55
|
| Miriam, the choice to carry guns, legalise all drugs, ... where is the limit. Unfortunatly the world is not like you presented, many adult are not capable of making responsible decisions, the mayority of people that smoke not have a choice any more, they are addicts and many are sick. They need help, not support with encourage and endless arguments. |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
5229 Posts |
Posted - 17/05/2007 : 13:41:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by quest
Miriam, the choice to carry guns, legalise all drugs, ... where is the limit. Unfortunatly the world is not like you presented, many adult are not capable of making responsible decisions, the mayority of people that smoke not have a choice any more, they are addicts and many are sick. They need help, not support with encourage and endless arguments.
Oh, I see ... so now it is the poor benighted smokers this is supposed to help.
Sheesh almighty I've heard of scraping the bottom of the barrel to try and justify an argument but this is really something.
Personally I couldn't care less whether or not you smoke and I could care less, but not a lot, about smoking in general. It would seem however that most of you have bought into the spin so well that you appear unable to view the matter as a question of principle. The areas in which you are free to exercise your freedom of choice, the primary assumption that people should be free to choose for good or ill in accordance with their personal (not state determined) assessment of risk/reward.
So ... when are we going to acknowledge that car drivers are sick because they prefer to drive their car to taking public transport? When are we going to finally realise that individuals that prefer their music nice and LOUD are sick and need state intervention to prevent them from harming themselves, and others with the consequences of their 'sickness' ...
Get this peeps ... it is the principle that is wrong!
|
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
240 Posts |
Posted - 17/05/2007 : 14:06:35
|
I say the mayority of people that smoke not all of them. Still it doesn't personally affect me that much if people smoke either. Nothing wrong with you principle, but the practices and expeciencies are what matter at the end.
|
|
|
|
The Duke of Uranus
Barsoom
293 Posts |
Posted - 17/05/2007 : 14:21:46
|
quote:
So people who need the money and work in bars don't really have a huge amount of choice. There are not a huge number of jobs in a place like Brighton and much of the work is in bars and Clubs.
Pathetic argument, you're trying to make it sound like people the length and breadth of the country are being sold into a lifetime of slavery, being forced to work in pubs and clubs against their will. |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
5229 Posts |
Posted - 17/05/2007 : 14:25:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by quest
but the practices and expeciencies are what matter at the end.
And I would claim that it is the lowest possible denominator that matters it would seem. |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
moon23
Calaspia
649 Posts |
Posted - 17/05/2007 : 15:23:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
quote:
Originally posted by quest
Miriam, the choice to carry guns, legalise all drugs, ... where is the limit. Unfortunatly the world is not like you presented, many adult are not capable of making responsible decisions, the mayority of people that smoke not have a choice any more, they are addicts and many are sick. They need help, not support with encourage and endless arguments.
Oh, I see ... so now it is the poor benighted smokers this is supposed to help.
Sheesh almighty I've heard of scraping the bottom of the barrel to try and justify an argument but this is really something.
Personally I couldn't care less whether or not you smoke and I could care less, but not a lot, about smoking in general. It would seem however that most of you have bought into the spin so well that you appear unable to view the matter as a question of principle. The areas in which you are free to exercise your freedom of choice, the primary assumption that people should be free to choose for good or ill in accordance with their personal (not state determined) assessment of risk/reward.
So ... when are we going to acknowledge that car drivers are sick because they prefer to drive their car to taking public transport? When are we going to finally realise that individuals that prefer their music nice and LOUD are sick and need state intervention to prevent them from harming themselves, and others with the consequences of their 'sickness' ...
Get this peeps ... it is the principle that is wrong!
Mim, I think we need to separate the difference between State intervention when it is for someone's own good argument. With the argument that the state should intervene when it is protecting people from others harm.
Smokers are addicts, but they should have a right to be addicted if they so choose. I don't think addiction is necessarily a sickness that needs state intervention unless the addiction is one that is damaging others.
|
http://www.moon23.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
moon23
Calaspia
649 Posts |
Posted - 17/05/2007 : 15:28:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke of Uranus
quote:
So people who need the money and work in bars don't really have a huge amount of choice. There are not a huge number of jobs in a place like Brighton and much of the work is in bars and Clubs.
Pathetic argument, you're trying to make it sound like people the length and breadth of the country are being sold into a lifetime of slavery, being forced to work in pubs and clubs against their will.
Lot's of people work in pubs or clubs as it is the only work they can find. There are also lot's of people who like the work but do not like the smoke.
Why should these people have to put up with selfish smokers?
good news is they won't and both you and Mim's arguments are a waste of time as soon everyone will be pleased with the ban and the few whinging smokers will diminish over time. |
http://www.moon23.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
The Duke of Uranus
Barsoom
293 Posts |
Posted - 17/05/2007 : 15:47:00
|
quote:
good news is they won't and both you and Mim's arguments are a waste of time as soon everyone will be pleased with the ban and the few whinging smokers will diminish over time.
But it's not good news moon.
We're already hearing about the government debating whether to force flour manufacturers to add extra folic acid into their products because "it's good for us". We have a government who are trying to force us into paying for our own ID cards because "they'll protect us". We are the most heavily surveyed nation in the western world for our own good. This country is sleepwalking into a state where we eschew personal repsonsible and give up our rights because our government knows better than us.
A free country means free to choose. That applies to non-smokers and smokers alike.
|
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
5229 Posts |
Posted - 17/05/2007 : 16:56:23
|
Sad really that such a large number of people are myopic when it comes to seeing the bigger picture. The utter refusal/inability to see this ban in context being a case in point.
First they came for the smokers
and I did not speak out
because I was not a smoker.
Then they came for the drinkers
and I did not speak out
because I was not a drinker.
Then they came for the sprayers of perfumes
and I did not speak out
because I didn't wear perfume.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me. |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
Edited by - Miriam Binder on 17/05/2007 21:19:16 |
|
|
|
Daveb
Discworld
1864 Posts |
Posted - 17/05/2007 : 20:08:33
|
Surely if we have freedom of choice, then we could choose to open a smoking pub and a non-smoking pub. That is Free enterprise.
Then if you want to smoke you could choose to to go to the smoking pub. The staff could choose to work there and smoke themselves.
Non-smokers could choose not to go there.
Apologies if this has been said before.
Pass me a lucifer to light this fag
Smile boy thats your your style
Regards to all those who fought for our freedom.
Oooppps appear to have lost this freedom! |
We're all doomed! |
|
|
|
The Duke of Uranus
Barsoom
293 Posts |
Posted - 17/05/2007 : 21:12:57
|
quote:
Surely if we have freedom of choice, then we could choose to open a smoking pub and a non-smoking pub. That is Free enterprise.
Then if you want to smoke you could choose to to go to the smoking pub. The staff could choose to work there and smoke themselves.
Far too sensible a proposition. You're either with us or against us i'm afraid
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
240 Posts |
Posted - 18/05/2007 : 09:50:47
|
Daveb, provably that will be sensible. And a Petition on http://petitions.pm.gv.uk/
What I really find fustrating about this matter, that I haven't hear from any of the smokers recognizing the negative effect that smoking has in other people and what will they do about it?
On the other hand, could be that one of the reasons of this ban in pubs is because the number of attendants are dropping since smokers are decreasing and they use it as has excuse to attrack the non-smoker back. |
|
|
|
nightbird
Calaspia
603 Posts |
|
|
long time no see
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6275 Posts |
Posted - 18/05/2007 : 19:34:13
|
No Nightowl
they can not stop that over here.
China has it so bad in some parts they have masks on |
|
|
|
nightbird
Calaspia
603 Posts |
|
|
FUBAR
Barsoom
389 Posts |
Posted - 19/05/2007 : 11:22:03
|
Have we mentioned smoking in cars yet or did I miss that bit?  |
I came into the world with nothing and still have most of it left.. |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
5229 Posts |
Posted - 19/05/2007 : 11:33:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by long time no see
China has it so bad in some parts they have masks on
And that is because of smoking LTNS or could it be that industrial pollution has something to do with it?
 here |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
long time no see
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6275 Posts |
Posted - 19/05/2007 : 11:41:40
|
Of Course it is Industrial.
Roll on the British Ban On Smoking. |
|
|
|
Anubis
Barsoom
230 Posts |
Posted - 19/05/2007 : 18:02:08
|
What an excellent posting site this has been! Six pages and hardly a "silly" comment from any contributor. On the 'smoking' ban (with which I agree!) I cannot add anything new, apart from one omission not mentioned -- probably because it wasn't really necessary as nobody seems to dispute the negative health relationship -- but convincing studies in California, where 10% of population are Mormons (i.e. non-smokers) found these people living in the same cities, breathing the same (polluted) air, virtually unknown to contract lung cancer... etc., etc. Science today could be defined as "knowledge translated into statistical probability", so the fact the odd individual smokes 500 cigarettes a day and lives to be 120 in no way conflicts with our knowledge base.
I thought the two marvellous contributions from "Fluffy Sheep", early in the discussion, deserve a re-highlight. Let me remind you of what she said:
"AIR FRESHENERS - Please God may they be banned too! Or the folks who spray them relentlessly violating other folks` airspace.... as bad as cigarettes! I did some shifts in a local nursing home a couple of years ago. The cleaner on alternate weekdays was very Busy, but not diligent...and sprayed an awful lot to make up for it, maybe thinking if it smelt `nice` folks would think she`s cleaned their rooms properly. This was getting on MY chest, and some of the patients were downright Wheezing, NEEDING THEIR INHALERS OR NEBULISERS - when they didn`t need them the rest of the time. I had a word with the home owner, and suggested he stop buying the aerosol sprays, as they were getting over-used, and get plug-ins. He took my advice, and guess what happened - the cleaner then took to spraying furniture polish in the air instead.... presumably to make folks think the place was cleaner because it smelt of chemicals where she`d been!"
The harmful/dangerous chemicals inflicted upon us routinely are rarely exposed so well -- they are possibly equally dangerous to our lungs over time (cigarettes usually take 40 years or more). I have a problem with 'bronchiectasis'; as a baby I went down with pneumonia and was not expected to survive. Antibiotics did not exist in those days -- my lungs were irrevocably damaged. Generally, it's not a problem (unless a severe cold) but if sitting on a bus I sometimes found, for no apparent reason that I would suddenly be "coughing my guts up", feeling dizzy, feeling I'd faint. Eventually the penny dropped. Another passenger, wearing scent, or more likely a hair spray, had boarded and sat nearby. At first, I'd not detect (consciously) the 'smell', but the irritation to the lungs was making itself obvious. Often there are shops (especially charity shops) where "air fresheners" are used -- and here's another environment in which I cannot remain. People without my personal lung problem are probably less sensitive, but volunteers working there for several hours -- who knows what damage may be being inflicted, only to be discovered many years into the future?
Yes, I've left the "smoking ban" topic ... but "Fluffy" highlighted something rarely looked at; it should not be forgotten! |
|
|
|
long time no see
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6275 Posts |
Posted - 19/05/2007 : 18:33:45
|
Well Fluffy is a Nurse.
She has a good viewpoint. |
|
|
|
Infinite Poppadum
Discworld
1214 Posts |
|
|
flaming pie
Alagaësía
89 Posts |
Posted - 20/05/2007 : 12:34:04
|
Miriam - I just think that you are wrong on this one...The 'pro ban' argument in a nutshell:
Smoking is harmful to yourself AND to others around you, so you can't do it in a public enclosed space anymore. Some people will get ill and some will die if you continue to do this, and some of these people will not have been able to make a choice about it. If you must smoke, go outside.
The 'anti-ban' argument:
It's my choice to kill myself. If you hang around me, I may kill you as well, but that's your decision.
BUT, we always need people to say 'hang on a munute, this is an infringement of my civil liberties', and then we can have a discussion. sometimes grown ups, like small children need to be protected from themselves, and smoking in public spaces is one of those occasions. There are probably others - alcohol, the right to carry a weapon, etc, but thats no reason not to start eradicating smoking.
Crivens, I've written a lot - best go into the garden for a quick puff!!
|
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
5229 Posts |
Posted - 20/05/2007 : 12:54:21
|
As stated before, I am not against the ban as a smoking ban, I am against the principle of banning. Once you start accepting bans on the grounds of 'it has a negative impact on others' there is no end to the individual choices that can be banned.
As stated by someone else on this topic, if the issue of secondary smoke is really that important and vital to raising the general well being of the general public then ban cigarettes and tobacco products period! |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
240 Posts |
Posted - 20/05/2007 : 14:35:28
|
| It could be consider to make the companies of tobacco responsible and pay for the smoker health, when it was a clear evidence to suggest that the desease in question was coming for the consumption of cigarettes. And make them stop the adulteration of the cigaretts as well. |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
5229 Posts |
Posted - 20/05/2007 : 14:47:45
|
Yep and then we can hold the manufacturers of boiled sweets and chocolates accountable for the health costs of obesity, we can sue the developers of high tower blocks for the mental health issues brought about by living in a concrete rabbit hutch ...
Whatever happened to personal accountability and individual responsibility? |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
nightbird
Calaspia
603 Posts |
Posted - 20/05/2007 : 14:47:50
|
Don't agree with blanket bans, too dictotorial, would have been better to have left it to employers, publicans and restaurant owners to decide whether to ban or not, its called choice.
They just need to give those that ban smoking the help to enforce it thats all.... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Smoking Ban