Smoking in public to be banned!
Posted by: Top Cat on 10 November 2004
...in Scotland, at least...
About high time too.
Discuss, 33mks.
About high time too.
Discuss, 33mks.
Posted on: 19 November 2004 by Trevor Newall
laurie,
thanks for your interesting response, yet again.
I take your point, but all I will say is that the majority of people drive cars to earn a living, therefore the car is, overall, a constructive asset to society, despite it's contribution to pollution.
I think you'd be hard pushed to make a case for smoking cigarettes as being in any way constructive, or an asset to society.
therefore, it's not hard to see why exhaust fumes are the more tolerated and accepted form of pollution.
but we'll never agree in this argument!
paul, what on earth are you on about with picture framing?
you've lost it, buddy!
TN
thanks for your interesting response, yet again.
I take your point, but all I will say is that the majority of people drive cars to earn a living, therefore the car is, overall, a constructive asset to society, despite it's contribution to pollution.
I think you'd be hard pushed to make a case for smoking cigarettes as being in any way constructive, or an asset to society.
therefore, it's not hard to see why exhaust fumes are the more tolerated and accepted form of pollution.
but we'll never agree in this argument!
paul, what on earth are you on about with picture framing?
you've lost it, buddy!
TN
Posted on: 20 November 2004 by DLF
quote:
Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:
However, I do not believe in goverment by referenda. Just because a viewpoint has a majority does not make it right. Take capital punishment (to which I am opposed). If a referendum was held, then it would probably find majority support. Thankfully our legislature repeatedly declines to reinstate it
Laurie S
I understand now. If the state does something you agree with like outlawing capital punishment then this is OK. If the state does something you disagree with then it is another step towards tyrany.
And BTW the problem of car pollution is being addressed by the nanny state, for example.
http://www.iema.net/article.php?sid=3072
Posted on: 20 November 2004 by DLF
And guess what, the car manufacturers are resisting tooth and nail. Market forces my arse.
http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2004/Car-Makers-Lobby-EC21mar04.htm
http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2004/Car-Makers-Lobby-EC21mar04.htm
Posted on: 20 November 2004 by Trevor Newall
dlf, some people can't hack the existance of rules, and things being banned.
sometimes you need rules, and things being banned, simply for the good of the majority of people.
such is life!
I personally have no problem with rules and regulations.
this smoking thing will run and run.
anyway, smokers will still be able to have a fag at home, and if they're in a pub or restaurant, they can always nip outside for a quick fag, and come back inside to the nice clean atmosphere when they've finished.
what more do they want?
and, anyway, it's what they should have done in the first place, if they had any consideration for others.
TN
sometimes you need rules, and things being banned, simply for the good of the majority of people.
such is life!
I personally have no problem with rules and regulations.
this smoking thing will run and run.
anyway, smokers will still be able to have a fag at home, and if they're in a pub or restaurant, they can always nip outside for a quick fag, and come back inside to the nice clean atmosphere when they've finished.
what more do they want?
and, anyway, it's what they should have done in the first place, if they had any consideration for others.
TN
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by Laurie Saunders
quote:
I understand now. If the state does something you agree with like outlawing capital punishment then this is OK. If the state does something you disagree with then it is another step towards tyrany.
And BTW the problem of car pollution is being addressed by the nanny state, for example.
The state does not "outlaw capital punishment" as you put it
For there to be or not to be capital punishment is up to the state. Both alternatives require state "backing". So neither alternative represents an impingement on individual freedom
You could argue that I am against lynch law, and you could thus correctly make the accusation in this instance
My definition of tyranny is where there is a reduction in individual freedom without good cause. I am not in favour of a lawless, anarchic society
The point, as you well know, that I was making concerned the issue of the wishes of the majority.
If parliament had voted for capital punishment, I would have to live with it. I happen to disagree with with it for a number of reasons which I won`t bore you with here
As it happens I will gain by a smoking ban, so your point is wide of the mark. I have nothing to gain by being subjected to tobacco smoke in restaurants etc, and find it as objectionable as any here.
However my position is that I have a choice.
I also find car exhaust unpleasant, and I am not seeking to ban cars.
My gripe concerns the hypocrisy of car drivers trying to ban smoking
Martin
quote:
Laurie
You list interests as:
Music, Hi-Fi, DIY, Carpentry, (pedal)Bikes, Photography
All of these things either polute directly or cause polution during manufatcure. I bet your bike contains parts made of steel or carbon fibre - the polution caused by these processes is very large - especially if from the far east where some standards are very low. You're trying to have your cake and eat it at the same time.
You are quite correct; my hobbies, indeed my (and everyone`s) mere existence adds to the discomfort of others in some way. We all use scarce resources, occupy land, produce pollution etec etc
I totally agree with this
I do not accept your point that "I am trying to have my cake and eat it"
I am responsible for pollution, and agree to accept the pollution produced by others, even though I might not like it..."live and let live"
The hypocrits are those that want the freedom to pollute, yet deny it to others...car drivers who want to ban smoking!!!
Laurie S
[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on Sun 21 November 2004 at 11:05.]
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by Mick P
Laurie
OK car drivers are hypocrates, so what, who cares.
Soon I can drive my car and drop into the pub and drink in a smoke free atmosphere.
GREAT.
Regards
Mick
OK car drivers are hypocrates, so what, who cares.
Soon I can drive my car and drop into the pub and drink in a smoke free atmosphere.
GREAT.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by Trevor Newall
quote:
Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:
My gripe concerns the hypocrisy of car drivers trying to ban smoking
there was no hypocrisy from me, laurie, I was just being pragmatic.
at least, I hope that's what you gleaned from the content of my last few posts.
enjoy the lovely cigarette smoke-free atmosphere, in future, when you're in a pub or restaurant!
TN
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by Laurie Saunders
Mick
You may not care because in this particular instance the outcome happens to suit you (as it does me)
Both of us might care when the same reasoning is used to attack a freedom which DOES restrict what we regard as a reasonable freedom
Trevor
You could say the same for listening to high SPL music on an expensive Naim HiFi......will there be a move to ban that too?
I find the case being made for car pollution quite fascinating...it goes something along the lines of how modern society would not be able to function without the internal combustion engine
In the grand scheme of history, surely our dependence on oil will be seen as a "blip"....or are some folk suggesting that civilised human existence will end in(the forseeable) future when oil runs out (as it inevitably must unless current trends in consumption, allied to finite resources are drastically changed)?
Laurie S
[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on Sun 21 November 2004 at 11:20.]
[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on Sun 21 November 2004 at 11:22.]
quote:
OK car drivers are hypocrates, so what, who cares
You may not care because in this particular instance the outcome happens to suit you (as it does me)
Both of us might care when the same reasoning is used to attack a freedom which DOES restrict what we regard as a reasonable freedom
Trevor
quote:
I think you'd be hard pushed to make a case for smoking cigarettes as being in any way constructive, or an asset to society.
You could say the same for listening to high SPL music on an expensive Naim HiFi......will there be a move to ban that too?
I find the case being made for car pollution quite fascinating...it goes something along the lines of how modern society would not be able to function without the internal combustion engine
In the grand scheme of history, surely our dependence on oil will be seen as a "blip"....or are some folk suggesting that civilised human existence will end in(the forseeable) future when oil runs out (as it inevitably must unless current trends in consumption, allied to finite resources are drastically changed)?
Laurie S
[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on Sun 21 November 2004 at 11:20.]
[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on Sun 21 November 2004 at 11:22.]
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by MarkEJ
Note to smokers and other interested parties:
You will find that if you actually smoke tobacco, rather than what governments the world over allow tobacco companies to market as "tobacco-derived product", you will certainly improve environmental conditions around you.
The material from which almost all commercial smoking product is manufactured contains an utterly horrendous cocktail of garbage (sometimes literally) which, while extremely profitable for both manufacturers and governments alike, will have much to do with the associated health risks and irritation factors.
It is noticeable that most health warnings are worded so as to associate the risk with "smoking" rather than "tobacco", and I believe that this tacitly acknowledges the extremely clever way in which, over the years, the "tobacco" companies have managed to avoid having their product classified as either a Food or a Drug, thereby avoiding pretty much all regulation of what goes into it. Some of this is pretty astonishing -- more info here.
Presumably if this ban actually happens (doubtfull IMHO), we will also see a complete ban on (i) GM crops (due to as yet unknown and potentially harmful effects on those who have no choice in their exposure), (ii) log fires in pubs, since smoke is smoke, after all, and (iii) the use of both "air fresheners" and strong (male and female-marketed) perfumes in both public and private spaces. This last is at least as repugnant as commercial smoking residue to my mind and quite probably equally unregulated.
Best;
Mark
You will find that if you actually smoke tobacco, rather than what governments the world over allow tobacco companies to market as "tobacco-derived product", you will certainly improve environmental conditions around you.
The material from which almost all commercial smoking product is manufactured contains an utterly horrendous cocktail of garbage (sometimes literally) which, while extremely profitable for both manufacturers and governments alike, will have much to do with the associated health risks and irritation factors.
It is noticeable that most health warnings are worded so as to associate the risk with "smoking" rather than "tobacco", and I believe that this tacitly acknowledges the extremely clever way in which, over the years, the "tobacco" companies have managed to avoid having their product classified as either a Food or a Drug, thereby avoiding pretty much all regulation of what goes into it. Some of this is pretty astonishing -- more info here.
Presumably if this ban actually happens (doubtfull IMHO), we will also see a complete ban on (i) GM crops (due to as yet unknown and potentially harmful effects on those who have no choice in their exposure), (ii) log fires in pubs, since smoke is smoke, after all, and (iii) the use of both "air fresheners" and strong (male and female-marketed) perfumes in both public and private spaces. This last is at least as repugnant as commercial smoking residue to my mind and quite probably equally unregulated.
Best;
Mark
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by Trevor Newall
quote:
Modern society couldn't do with out the ICE. It depends on engines for transport and production of all kinds.
exactly, tom.
everything would quickly grind to a halt without the ICE.
I'm sure I speak for the majority of car drivers when I say this... if there was some other (practical) way of getting from a to b, quickly, in the process of earning a living, I wouldn't drive a car, I'd use something else.
and, unfortunately, due to the nature of my work, walking or cycling isn't an option.
as a car driver, I don't enjoy contributing to pollution, but at least when I'm driving, in the process of earning a living, I'm contributing something useful to society.
the same cannot be said about smokers and their cigarette smoke.
it's for this reason that I don't feel hypocritical supporting a ban on smoking whilst my car exhaust fumes cause pollution.
I'm sorry if you can't accept this, laurie, but for me it's only logical and natural to think of it like that.
TN
Posted on: 21 November 2004 by MarkEJ
quote:
Originally posted by Trevor Newall:
...and, unfortunately, due to the nature of my work, walking or cycling isn't an option.
Or actually, er, Trevor, you could say that the nature of your work is the way it is due to the available option of the ICE.
If this option wasn't available, and you had to use, say, a horse to get around, your occupation would be different, yet surely no less valid, stimulating or relevant.
Best;
Mark
Posted on: 23 November 2004 by Trevor Newall
riding to work on a horse would be fun, mark, but, sadly, also impractical.
maybe if I had been born 100 years, or so, ago...
TN
maybe if I had been born 100 years, or so, ago...
TN
Posted on: 23 November 2004 by Trevor Newall
p.s. laurie seems to have given up!
Posted on: 23 November 2004 by Laurie Saunders
quote:
p.s. laurie seems to have given up!
meaning....?
Laurie S
Posted on: 23 November 2004 by MarkEJ
quote:
Originally posted by Trevor Newall:
riding to work on a horse would be fun, mark, but, sadly, also impractical.
Whoosh.
Posted on: 23 November 2004 by Steve Toy
Too many naysayers round here.
Regards,
Steve.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 23 November 2004 by Trevor Newall
quote:
Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:quote:
p.s. laurie seems to have given up!
meaning....?
perhaps you've finally saw the sense in the car drivers argument (after my last post on the subject).
at last!
mark,
whoosh?
are you feeling well?
TN
[This message was edited by Trevor Newall on Tue 23 November 2004 at 20:00.]
Posted on: 24 November 2004 by Laurie Saunders
Trevor
wishful thinking......
I really have nothing to add to what I had already said, that would not involve repitition..........
Nothing I have read from other contributors, with all due respect, has made me reconsider my position on this matter...
....or is it the case of "(s)/he who "shouts" (metaphorically speaking) loudest and longest wins the argument"?
best wishes
laurie S
quote:
perhaps you've finally saw the sense in the car drivers argument (after my last post on the subject).
at last!
wishful thinking......
I really have nothing to add to what I had already said, that would not involve repitition..........
Nothing I have read from other contributors, with all due respect, has made me reconsider my position on this matter...
....or is it the case of "(s)/he who "shouts" (metaphorically speaking) loudest and longest wins the argument"?
best wishes
laurie S
Posted on: 24 November 2004 by Trevor Newall
quote:
Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:
Nothing I have read from other contributors, with all due respect, has made me reconsider my position on this matter...
....or is it the case of "(s)/he who "shouts" (metaphorically speaking) loudest and longest wins the argument"?
not at all laurie.
I thought you might have grasped the notion that people driving any type of vehicle to earn a living is more worthwhile to society than people smoking cigarettes.
and that's why car drivers, for example, don't feel hypocritical supporting a ban on smoking whilst at the same time driving a car, which emits exhaust fumes.
'tis all!
alas, you haven't.
not to worry.
bestest,
TN
Posted on: 24 November 2004 by Steve Toy
Exhaust fumes don't make me cough and my eyes water like a smoky pub.
The issue is usually one of poor ventilation though.
If/when a blanket ban on pub smoking comes into effect, I think we'll see either a lot of broken glass on the streets near pub entrances and/or drinks left unattended on tables spiked with, I dread to think...
Regards,
Steve.
The issue is usually one of poor ventilation though.
If/when a blanket ban on pub smoking comes into effect, I think we'll see either a lot of broken glass on the streets near pub entrances and/or drinks left unattended on tables spiked with, I dread to think...
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 24 November 2004 by Laurie Saunders
quote:
people driving any type of vehicle to earn a living is more worthwhile to society
the problem is that much of the exhaust pollution produced falls outside this category
Also, to repeat, I do not consider your convenience (or your livelyhood) worthwhile enough to me...or society that I have to suffer polluted air to "pay" for it
The argument of need is totally fatuous, and I completely reject the point you are making.....
Steve
quote:
Exhaust fumes don't make me cough and my eyes water like a smoky pub.
You have a choice ....don`t go into a pub if it is smoky
I have car exhaust forced on me when I open my front window, or walk down the street..
Laurie S
Posted on: 24 November 2004 by John Sheridan
quote:
Also, to repeat, I do not consider your convenience (or your livelyhood) worthwhile enough to me...or society that I have to suffer polluted air to "pay" for it
so you're self-sufficient then?
Posted on: 25 November 2004 by Laurie Saunders
quote:
so you're self-sufficient then?
no..but a hotel business in Torquay disappearing does not threaten my lifestyle
I understand your point and accept that I must endure pollution to maintain my lifestyle. However a great deal of it, indeed the part that is a nuisance is not linked to keeping the economy going
I choose not to live on a major trunk road used by commercial vehicles for this reason.
Why not impose similar restrictions on car use...ie limit their use to those areas where they are "essential" ?
The basic logic of my point remains
The justification, in my view, is irrelevant
Car drivers are essentially saying" my coinvenience outweighs your right to breathe clean air"
Smokers are taking a similar position
Laurie S
Posted on: 25 November 2004 by Trevor Newall
laurie, laurie, laurie... your mind works in mysterious ways.
no-one else seems to agree with you here - maybe that tells you something?
and that question is rhetorical!!
TN
no-one else seems to agree with you here - maybe that tells you something?
and that question is rhetorical!!
TN
Posted on: 25 November 2004 by DLF
quote:
Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:
Why not impose similar restrictions on car use...ie limit their use to those areas where they are "essential" ?
Um, things like Red Ken's congestion charge and pedestrianisation schemes perhaps? How about the KYOTO agreement? Why should smoking be excluded from the raft of legislation targetted at combatting pollution?