Smoking in public to be banned!

quote:

---

Why should smoking be excluded from the raft of legislation targetted at combatting pollution?

---

I`m not suggesting it should

I`m merely suggesting that ther be some consistency


Laurie S

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:

quote:

---

Why should smoking be excluded from the raft of legislation targetted at combatting pollution?

---

I`m not suggesting it should

I`m merely suggesting that ther be some consistency


Laurie S

---

Surely the inconsistency is that there are increasing restrictions placed on cars w.r.t. emissions and usage but none on smoking cigarettes?

quote:

---

but none on smoking cigarettes?

---

I`m not suggesting that there are no restrictions on the smoking of tobacco

In "public" places...fine. If you read my earlier postings I have made it clear that I believe smoking in ENCLOSED PUBLIC PLACES to be indefensible

Does a privately run restaurant or bar qualify as a public place...

I am suggesting not

laurie S

quote:

---

Does a privately run restaurant or bar qualify as a public place...

---

Unless they have membership and (probably) charge an entrance fee and thus qualify as a private club then YES they are public places (i.e. open to the public).

Remember that pub is short for PUBLIC house

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:

quote:

---

but none on smoking cigarettes?

---

I`m not suggesting that there are no restrictions on the smoking of tobacco

In "public" places...fine. If you read my earlier postings I have made it clear that I believe smoking in ENCLOSED PUBLIC PLACES to be indefensible

---

You made it clear you don't like it but you also made it clear you didn't believe legislation is the answer to either problem.

quote:

---

Does a privately run restaurant or bar qualify as a public place...

I am suggesting not

laurie S

---

Privately run is not the same as 'private place' because they are open to the public. Factories and offices are privately run but they have work safety regulations (including smoking restrictions). Restaraunts also have food hygene laws they have to adhere to that private citizens don't. A private club is one which has 'members' and they will get to decide on a smoking ban.

quote:

---

you didn't believe legislation is the answer to either problem.

---

As a general principle, I agree. That does not mean there is no place for legislation

For example the government can "persuade" folk to drive more efficient cars by means of tax policy. This still leaves the final choice up to the driver. Legislation completely removes choice


One solution might be to add a "smoking surcharge"...customers who wished to smoke would pay more for ther food etc etc....

quote:

---

Privately run is not the same as 'private place' because they are open to the public.

---

So a privately owned and run restaurant, which is "open to the public" would not be allowed to permit smoking because a member of the public who objects might wish to use it?

Surely, even in a so called "public" restaurant, the proprietor/manager has a right to bar entry to anyone, at a whim. I understand I do not have a right to gain automatic access to, say a shop that is nominally open to the public (or am I wrong here?)

So in what sense is a pub "public"?


Would, say, I , as a proprietor, be permitted to ban all potential non-smoking customers on the grounds that they might object to smoking?

(disregarding, for the moment, the business sense in doing so)

If not then we have what amounts to the government interfering in the activity of privately consenting adults indulging in a legal activity????



Laurie S

quote:

---

Surely, even in a so called "public" restaurant, the proprietor/manager has a right to bar entry to anyone, at a whim. I understand I do not have a right to gain automatic access to, say a shop that is nominally open to the public (or am I wrong here?)

So in what sense is a pub "public"?


Would, say, I , as a proprietor, be permitted to ban all potential non-smoking customers on the grounds that they might object to smoking?

(disregarding, for the moment, the business sense in doing so)

If not then we have what amounts to the government interfering in the activity of privately consenting adults indulging in a legal activity????

---

Laurie,

You are beginning to present a convincing argument - and one I agree with.

I'm not looking forward to the Nose Police going around pubs enforcing the ban.

At least they'll get pelted by clean ashtrays, I suppose

Regards,

Steve.

It's at this point Tom when one realises that we don't live in a free country. We never did, but the presence of authority that imposed limitations on our liberty existed discretely in the background, and sufficiently that we could at least delude ourselves into thinking that we were free.

Now it will be much more intrusive, and such delusions will be restricted to the insane.

Regards,

Steve.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:

quote:

---

you didn't believe legislation is the answer to either problem.

---

As a general principle, I agree. That does not mean there is no place for legislation

For example the government can "persuade" folk to drive more efficient cars by means of tax policy. This still leaves the final choice up to the driver. Legislation completely removes choice

---

Either way legislation is required. The question is do you aim at the provider (car manufacturer or restaraunt owner), the consumer or both. Do you 'discourage' or do you 'forbid'.

quote:

---

One solution might be to add a "smoking surcharge"...customers who wished to smoke would pay more for ther food etc etc....

---

Just discouraging smoking in restaraunts by taxation is problematic bacause it doesn't guarantee a smoke free environment. Another problem is the highly addictive nature of nicotine. You can increase the cost and it doesn't have much effect on usage.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Privately run is not the same as 'private place' because they are open to the public.

---

So a privately owned and run restaurant, which is "open to the public" would not be allowed to permit smoking because a member of the public who objects might wish to use it?

---

When you open a restaraunt you have to obtain a license to sell food to the general public. You have to obey certain rules and regulations, many of which are for the safety of your customers and staff. These resrictions do not apply to you as a private citizen when you host a dinner party for friends.

quote:

---

Surely, even in a so called "public" restaurant, the proprietor/manager has a right to bar entry to anyone, at a whim. I understand I do not have a right to gain automatic access to, say a shop that is nominally open to the public (or am I wrong here?)

So in what sense is a pub "public"?

---

Licensed to sell alcohol to the general public (aged 18 or over). Not restricted by membership.

quote:

---

Would, say, I , as a proprietor, be permitted to ban all potential non-smoking customers on the grounds that they might object to smoking?

(disregarding, for the moment, the business sense in doing so)

If not then we have what amounts to the government interfering in the activity of privately consenting adults indulging in a legal activity????

---

You can ban anyone you like.
EDIT. Well you could probably have a dress code but you couldn't discriminate on sex or race.

[This message was edited by DLF on Fri 26 November 2004 at 14:50.]

quote:

---

You can ban anyone you like.

---

I am not in favour of banning anything. I think we should use other persuasive means to try to get people to behave better

I have a gripe with car exhaust
I find tobacco smoke offensive

I recognise that in a free society I must compromise, so I put up with both.

I am not in favour of lawlessness

Laws are needed where there is a demonstrable need . I would not suggest removing laws prohibiting murder or theft

However, I worry that laws tend to be clumsy tools and often create as many problems as they solve, and thus should be a last resort
My position has been presented, by several contributors above, incorrectly

I am alarmed by the "ban it" brigade

Once we get used to the notion that virtually any activity can be banned, simply because enough people do not like it, then we are indeed headed down the road towards tyranny

This is why I find the notion of car drivers in favour of a smoking ban to be hypocritical

The excuse of "need" has been presented

I would be happy to accept that argument if all car journeys made were subjected to a test for need

laurie S

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:

quote:

---

You can ban anyone you like.

---

I am not in favour of banning anything. I think we should use other persuasive means to try to get people to behave better

---

You seemed anxious that proprietors should have the 'freedon to ban' earlier. They do, happy?

quote:

---

I have a gripe with car exhaust
I find tobacco smoke offensive

I recognise that in a free society I must compromise, so I put up with both.

---

You must recognise that the same freedom allows us all to decide what we should and should not have to put up with.

quote:

---

I am not in favour of lawlessness

Laws are needed where there is a demonstrable need . I would not suggest removing laws prohibiting murder or theft

---

Health and safety is a demonstrable need.

quote:

---

However, I worry that laws tend to be clumsy tools and often create as many problems as they solve, and thus should be a last resort
My position has been presented, by several contributors above, incorrectly

---

Existing health and safety legislation proves the approach does work. You came up with an alternative, which is constructive, but I explained why I think it wouldn't be very effective.

quote:

---

I am alarmed by the "ban it" brigade

Once we get used to the notion that virtually any activity can be banned, simply because enough people do not like it, then we are indeed headed down the road towards tyranny

---

Sigh. Well yes, but nobody is proposing to ban an activity because enough people do not like it. It's a health and safety issue.

quote:

---

This is why I find the notion of car drivers in favour of a smoking ban to be hypocritical

---

Tell you what, start a thread about the cost of implementing the Kyoto agreement on car drivers. Monitor the thread. If anyone whinges who also supports the smoking propopsals then you can pounce. Otherwise I think we should just stay on topic.

All we've got here is heavy-handed "blanket" measures.

I find it interesting that our beloved government would rather legislate against the public, than against the manufacturers of the offending product, which would be a much smaller group, more easily targetted and would make the legislation actually enforceable.

It would be very simple to legislate against the ammonia, pesticide residues, saltpetre and GM components and industrial waste in the material sold as "smoking product" (there is incredibly little actual tobacco in commercial cigarettes). They have no business being there other than to serve the interests of the manufacturer by padding the product or accellerating the burn rate, and are likely to be significant contributors to negative effects both for the consumer and those in the same room.

But, no -- that would mean offending their friends in the city... easier to just pass a law to hammer the poor old public again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Ellis-Jones:
All we've got here is heavy-handed "blanket" measures.

I find it interesting that our beloved government would rather legislate against the public, than against the manufacturers of the offending product, which would be a much smaller group, more easily targetted and would make the legislation actually enforceable.

It would be very simple to legislate against the ammonia, pesticide residues, saltpetre and GM components and industrial waste in the material sold as "smoking product" (there is incredibly little actual tobacco in commercial cigarettes). They have no business being there other than to serve the interests of the manufacturer by padding the product or accellerating the burn rate, and are likely to be significant contributors to negative effects both for the consumer and those in the same room.

But, no -- that would mean offending their friends in the city... easier to just pass a law to hammer the poor old public again.

---

There is no such thing as safe tobacco smoke and the same measures have been extremely effective in making offices and factories smoke free.

http://www.smokeatwork.org/summary_index.htm

quote:

---

Originally posted by DLF:
There is no such thing as safe tobacco smoke

---

Probably right, in absolute terms.

However, life is not absolute -- and getting rid of the junk in commercial smoking product would very likely benefit everybody rather than one faction or the other. I can't quite see why you would want to protect so-called "tobacco" companies from this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Ellis-Jones:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DLF:
There is no such thing as safe tobacco smoke

---

Probably right, in absolute terms.

However, life is not absolute -- and getting rid of the junk in commercial smoking product would very likely benefit everybody rather than one faction or the other. I can't quite see why you would want to protect so-called "tobacco" companies from this.

---

I must say you are being rather argumentative accusing me of wanting to protect the tobacco industry. I think I resent that.

The cigarette is simply a delivery mechanism for nicotine. In the 50's (I think) low tar cigarettes and filters were introduced as a token gesture to health concerns that were starting to surface. They had to replace the tar with something else for flavour and keep the cigarette doing what it is supposed to do i.e. deliver nicotine. These low tar cigarettes are actually more dangerous than good old fashioned full tar jobbies. It is not as you may suspect because of the nasty chemicals but because they are less good at delivering nicotine. This means punters need to inhale deeper to get the same nicotine hit. This means cancer develops around the periphery of the lung and is harder to treat. Marlboro Lights are known as "Lady Killers" in the trade because of this. So, it would appear intuitive that removing these chemicals would make a safer cigarette but in all probability it would make them more dangerous.

[This message was edited by DLF on Sat 27 November 2004 at 17:42.]