Smoking in public to be banned!

quote:

---

Originally posted by seagull:

So what do I do? Go to the Beefeater and put up with dodgy beer or do I go to my Local and put up with the smokey atmosphere? Where is the choice in that?

---

again, more sense.
well said, seagull!
everyone has a right to breathe cigarette smoke-free air when they go out to eat, or go out for a drink, in a pub or restaurant.
and like seagull says, why should people be deprived of going to the best eating and drinking establishments because of smokers who insist on inflicting their flithy habit on others?

TN

Your hotels are all non-smoking establishments then?

No one has a right to smoke free air when they go to a pub that allows smoking. It's like expecting the government to ban horse brasses or muzak.

Paul

quote:

---

Your hotels are all non-smoking establishments then?

---

yes indeed they are, and our decision to make them so has attracted more customers.

quote:

---

No one has a right to smoke free air when they go to a pub that allows smoking.

---

the right to breathe smoke-free air, in such establishments, has up until now been taken away from people by the publican/hoteliers fear of losing trade.
thank goodness an official ban on smoking will force those in charge to change their rules and will give people more option of where to eat and drink, and not have their choice unfairly resticted, or their health/comfort adversely affected.

TN

You probably ought to update your web site re the non-smoking policy.

Paul

Can a website be non-smoking?



Stephen

Trevor

quote:

---

everyone has a right to breathe cigarette smoke-free air when they go out to eat, or go out for a drink, in a pub or restaurant

---

but not a right not breathe air free from exhaust fumes from your car, eh?

Could you indicate where this right, you allude to, is set out?

laurie S

Maybe one day Laurie it will come. Let's hope so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rasher:
Maybe one day Laurie it will come. Let's hope so.

---

It will Rasher; that or the end of civilization as we know it. Oil is running out fast....



Stephen

quote:

---

but not a right not breathe air free from exhaust fumes from your car, eh?

---

the steaming piles of horse shit that would replace those cars will be so much better for us.

quote:

---

the steaming piles of horse shit that would replace those cars will be so much better for us.

---

Why assume it would come from horses?


I accept that I must put up with car exhaust because it is convenient for others to make me breathe it. My gripe concerns the sanctimonious, hypocritical car driver who is quite happy to poison the air I breathe because it suits his/her lifestyle, yet complains when others take a similar attitude and impose their tobacco smoke on the car driver.

Exchanging hoses for cars does not alter or invalidate this argument one iota..

Laurie S

What do you call a boomerang that doesn't come back - A stick.

I think you will find that a smoker must smoke. It's a person that doesn't have to.

Likewise, perhaps, while a driver has to drive a person can travel by public transport - cue laughter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:

but not a right not breathe air free from exhaust fumes from your car, eh?

---

Interesting thought.

I don't believe that to smoke outdoors will become illegal under the proposal but I am sure the general public, smoking or not, would be a little perturbed if anyone decided that driving their car in a hotel, restaurant or public house was the right thing to do.....

quote:

---

I don't believe that to smoke outdoors will become illegal under the proposal

---

Give it time....

What we are seeing is the thin edge of the wedge

Tom

quote:

---

There is one small difference. The car driver has to use the internal combustion engine, the smoker does not have to smoke.

---

This argument keeps on being trotted out.Sorry.... it won`t work.

The car driver is as guilty as the smoker, because they are saying, effectively that their convenience outweighs my right to breathe clean air.

"having to" is a a relativistic term

You may be surprised at what you could forgo if you "had to"

Laurie S

quote:

---

What you seem to be saying is as you have to suffer so should everyone else.

---

Not quite

what I am saying is that those who impose "suffering" on others should not bleat when it is imposed on them

laurie S

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:

but not a right not breathe air free from exhaust fumes from your car, eh?

---

yet another who invokes the age old, and logically incomparable car argument when the subject of smoking comes up

laurie, face facts: cars, buses, lorries, vans, etc, etc, are necessary in order for thousands of people in this country to be able to live their lives, not to mention the needs of industry to function.
if you were to ban all vehicles from our roads which emit toxic fumes, the country would come to a halt, and it would result in chaos!
smoking, on the other hand, is a non-essential, unnecessary activity, and has no benefit whatsoever for anyone other than the smoker.
therefore, comparing exhaust fumes to cigarette smoke to add credence to your argument is rather stupid and somewhat pointless.
and that goes for everyone else who has adopted this silly stance!

TN

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevor Newall:
smoking, on the other hand, is a non-essential, unnecessary activity, and has no benefit whatsoever for anyone other than the smoker.
TN

---

Not quite true. It only truly benefits the tobacco companies.

The smoker gets ill
The tax collectors spend it all on health care for the smokers.
The tobacco companies exploit workers in places where tobacco is grown (there is no 'fair trade' tobacco.)

The tobacco barons get rich.



Stephen

Trevor

quote:

---

your argument is rather stupid and somewhat pointless.
and that goes for everyone else who has adopted this silly stance!

---

Insulting me may make you feel good but it won`t help your argument

You may not like it but my point remains.

So far no-one has presented a logical counter argument


You are simply pleading MY case....ie by saying HOW important it is for you that this position is maintained.

quote:

---

if you were to ban all vehicles from our roads which emit toxic fumes, the country would come to a halt, and it would result in chaos!

---

I agree totally. You are in fact supporting my case. What you are saying, effectively, is:

The importance of motor vehicles (to me) is so great that the pollution caused, is an acceptable price and outweighs my right to clean air

Thanks, Trevor for reinforcing my point

To save me re-typing it, I refer you back to my hypothetical anectdote of my neighbour with his noisy dog trying to ban my loud hi-fi......our own "wrongs" always seem less bad to ourselves than other peoples do to us

So it looks like , in reality, you agree with me

Laurie S

[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on Thu 18 November 2004 at 9:57.]

quote:

---

Fair enough in its way but surely as pollution is created and imposed by all, little can be done at present to prevent its impact*.

---

you tell that to hospital patients suffering/dying from respiratory problems on hot summer days in cities choked by car exhaust fumes

laurie S

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:

quote:

---

Fair enough in its way but surely as pollution is created and imposed by all, little can be done at present to prevent its impact*.

---

you tell that to hospital patients suffering/dying from respiratory problems on hot summer days in cities choked by car exhaust fumes

laurie S

---

And just how will market forces tackle this problem?

quote:

---

And just how will market forces tackle this problem?

---

laurie S

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:

quote:

---

And just how will market forces tackle this problem?

---

laurie S

---

Well, how do you propose to tackle the problem of "hospital patients suffering/dying from respiratory problems on hot summer days in cities choked by car exhaust fumes"?

quote:

---

Well, how do you propose to tackle the problem of "hospital patients suffering/dying from respiratory problems on hot summer days in cities choked by car exhaust fumes"?

---

there`s only one answer

ban the emission of car exhaust in ALL public places

Seriously.....I have some ideas about the use of cars in cities......but that`s another story

Laurie S

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:

quote:

---

Well, how do you propose to tackle the problem of "hospital patients suffering/dying from respiratory problems on hot summer days in cities choked by car exhaust fumes"?

---

there`s only one answer

ban the emission of car exhaust in ALL public places

Seriously.....I have some ideas about the use of cars in cities......but that`s another story

Laurie S

---

And might that involve imposing restrictions on car owners?

quote:

---

And might that involve imposing restrictions on car owners?

---

Yes


But I have said all along that I accept that i must be tolerant...I do not like car exhaust, but I tolerate it.


To avoid the problem above I do not live in a city. I accept that if I choose to live in a city I would be subject to car exhaust pollution


I am not one of the ban-it brigade.


I take exception to the hypocrits who drive cars and whinge about breathing others` tobacco smoke

laurie S

quote:

---

what's your point exactly?

---

That car drivers` "votes" on a smoking ban are invalid. and any car driver who votes for a smoking ban is guilty of gross hypocrisy

Laurie S