Smoking in public to be banned!

Laurie,

With all due respect, utter bollocks.

JR

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:

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

---

A bit tyranical Laurie but I like the way you think. That leaves non-smoking non-car owners to decide. That would be me then .

quote:

---

With all due respect, utter bollocks

---

please explain why.....


Laurie S

It seems quite simple to me really.

If your argument was to hold sway then effectively you are disenfranchising potentially millions of people simply because they happen to drive.

IMO that's ridiculous.

JR

quote:

---

IMO that's ridiculous

---

Why?

So weight of numbers gives incorrect thinking credibility, eh?



laurie S

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:
Why?

So weight of numbers gives incorrect thinking credibility, eh?

---

Nope, that's not my point.

My point is that, regardless of what they might 'vote', you are effectively saying that millions of drivers can't have a say, one way or the other.

I find that absurd.

JR

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:

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

---

How about this. Any car owner may vote for a smoking ban. If they then complain about any restriction in car usage *for the common good*, they are guilty of gross hypocrisy.

The smoking issue is about property rights and personal responsibility. An establishment should have the right to determine the environment it provides for it's customers. If the customers like it they will succeed, if not they will fail. If others don't like the environment they have no obligation to visit or provide business to the place.
In order for this to work, people have to assume a level of personal responsibility. Socialist oriented governments obsolve people of that responsibility and are therefore capable of persistantly infringing on rights and liberties. Consider the irony: earn huge tax dollars on cigarettes then turn smokers and tobacco companies into pariahs; and ban smoking in public places. Consider socialized health care as another justification here.
The government of any county which charges excessive tax on cigarettes, liquor, gambling while forcing policies which restrict the activities assiciated with them is an act of irony at a minimum, and hypocracy at a maximum. The gross overtaxation of these products as a source of revenue is tantimount to being a drug dealer. Ever notice how the greatest tax rates are used on typically addictive products?

I am an asthmatic with a dislike for smoking and a high sensitivity to pollution. However, the idea that idividuals or groups can use the government to abuse the rights of others is unfair and abusive. First it's banning smoking then what next? What if 50% of people hate classical music? Shoulsd that be banned due to noise pollution? Or how about rock n roll? Or perhaps the government can ban clotted cream...

One point about cars and pollution. The driver, at least here in Canada, is one of the most taxed individuals around. In exchange for all that what do you get? Less roads, and bad roads. I am of the view that since a car operates more efficiently while it is running (emmissions tests prove this) it makes sense to provide the infastructure necessary to move vehicles. It could be argued that all that traffic/idling is what greatly contributes to air pollution.

Maybe the problem isn't smoking, smokers or drivers. Perhaps the real problem is government and the inordinate amounts of faith people place in these fools to solve their own problems.


tw

[This message was edited by Tristram on Thu 18 November 2004 at 17:34.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tristram:
A terrific debate that needs some clarity.

---

So it's an issue of (boo hiss) socialism versus (huurah) freedom and not democracy versus business interest. Thanks for clearing that up . Sorry mate, I couldn't disagree more.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tristram:

Perhaps the real problem is government and the inordinate amounts of faith people place in these fools to solve their own problems.

---

Briliiant !!

The fools and our money are often parted, usually at high speed !

I agree with smokers who base their rigth to smoke on a driving analogy:

1) Written exam should be required to show one understands life-threatening risks.

2) Strict controls on emisions.

3) Periodic emission/pollution test required.

4) Smoke only in designated areas (only on street, never in public spaces).

5) Higher charge for smoking during the day in city (at least London).

6) Revocation of license in case of infraction.

7) No smoking within sight of red light.

8) Non smokers shall always have right of way.

Cheers,

quote:

---

As I said earlier. you are as much a polluter of the atmosphere as anyone so why should we a) listen to you

---

Because I am not an advocate of a ban, so I am not adopting a hypocritical position, unlike those who drive and DO advocate a smoking ban

I pollute, but the distinction is I accept the pollution of others imposed on me

Why can`t you do the same?

Tom, to be honest I have made this point repeatedly, but for some reason you keep asking me to reiterate it. Why? Am I not making myself clear?

Laurie S

quote:

---

It is also an argument about hypocrisy, not smoking.

---

UH.....no

It is about the hypocrisity that has arisen out of the smoking issue. I reject this point

quote:

---

When I go into a library, museaum, non-smoking resauraunt or similar public space I do not have my enjoyment of the environment curtailed by car fumes or emmissions from factories. The small amount of pollution that gets into those enclosed public spaces from the sources you cite does not register with my senses where as smoking does. Smoke from cigarettes is noticeable immediately and attaches itself to my clothes quickly, it masks the taste of food, it irritates the nose and eyes. So the idea of making enclosed areas free of smoke makes sense to me because it does create a better environment

---

That is YOUR viewpoint...not one I happen to share. Of the two types of pollution, viz tobacco smoke and car exhaust, as far as I am concerned, the latter certainly figures much more highly as a problem

quote:

---

If you want to argue that car polution shouldn't be allowed in the streets then that is a separate matter and one in which you would be hypocritical to complain about as you contribute to that pollution.

---

I complain, yes but I am not the one supporting bans, so I reject your accusation of hypocrisy here

Laurie S

quote:

---

Ok, I'll change the charge, your arguments are so off topic that they are irrelevant.

---

Not at all. As you suugest that this thread is about banning smoking, and that a number of the proponents of this ban are car drivers, I am simply suggesting that these folk are hypocrits

Laurie S

quote:

---

When I go into a library, museaum, non-smoking resauraunt or similar public space

---

But these are generally not similar public spaces. A library or museum is usually a public building open to the public. A pub or restaurant is a private building open to the public where the proprietor reserves the right of admission.

This is apparently a subtle and hard to grasp difference, but surely it's fundamental when talking about 'rights'. Where is your argument for removing by law the right of a proprietor to cater for a substantial demand from people partaking of a legal activity?

Paul

Those smoking hounds are really buggered now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:

quote:

---

Ok, I'll change the charge, your arguments are so off topic that they are irrelevant.

---

Not at all. As you suugest that this thread is about banning smoking, and that a number of the proponents of this ban are car drivers, I am simply suggesting that these folk are hypocrits

Laurie S

---

This may be true but do you exclude people from the democratic process because of their motives? What about car drivers who smoke and are proponents? What about the car owner who is a proponent because he knows someone who is trying to give up but has to have a ciggie when they go into a pub? I am sure there are hypocrites out there but you can't read minds. We can't do everything at once, if we try and achieve everything we will achieve nothing. One issue at a time.

I read the Scottish legislation as having no exemptions for private clubs, the English proposal is more liberal, almost reasonable in fact.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:

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

---

laurie, you're quite a character aren't you?
however I do enjoy your contributions, not to mention your ability to twist what is said and turn it into your benefit!
laurie, when I (and thousands like me who need a car to earn a living) drive a car, the fumes emitted are just an unfortunate by-product of an activity that's ESSENTIAL for ourselves and our families to be able to live.
for me (and others like me) no car = no income, and no income means no food, no clothes, no nothing, and the mortgage doesn't get paid!
therefore, exhaust fumes are, rightly or wrongly, tolerated and considered a part of modern every day life.
can you tell me how a cigarette smoker smoking his or her cigarette is as ESSENTIAL an activity as a man or woman driving a car/truck/van in order to earn a living?
what I'm saying is that it's only natural that exhaust fumes are tolerared and cigarette smoke isn't.
no one NEEDS to smoke, but many people NEED to drive a car.
surely you can understand that?
incidentally, I have no objection to people drinking or taking drugs in the same enclosed space where I am, because unlike smoking, I'm not being forced to share in the unpleasantness of their habit.

TN

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:

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

Get a life and your facts strait. Car polution accounts for about 12% of polution have a go at the rest of the 88% and dont turn your lights or TV on.
Martin
Oh and dont fart, cook, put the heating on, leaving the hifi on all the time - death penalty at least.

quote:

---

no one NEEDS to smoke, but many people NEED to drive a car.

---

Nobody 'NEEDS' to drive a car. You choose your career as a picture framer or hotel manager and that means you have to travel a bit. But you don't 'NEED' to, it's a lifestyle choice, you do it for the pleasure or satisfaction the resultant lifestyle can bring you. There's no essential difference except that the pollution you generate cannot be avoided by any of the world's population.

Paul

quote:

---

Get a life and your facts strait. Car polution accounts for about 12%

---

I am not the intolerant one here. I accept that in modern life, pollution is created. I am not proposing any bans

What I object to is the hypocritical position adopted by those who drive cars, and therefore add to pollution, yet try to ban the pollution created by others

Trevor

quote:

---

what I'm saying is that it's only natural that exhaust fumes are tolerared and cigarette smoke isn't.
no one NEEDS to smoke, but many people NEED to drive a car.
surely you can understand that?

---

I understand what you are saying perfectly well

What I ask is that you understand what i am saying. Need is relative.

quote:

---

however I do enjoy your contributions, not to mention your ability to twist what is said and turn it into your benefit!

---

Well I do like to present an unconventional viewpoint.....what you describe as "twisting" is perhaps presenting an unconventional case that may differ from the "norm".......isn`t that what free thinking is supposed to be about

I try maintain a reasoned, congenial viewpoint devoid of any personal malice, and I find it curious when some folk who disagree with me start becoming abusive. surely progress in any matter arise from thrashing out issues in a calm and logical way?

Insofar as smoking goes I gues that if referenda were held regardind cars and smoking then (1) there would probably be a majority in favour of banning it in enclosed public spaces
and (2) there would probably be a majority in favour of maintaining the staus quoe regarding cars

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

Trevor,

As I stated above your case can be paraphrased by:

" my "need" to drive a car outweighs your right to breathe clean air"

My point is that similar to the postion adopted by smokers. I guess it comes down to which need is greater and surely that is a subjective viewpoint. If i smoke but don`t own a car, then the "need" to smoke is more important for me

I defy you the right to say that your need is greater for you than my need is for me. To do so is hypocritical


Laurie S

I'm with Laurie on this. Neither Smoking, nor Cars (nor Foxhunting) should be banned. (I only partake in one of these activities)

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.

Quite