New possibility of a total smoking ban in England
Posted by: Rasher on 11 January 2006
Yesterdays news report:
"Tony Blair has indicated that MPs will be allowed a free vote on the government’s plans to ban smoking.
In an interview with The Observer the Prime Minister suggested that offering a free vote would not undermine his legacy.
“I do no think there is any great point of principle but simply what is the right thing to do,” he said.
“Smoking is in a ‘different category’ to education reforms and ‘the core things’.”
So far 101 MPs, including 69 from Labour, have signed an early day motion calling for free vote on the smoking ban proposals and 91 have signed a motion calling for a total ban.
Mr Blair also said that chief medical officer Liam Donaldson was “absolutely right” to call for a complete ban."
I really hope that this time it can be sorted for good. Arguments on both sides, of course, but this has to happen eventually anyway. Let's just get it over with.
"Tony Blair has indicated that MPs will be allowed a free vote on the government’s plans to ban smoking.
In an interview with The Observer the Prime Minister suggested that offering a free vote would not undermine his legacy.
“I do no think there is any great point of principle but simply what is the right thing to do,” he said.
“Smoking is in a ‘different category’ to education reforms and ‘the core things’.”
So far 101 MPs, including 69 from Labour, have signed an early day motion calling for free vote on the smoking ban proposals and 91 have signed a motion calling for a total ban.
Mr Blair also said that chief medical officer Liam Donaldson was “absolutely right” to call for a complete ban."
I really hope that this time it can be sorted for good. Arguments on both sides, of course, but this has to happen eventually anyway. Let's just get it over with.
quote:Originally posted by starbuck:quote:When you look at what damage is being done to the body in what smokers claim to be enjoyment is way beyond me and I cannot imagine why anyone with an ounce of intellegence would smoke.
Because they also have half an ounce of tobacco and some papers, and are addicted? There's another i and one less e in intelligence by the way.
Still, i suppose that once it is banned then they can justify higher fuel taxes and road tax.
But i expect that the anti smoking brigade will be all for that too.
There is of course the downside that smokers will stay at home and kill their children instead with their dense smoke. I don't know what can be done about that. 
quote:Originally posted by Spock:
Time is running out for smokers. Ban the filthy disgusting habit once and for all and stop fannying around.
Ex Smoker
There's no worse thing than an ex-smoker - so self righteous
I'm not saying a word either way (am currently attempting to break my social smoker (only in pubs) habit once and for all - 4 days and counting (with 3 of those spent in the pub in the evening).
One thing I *will* say though is that in the pubs I frequent in Exeter, around half the people I see smoke, including in 1 pub, ALL the bar staff, and the other 3, half of them. Unfortunately one of these also serves food - and I DO find smoking when food is around is really disgusting.
If the government give a crap about our health, they should ban alcohol and tobacco and cars. Why I should have to breath in car fumes and have no say in it is beyond me.
Earwicker said
No reason. It's the fact that it affects others. I would allow smoking pubs myself - staffed by smokers, and leave the rest as non-smoking. It would be interesting to see which ones thrived long term.
In Ireland you won't find even a majority of smokers that want it changed back. All the heating they have put outside pubs has created a place for smokers to shoot-up before returning to a fog free, cleaner pub.
Also, non-smokers now frequent more pubs and clubs that they used to avoid. Everyone's a winner
quote:Why should the government legislate against people's poisoning themselves if they so wish.
No reason. It's the fact that it affects others. I would allow smoking pubs myself - staffed by smokers, and leave the rest as non-smoking. It would be interesting to see which ones thrived long term.
In Ireland you won't find even a majority of smokers that want it changed back. All the heating they have put outside pubs has created a place for smokers to shoot-up before returning to a fog free, cleaner pub.
Also, non-smokers now frequent more pubs and clubs that they used to avoid. Everyone's a winner
Well I can't speak for England, but here in the South if smoking is allowed in the city ordinances EVERY bar allows it because they know they will go out of buisness if they don't. Consequently, there is no other option. You either deal with the smoke or you don't go.
Now that my fiance is expecting it looks like I won't be going to a bar for quite a while. Shame really. But my leather coat will thank me.
Now that my fiance is expecting it looks like I won't be going to a bar for quite a while. Shame really. But my leather coat will thank me.
quote:Originally posted by Earwicker:
Why should the government legislate against people's poisoning themselves if etc...
EW
EW, are you actually reading my and other people's posts? I'd be interested in your response to the actual issue here, i.e. health and safety of workers and not some spurious anti-government rant. You're a Biochemist? You, above all, should realise that it's important for workers to be protected from dangerous chemicals at work. If I may quote myself to make it easier for you.
quote:It's totally about health and safety. How would you like it if your employers said 'Mr Wicker, we are going to remove health and safety restrictions from your work? If you don't like it, you can always get another job'. Some people can’t get ‘another job’, and it’s a fatuous argument.
also
quote:Why should your job benefit from strong health and safety protection, but not workers in a pub? Just because you like a fag in a public place? I’d like cheaper engineering (Your profile says this is what you are, but I'll stick 'Products of the biochemistry industries here now
Regards
Stephen
quote:Originally posted by Steve S1:
I would allow smoking pubs myself - staffed by smokers, and leave the rest as non-smoking. It would be interesting to see which ones thrived long term.
So you'd also be happy for workers in the chemical, mining and nuclear industries to 'choose' whether or not they had protection from dangerous substances at work? It'd reduce production costs and companies would love it, their excuse being, when workers die or get ill, being; 'they chose to work here, not our fault guv.'
Stephen
SB said:
Err No. What has that got to do with anything? If smokers want to smoke in pubs - they will need fellow smokers to work there.
What's your point?
quote:So you'd also be happy for workers in the chemical, mining and nuclear industries to 'choose' whether or not they had protection from dangerous substances at work? It'd reduce production costs and companies would love it, their excuse being, when workers die or get ill, being; 'they chose to work here, not our fault guv.'
Err No. What has that got to do with anything? If smokers want to smoke in pubs - they will need fellow smokers to work there.
What's your point?
quote:Originally posted by Steve S1:
What's your point?
My point is that workers and employers can't be the ones to set safety standards at work. Just because someone wants to work in a dangerous environment doesn't mean they should be allowed too do so. Employers would always exploit desperate workers (as they did before health and safety laws) - and a lot of people in the entertainment industry are students or can't get other jobs elsewhere. The health and safety laws should protect all workers regardless of their own particular fallibilities.
According to your logic they wouldn't need to have radiation protection in nuclear power stations - they would just employ suicidal people.
Stephen
I know an ex-air stewardess who quit after a few months because she spent all the time in the air being terrified, as she was scared of flying!!
EW does have a point. If you don't accept smoke in pubs (and let's not forget that it isn't yet banned and currently goes with the job), then don't go and work there.
In my profession, we have concrete blocks to be used for foundations which are heavier than the bricklayers are allowed to lift!!! If we do go any further down this nanny-state route nothing is ever going to function efficiently again and it'll be the down-tools return to the strikes of the 70's.
A little common sense isn't too much to expect, is it?
IMO, it is common sense to ban it completely from all public places. I have to hold my breath coming out of the supermarket, as they're all standing there sucking. It's hideous. They look hideous too. That's my opinion, so it must be right.
EW does have a point. If you don't accept smoke in pubs (and let's not forget that it isn't yet banned and currently goes with the job), then don't go and work there.
In my profession, we have concrete blocks to be used for foundations which are heavier than the bricklayers are allowed to lift!!! If we do go any further down this nanny-state route nothing is ever going to function efficiently again and it'll be the down-tools return to the strikes of the 70's.
A little common sense isn't too much to expect, is it?
IMO, it is common sense to ban it completely from all public places. I have to hold my breath coming out of the supermarket, as they're all standing there sucking. It's hideous. They look hideous too. That's my opinion, so it must be right.