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.
Posted on: 14 February 2006 by erik scothron
quote:Originally posted by Earwicker:
Mick
It's almost as stupid as banning drinking in pubs.
Regards
Earwicker
EW
14.10.1066 a great battle lost
14.02.06 a great battle won
Regards,
One real happy bunny
Posted on: 14 February 2006 by Rasher
I'm delighted. I wish we didn't have to wait a whole year, but I mustn't be greedy.
What fabulous news.
If Mick was here, I expect he would say something like: "There is no point in moaning, the vote has been cast and smoking inside buildings will become a criminal act. Live with it."
What?
What fabulous news.
If Mick was here, I expect he would say something like: "There is no point in moaning, the vote has been cast and smoking inside buildings will become a criminal act. Live with it."
What?
Posted on: 14 February 2006 by graham55
It would be nice to think that this would f*ck up the tobacco companies. But they'll just ignore it and carry on selling into China and such.
Graham
Graham
Posted on: 14 February 2006 by erik scothron
quote:Originally posted by Rasher:
I'm delighted. I wish we didn't have to wait a whole year, but I mustn't be greedy.
What fabulous news.
If Mick was here, I expect he would say something like: "There is no point in moaning, the vote has been cast and smoking inside buildings will become a criminal act. Live with it."
What?
LOL - I can't tell you how happy I am - I will be able to go to a pub with friends and relax without a cloud of foul stench making my eyes red and clogging up my nose and permeating my clothes down to my undies and socks and making me want to throw up. What joy! These addicts can rationalise all they want but the simple truth is they have inflicted their filthy stinking poisonous habits on us enough and their time to do so is running out. I want to see smoking in the street banned too.
Posted on: 14 February 2006 by Two-Sheds
Smoking in bars/pubs etc has been banned in Toronto for some time now and when I returned to the UK over Christmas I had forgotten how bad it can be, how bad your clothes smell after you leave a pub. The only downside is you tend to get a lot more ciggerette butts on the pavement outside.
Posted on: 14 February 2006 by u5227470736789439
That's me done then. Still, it gives me an excuse to stay at home!
The law is the law as I said on the motoring thread viz-a-viz speeding.
Yours, most stoically, Fredrik
The law is the law as I said on the motoring thread viz-a-viz speeding.
Yours, most stoically, Fredrik
Posted on: 14 February 2006 by erik scothron
quote:Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
That's me done then. Still, it gives me an excuse to stay at home!
The law is the law as I said on the motoring thread viz-a-viz speeding.
Yours, most stoically, Fredrik
Your stoicism does you credit fredrik
Posted on: 14 February 2006 by Steve Toy
My wedding reception venue has always been non-smoking. In a way I'm glad about that. Market forces prevail on that score.
The nannies win. Freedom of choice loses.
The nannies win. Freedom of choice loses.
Posted on: 14 February 2006 by u5227470736789439
I wonder how this will work as most weddings actually involve a good deal of emotion, and often not a little drink. Whatever would happen if some of the old timers spark up. Will there be a police raid and the whole event be ruined, or will it just pass?
If weddings are emotional, what about funerals? No one would smoke in a crematorium or religeous building, but at the wake? Can you imagine the stink if that was interupted. Not everone has a house large enough to host such events in, so I see a real problem with this. Not that I go to many weddings myself. The last was my brother's anout 14 years ago, and fortunately funerals have been fairly thin on the groud for me recently, but knowing full well how people get in the circumstances. Well, it does not really bear thinking about too much....
Fredrik
If weddings are emotional, what about funerals? No one would smoke in a crematorium or religeous building, but at the wake? Can you imagine the stink if that was interupted. Not everone has a house large enough to host such events in, so I see a real problem with this. Not that I go to many weddings myself. The last was my brother's anout 14 years ago, and fortunately funerals have been fairly thin on the groud for me recently, but knowing full well how people get in the circumstances. Well, it does not really bear thinking about too much....
Fredrik
Posted on: 14 February 2006 by erik scothron
quote:Originally posted by Steve Toy:
My wedding reception venue has always been non-smoking. In a way I'm glad about that. Market forces prevail on that score.
The nannies win. Freedom of choice loses.
smokers have the freedom to smoke at home - why should smokers be free to pollute the non-smokers? That is not freedom of choice it is rank ignorance and selfishness. Are you seriously advocating the freedom to pollute others to satisfy a smokers addications? People who are fed up with the stench are not nannies, they are health conscious sensible people who do not ignore the many medical studies concerning passive smoking and it's implications for oursleves and our loved ones. Smokers can pollute their own bodies but why should the rest of us pay the price to our own health and the ever increasing tax burden of the NHS?
Posted on: 14 February 2006 by erik scothron
quote:
Can you imagine the stink if that was interupted.
Fredrik
I can imagine the stink if it was not interupted!
Posted on: 14 February 2006 by u5227470736789439
Dear Erik,
Sinner that I am, I cannot help but agree with you, and will find myself further constrained, but accepting it. We live in something akin to a civil society at best, and this will only improve things for the majority. I guess the time will come when out of consideration, I shall actually ask guests here if they mind if I fire up in my own place. No that has happend already! Maybe smokers who find this difficult should go to a different country where it accepted. No I am not joking. Often I think it is important to, 'when in Rome, do as Romans do.' We do have a more or less democratic system, and the results will never pleasre all the people all the time, but that does not give the disgruntled special rights, I would think.
Fredrik
Sinner that I am, I cannot help but agree with you, and will find myself further constrained, but accepting it. We live in something akin to a civil society at best, and this will only improve things for the majority. I guess the time will come when out of consideration, I shall actually ask guests here if they mind if I fire up in my own place. No that has happend already! Maybe smokers who find this difficult should go to a different country where it accepted. No I am not joking. Often I think it is important to, 'when in Rome, do as Romans do.' We do have a more or less democratic system, and the results will never pleasre all the people all the time, but that does not give the disgruntled special rights, I would think.
Fredrik
Posted on: 14 February 2006 by u5227470736789439
Dear Erik,
Humour alert! "Two stinks, don't make a right!" Okay, it was rubbish, but I should be asleep and it just is not happing! Fredrik
Humour alert! "Two stinks, don't make a right!" Okay, it was rubbish, but I should be asleep and it just is not happing! Fredrik
Posted on: 14 February 2006 by erik scothron
quote:Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear Erik,
Sinner that I am, I cannot help but agree with you, and will find myself further constrained, but accepting it. We live in something akin to a civil society at best, and this will only improve things for the majority. I guess the time will come when out of consideration, I shall actually ask guests here if they mind if I fire up in my own place. No that has happend already! Maybe smokers who find this difficult should go to a different country where it accepted. No I am not joking. Often I think it is important to, 'when in Rome, do as Romans do.' We do have a more or less democratic system, and the results will never pleasre all the people all the time, but that does not give the disgruntled special rights, I would think.
Fredrik
Fredrik,
Personally I don't mind pipe smoke nearly as much as cigarettes - some of the stuff smells fine to me in small doses but wouldnt much care to be in a room with 10/20 pipe smokers but one is fine by me. Your home is your castle - you should be free to do what you like there - I cant imagine anyone protesting - I certainly would not dream of it and I am a complete non-smoking fascist.
Posted on: 14 February 2006 by erik scothron
quote:Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear Erik,
Humour alert! "Two stinks, don't make a right!" Okay, it was rubbish, but I should be asleep and it just is not happing! Fredrik
Frerik,
A little gregorian chant sends me off to sleep or perhaps some Hildergard von bingen. Erik satie works sometimes but the gergorian chant does it everytime for me.
Erik
Posted on: 15 February 2006 by Madrid
About time, I would say. Even once-backward Spain, where tobacco originated in Europe, has banned smoking in all workplaces and in 70% of all restaurants of more than 100 metres.
Posted on: 15 February 2006 by Stephen Bennett
The result is fantastic news. Not just for us either. The next generation of young people wont get into the habit of equating a night out with smoking, are less llikely to smoke and pass the habit on to their children. Working class areas will benefit most IMHO.
And I can go to gigs again! Hooray!
Regards
Stephen
And I can go to gigs again! Hooray!
Regards
Stephen
Posted on: 15 February 2006 by Van the man
I am sheding no tears at the ban on smoking in public places, I am fed up going out in clean smelling clothes to come back stinking of second hand smoke.
But now the link has been established regarding the harm of second hand smoke are we to see the ban in public as a foot on the ladder? could we see parents of young children prosecuted for child cruelty for exposing their kids to harmful chemicals? wait and see?
But now the link has been established regarding the harm of second hand smoke are we to see the ban in public as a foot on the ladder? could we see parents of young children prosecuted for child cruelty for exposing their kids to harmful chemicals? wait and see?
Posted on: 15 February 2006 by Earwicker
It's a hoot! Smoking should be permitted in pubs because that's what they're there for! People who worry about their health don't go in them, they're down the gym, or sitting at home munching their salad sandwiches and swiggin their carrot juice!
The counrty has finally gone mad! Banning smoking in pubs... I don't know, I dread to think what They'll ban next!
EW
The counrty has finally gone mad! Banning smoking in pubs... I don't know, I dread to think what They'll ban next!
EW
Posted on: 15 February 2006 by Stephen Bennett
quote:Originally posted by Earwicker:
It's a hoot! Smoking should be permitted in pubs because that's what they're there for!
EW
We've done this to death; the law now gives people working in pubs the same health and safety protection as other workers. It's that simple.
Regards
Stephen
Posted on: 15 February 2006 by jlfrs
There seems to be an opinion by some that pubs are places where anti-social behaviour should be tolerated.
The people who believe this probably have a rose-tinted recollection of pubs as being places inhabited mainly by men using them as a sort of "social club" where women were seldom seen and if one came in, were subjected to snide sexist comments, etc.
That may have been the case 50 years ago but today pubs are inclusive and not exclusive.
Smoking is just like belching, farting and swearing in public - not socially acceptable and if anyone wants to do these, go outside, simple as that.
The people who believe this probably have a rose-tinted recollection of pubs as being places inhabited mainly by men using them as a sort of "social club" where women were seldom seen and if one came in, were subjected to snide sexist comments, etc.
That may have been the case 50 years ago but today pubs are inclusive and not exclusive.
Smoking is just like belching, farting and swearing in public - not socially acceptable and if anyone wants to do these, go outside, simple as that.
Posted on: 15 February 2006 by MarkEJ
Astonishing. I've just read this whole thread, and I don't think I've ever seen so much misplaced energy & well-intended hot air. So many people happy to swallow what they've been fed, just because it is easier to do this than actually look beneath the spin of the issue.
People smoke -- goes back to Native Americans hand-rolling their own crops. Raleigh the Pirate has a go, brings it back to Europe. Skip a few hundred years, and it's massive business all over the place, and almost universally recommended by contemporary medical opinion. Skip a few more years, and we realise that from a health point of view, smoking isn't great. Back in the present, and it's condemnation pretty much all round -- quite a turnabout.
So what changed? Lots, of course -- but what people actually smoked changed most of all. Tobacco companies, IMHO are the real evil here, having been allowed to get more powerful than most, if not all governments. This allows them to set the agenda for debate, and as long as the debate is about "smoking", then they can occupy the allotted time and space with all manner of fluffy, wordy distractions, because nobody had the balls to tell them: "Fix it, and make less money if that's what it takes, or we will ban the sale of your product".
Every time a pack of cigarettes is sold, the party that makes most money out of that sale in relation to their expenditure is our government. That's a law -- they just have to sit there and collect it. Out of what's left, there's not only a contribution to indirect costs such as marketing, but also retail margin, wholesale margin, transport, storage & distribution, packaging & manufacture. This last includes the raw materials which go to make up an average cigarette: paper (printed), polyester fibre, glue and "tobacco".
Now, I once had an interesting conversation with an accountant who worked for a major tobacco company. This was some time ago, but even then, the "tobacco" in a cigarette apparently cost the manufacturer rather less than the ink used to print the manufacturers brand on the paper for that single cigarette -- it was by some margin the single cheapest ingredient in the whole pack of 20, and also the one least likely to be examined closely by the end-user. Thus it was the one most open to "modification" with the aim of stretching and bulking out a given quantity of ingredient to produce more profit. With late 20th century industrial chemistry, it became possible to modify this ingredient out of all proportion to the original product. Further, it became economically desirable to import raw "tobacco" from countries where laws were even less stringent about the minimum actual leaf content per kilo, thereby allowing Big Tobacco further leverage over their local suppliers. This is the same process which leads to Tesco selling chicken from Thailand.
Over the years, many small modifications to consumer laws worldwide have been engineered by Big Tobacco, and taking them all as a whole, a situation now exists where a cigarette may contain over 4000 added "non-natural" ingredients, including some pretty nasty industrial solvents, and others which are completely unquantifiable as they were part of the 3rd world industrial waste legally added as bulking agent before importation.
Given that this is consumed by (firstly) lighting one end of it, and (secondly) causing the (very hot) products of combustion to travel initially through a reducing quantity of similar product (fractionating the contained solvents) and finally through a substance very like that already outlawed in soft furniture (for the excellent reason that it produces toxic fumes when heated), is it any wonder that it (a) smells vile, (b) irritates eyes, (c) gets into your clothes? (d) causes various health problems both for the consumer and for those with him? So what do we do? We get all jumpy, polarised and culturally polluted over it. Do we actually think what caused it? Gosh no, that would involve actually looking under the surface.
"Tobacco is to blame". Newsflash -- "tobacco" isn't what it was! If even one-tenth of the effort expended in getting this malformed and misdirected dictat passed over the heads of the electorate had been aimed at forcing the tobacco industry to produce something vaguely fit for human consumption, rather than running scared, dumbing-down and polarising the issue, I suspect we'd all be happier and better informed.
This was a fixable situation, muddied and obfuscated by politics and political marketing, culminating in the unedifying spectacle of the very slithery Ms. Hewitt, the erstwhile chair of the National Council for Civil Liberties, crawling up her own arse.
Meanwhile, Big Tobacco marches on to other markets to continue thriving on ignorance, unchallenged and laughing. We could have stopped them, given the will.
Best;
Mark
People smoke -- goes back to Native Americans hand-rolling their own crops. Raleigh the Pirate has a go, brings it back to Europe. Skip a few hundred years, and it's massive business all over the place, and almost universally recommended by contemporary medical opinion. Skip a few more years, and we realise that from a health point of view, smoking isn't great. Back in the present, and it's condemnation pretty much all round -- quite a turnabout.
So what changed? Lots, of course -- but what people actually smoked changed most of all. Tobacco companies, IMHO are the real evil here, having been allowed to get more powerful than most, if not all governments. This allows them to set the agenda for debate, and as long as the debate is about "smoking", then they can occupy the allotted time and space with all manner of fluffy, wordy distractions, because nobody had the balls to tell them: "Fix it, and make less money if that's what it takes, or we will ban the sale of your product".
Every time a pack of cigarettes is sold, the party that makes most money out of that sale in relation to their expenditure is our government. That's a law -- they just have to sit there and collect it. Out of what's left, there's not only a contribution to indirect costs such as marketing, but also retail margin, wholesale margin, transport, storage & distribution, packaging & manufacture. This last includes the raw materials which go to make up an average cigarette: paper (printed), polyester fibre, glue and "tobacco".
Now, I once had an interesting conversation with an accountant who worked for a major tobacco company. This was some time ago, but even then, the "tobacco" in a cigarette apparently cost the manufacturer rather less than the ink used to print the manufacturers brand on the paper for that single cigarette -- it was by some margin the single cheapest ingredient in the whole pack of 20, and also the one least likely to be examined closely by the end-user. Thus it was the one most open to "modification" with the aim of stretching and bulking out a given quantity of ingredient to produce more profit. With late 20th century industrial chemistry, it became possible to modify this ingredient out of all proportion to the original product. Further, it became economically desirable to import raw "tobacco" from countries where laws were even less stringent about the minimum actual leaf content per kilo, thereby allowing Big Tobacco further leverage over their local suppliers. This is the same process which leads to Tesco selling chicken from Thailand.
Over the years, many small modifications to consumer laws worldwide have been engineered by Big Tobacco, and taking them all as a whole, a situation now exists where a cigarette may contain over 4000 added "non-natural" ingredients, including some pretty nasty industrial solvents, and others which are completely unquantifiable as they were part of the 3rd world industrial waste legally added as bulking agent before importation.
Given that this is consumed by (firstly) lighting one end of it, and (secondly) causing the (very hot) products of combustion to travel initially through a reducing quantity of similar product (fractionating the contained solvents) and finally through a substance very like that already outlawed in soft furniture (for the excellent reason that it produces toxic fumes when heated), is it any wonder that it (a) smells vile, (b) irritates eyes, (c) gets into your clothes? (d) causes various health problems both for the consumer and for those with him? So what do we do? We get all jumpy, polarised and culturally polluted over it. Do we actually think what caused it? Gosh no, that would involve actually looking under the surface.
"Tobacco is to blame". Newsflash -- "tobacco" isn't what it was! If even one-tenth of the effort expended in getting this malformed and misdirected dictat passed over the heads of the electorate had been aimed at forcing the tobacco industry to produce something vaguely fit for human consumption, rather than running scared, dumbing-down and polarising the issue, I suspect we'd all be happier and better informed.
This was a fixable situation, muddied and obfuscated by politics and political marketing, culminating in the unedifying spectacle of the very slithery Ms. Hewitt, the erstwhile chair of the National Council for Civil Liberties, crawling up her own arse.
Meanwhile, Big Tobacco marches on to other markets to continue thriving on ignorance, unchallenged and laughing. We could have stopped them, given the will.
Best;
Mark
Posted on: 15 February 2006 by erik scothron
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Ellis-Jones:
Astonishing. I've just read this whole thread, and I don't think I've ever seen so much misplaced energy & well-intended hot air. So many people happy to swallow what they've been fed, just because it is easier to do this than actually look beneath the spin of the issue.
[/QUOTE
Er...so what is your point exactly? Tobacco companies could be producing healthy cigarettes but they dont and if they did we wouldnt need to ban it? Well yes, I agree if the tobacco companies can produce a cigarette that does not stink, does not cause illness and death and does not penetrate clothes i'd be all for it....er..I think.
Astonishing. I've just read this whole thread, and I don't think I've ever seen so much misplaced energy & well-intended hot air. So many people happy to swallow what they've been fed, just because it is easier to do this than actually look beneath the spin of the issue.
[/QUOTE
Er...so what is your point exactly? Tobacco companies could be producing healthy cigarettes but they dont and if they did we wouldnt need to ban it? Well yes, I agree if the tobacco companies can produce a cigarette that does not stink, does not cause illness and death and does not penetrate clothes i'd be all for it....er..I think.
Posted on: 15 February 2006 by MarkEJ
Pretty much. Tobacco companies are in a position to mitigate many of the negative effects of their product. However, such are the economics that it's actually cheaper for them to suffer reduced sales in our territory, and devote their energies to selling the same old crap elsewhere.
If anyone had stood up to them in this respect, the product would be much more acceptable, and also much less profitable. Having adjusted it, they'd then have to sell it worldwide. The money-printing franchise would effectively be withdrawn. And you can bet your arse that Blair & co. know this, and have discussed it with them over lunch.
A cosy arrangement plays out.
If anyone had stood up to them in this respect, the product would be much more acceptable, and also much less profitable. Having adjusted it, they'd then have to sell it worldwide. The money-printing franchise would effectively be withdrawn. And you can bet your arse that Blair & co. know this, and have discussed it with them over lunch.
A cosy arrangement plays out.
Posted on: 15 February 2006 by erik scothron
quote:Originally posted by Mark Ellis-Jones:
Pretty much. Tobacco companies are in a position to mitigate many of the negative effects of their product. However, such are the economics that it's actually cheaper for them to suffer reduced sales in our territory, and devote their energies to selling the same old crap elsewhere.
If anyone had stood up to them in this respect, the product would be much more acceptable, and also much less profitable. Having adjusted it, they'd then have to sell it worldwide. The money-printing franchise would effectively be withdrawn. And you can bet your arse that Blair & co. know this, and have discussed it with them over lunch.
A cosy arrangement plays out.
Mark,
If that is true then they are more evil than I thought they were - they are, after all, the biggest drug dealers in the world!
Regards,
Erik