Who will be affected by tommorows law?

I have to say that, even though I don't smoke these days and don't recommend it to anybody, the language on the cigarette packets here is a bit suspect.

For example:

"Smoking causes lung cancer"

Well, if smoking caused lung cancer, then everybody who smoked would get lung cancer...

Deane said
"Just exactly what the fuck has any of this got to do with lawyers?"

Lawyers become politicians - thats why

And his comment about needing a 100% correlation between smoking and lung cancer - I guess that that science and the law never will make happy bedfellows.

quote:

Originally posted by Derek Wright:
Deane said
"Just exactly what the fuck has any of this got to do with lawyers?"

Lawyers become politicians - thats why

So is your House of Commons full of lawyers? I doubt it.

Lawyers aren't telling anybody what to do. They take instructions. The Queen's Judges make the decisions. And your high-school educated policemen decide who appears in the courts.

The hours of the House of Commons, before the reforms in the last ten years, exactly reflected the fact that most MPs had a prodfessional carrer outside the House, many being lawyers in times past...

This not so much the situation nowadays, where politicians can now make a living out of being a professional politician, which job honestly ranks only just above professional street walker in my view.

To raise their standing, it would require some men and women of true integrity to join the power game, but sadly this is not likely any time soon I suspect.

ATB from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:

This not so much the situation nowadays, where politicians can now make a living out of being a professional politician, which job honestly ranks only just above professional street walker in my view.

To raise their standing, it would require some men and women of true integrity to join the power game, but sadly this is not likely any time soon I suspect.

Fredrik

Your country chooses the content of your House of Commons so your remarks reflect upon your country as much as the people who make laws for it...

Deane

Dear Deanne,

The people who stand for Parliament, and stand a chance of election under the first past the post system, are selected by the three main parties Lib, Lab, and Con, though the Party situation is different in NI.

Therefore the electorate has a choice of usually one or sometimes two viable candidates [very ocasional surprises do occur, but not enough to change an overal result in fairness, which is almost seemingly random in it effect] at the time of a general election. The "people," in other words, have next to no say in "who" actually represents a constituency at all, beyond choosing [in a constuency where there is a reasonable chance of a different resullt on a swing] between a maximum of of two candidate chosen by party machines who basis is certainly most concerned with pleasing their finacial backers. This used to be the Unions and corporate finance, but Labout has also gone to corporate finance now, largely relegating its role as the party of the working man to history. This has brought about the similarity of approach between the two major Parties. This similarity alone rather shows the policies are determined by the financial backers rather than any integrity regarding what the parties once stood for. There is very little integrity left in my view.

Please don't be under any illusion that what passes for democracy in UK is any such thing: Once every four or five years we are given the chance to rubber stamp the choice of the finance behind the parties, and all this finance wants is a candidate that is electable under a safe banner [for the said constituency] who willthen support a Prime Minister doing their bidding in reality. It is a total shame. The difference between the Tories and Labour is hard to define any more, and the Libs are most unlikely to make a break trough under the current first past the post system. I stand by what I wrote.

In my view political parties should be state sponsored, and private finance should be entirely banned. And a system of PR should be used which would assemble a governing majority based on a majority of the votes cast. Voting should be compulsory as in Australia, and I would put a rather steep punishement for not doing so. Then we might see genuine reform of what passes for democracy in UK. We have some catching up to do compared to some countries.

ATB from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by jason.g:
I'll definately be effected for the better. I can drink my pint in a safe environment

Totally agree, ever since the smokers were kicked out of pubs here, the atmosphere is actually pleasant. In fact I can now take my kids to the attached restaurants knowing that some smoking arsehole isn't going to stuff up their lungs from rancid second hand smoke.

If you disagree, wait 6 months and then see just how much more pleasant the atmosphere is in your favourite watering hole!

One beneficiary of this law will be off-licences. I am not against the change in restaurants, but in pubs and bars where no food is served I do thoink that it would have best been left up to individual managements. They would work out if they preferrecd a smoking or non-smoking cliental.

The Wetherspoon chain banned smoking some time ago, and no doubt many other organisations and even independants would go the same way, but not all if the law had allowed for this. That would seem fair enough to me, but then I am out of date.

I reckon that other aspects of it are plumb crazy! A lorry driver in a sleeeper cab has to get out to have a fag! You can see it now - guys at M-way service stations in the middle of winter standing by their lorries having a smoke before turning in. Blooming silly I say!

ATB from Fredrik

I'm not a fan of smoking. However, reading acads rant disturbed me. Although some of what he says has weight (no quantifiable benefits), it is a largely judgemental diatribe; into which one could substitute any habit/pastime/lifestyle/social choice such as eating chocolate, masterbation, homosexuality, wearing piercings or tattoos, being overweight....

I'm no fan of smoking; I beleive that folks can choose to do it or not. I understand it's addictive and can be hard to quit. I enjoy very much the cleaner environments (eg restaurants and bars) now available to me from the smokefree environments act (no smoking in public places) down here, and would prefer not to dodge clouds on entering buildings.

The point I'd like to be clear on, though, is that I continue to acknowledge the freedom of choice that acads 'idiots' enjoy, and would have no part in supporting legislation that removes such a choice from society - whether it applies to something such as smoking, setting off metal detectors in airports with unusual jewelery, racing radio controlled cars etc etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Tate:
Their will be more people dying of obesity.
Being bombarded by radio waves is another.
There so many other things that are just as bad as smoking - miserable, clueless do gooders is another.
Don't get me wrong - smoking is bad and should be in designated areas, but so is no common sense and people who want to live forever draining even more from the planet.

Yeah, and we might get blown up by a terrorist or hit by a bus tomorrow. Hey, I might as well not bother getting up tomorrow, or better still, just shortcut the wait and overdose tonight. Fuck me.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear Deanne,

Fredrik

What a shame that you've descended to deliberately mispelling my name. It seems the Forum has finally gotten to you. I'm surprised and a little saddened.

FWIW, you've got democracy in the UK. You're incredibly lucky to have it and you get far more opportunity for participation in government than merely voting every few years.

Your leaders are leading - not being led. If enough people don't like it they'll chuck the buggers out.

See ya.

Deane

I think that this boils down to an occupational safety issue. It is outrageous to expect people to choose between a job and personal health. I cannot imagine that a modern factory would be allowed to open or operate with air quality equal to that of a smokey bar or even a chain smoker's home. Why would we tolerate such unhealthy working conditions for bar/restaurant staff or plumbers, electricians, housekeepers etc...? It seens a small matter to step outside for the short amount of time that a worker is in the home even if you don't "have to". It seems like the gracious thing to do.

DCT

Dear Deane,

Apologies for the Typo in your name. I can definately say that it was not deliberate! As for chucking out the administration that is not something that the first past the post system allows for as it is so incredibly insensitive to trends that an unpopular government can be re-elected on a minority vote, regardless of the fairness of it. Look how long Thatcher was there. Look how long Blair was there. Do you think that these people remained popular, but the chances of dislodging them is small, given that the way the constituency boundaries are drawn makes more difference to the result than what the majority of votes choose in their votes.

I am sorry for the spelling error. Mine gets mis-spelt on occasion as well though I don't tend to go off at the deep end about it...

Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear Deane,

.... As for chucking out the administration that is not something that the first past the post system allows for as it is so incredibly insensitive to trends that an unpopular government can be re-elected on a minority vote, regardless of the fairness of it....

Fredrik

Dear Fredrik

It doesn't make any difference - if you vote out one government then you only get another one. It's been happening as far back as I can remember.

ATB Rotf

Fredrik

Did the Govt over there ask for public submissions for this Bill? Select Committees etc? Did anybody you know visit or contact their local MP to discuss their feeling about the Bill when it was going through parliamentary process and ask their MP to carry their constituent's wishes to the House?

If you disagree with the electoral system then lobby for it to be changed. It happened here.

In my opinion, the enemy of democracy isn't terrorism - it's apathy.

Deane

ps: I'm not suggesting you're apathetic, Fredrik.

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:
There are only two reasons why people smoke:

1/ They are stupid enough to start in the first place

2/ They are too weak willed to give up.

There are no other reasons.

Well, I'd amend 1) slightly - in a culture where most people smoke, you are put under a certain amount of peer pressure. When I first went to work in the 1970s, it wasn't whether you smoked, but which brand (silk cut in my case). It took me some years of willpower to give up (easier said than done). Anything which removes this culture of smoking and makes it socially unacceptable has got to be a good thing and ultimately beneficial to all (unless they all take up cocaine instead).

Well I popped into my local for a swift half yesterday evening and you can now smell B.O. and farts so much more clearly now. Great!

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by Sir Crispin Cupcake:
Well I popped into my local for a swift half yesterday evening and you can now smell B.O. and farts so much more clearly now. Great!

Rich

Yes but farting is a normal bodily function and you don't get cancer, lung disease, hardening of the arteries and bad breath from farting. If you fart it does not stick to your clothes does it? Does farting make your breath smell like an ash tray? Can you die from passive farting? Is it addictive and do farts contain 180 toxic chemicals? Farting in public is pretty disgusting but it is way better than smoking in public imo.

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Tate:
Their will be more people dying of obesity.
Being bombarded by radio waves is another.
There so many other things that are just as bad as smoking - miserable, clueless do gooders is another.
Don't get me wrong - smoking is bad and should be in designated areas, but so is no common sense and people who want to live forever draining even more from the planet.

Yeah, and we might get blown up by a terrorist or hit by a bus tomorrow. Hey, I might as well not bother getting up tomorrow, or better still, just shortcut the wait and overdose tonight. Fuck me.

Or you could go to the doctors (If an addict) and get prescribed medicine for your fix, free from the tax payer with disability allowance lobbed in aswell. Still... at least we've still got Elton John singing - I was made in England.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Let me state the simple facts. At 35 I took smoking up in place of the possibility of ever aquiring enough of a pension to live even above the poverty line once I am too feeble to work. I reckon it will hopefully prevent me living beyond the age I could possibly work in my mid 70s... I should make it clear that I would decline any treatment if I fell to cancer, except for pain relief.[/i]

Seems to me that a much better way to go would be just live as healthy as possible until the money runs out, then off yourself. Sure, my way takes more guts, but it also lessens the odds of your final few years being spent fighting cancer. And with the money you save not buying tobacco, maybe you can afford an extra year or two of existence, or throw in a few nice trips here and there.

This Thread has been unusually revealing. I don't think that a large part of the law is wrong, but I would argue about the issue of beer houses [not restaurants], but what has come out is that even some non-smokers are quite liberal about it, while some prove their totally intolerant credentials beautifully!

Dear Jayd,

It is as I said before. I enjoy a roll up and in totally this averges at 10 or maximum 12 a day! I enjoy others who smoke. I think that in this measure smoking is a very cheap pleasure! I do agree that if I were smoking 60 taylormades at about £5.00 per twenty the money would be significant. I do not have any particualr attachemtn to the idea of living beyong 75, and having seen too many of my older family get a lot older [and being of that generation they all smoked], I am not sure I was to turn into a bed wetting salivating cabbage! I would not undergo therapy [radio or chemo] or comtemplate classical surgery if I fell to cancer. In fact I would never enter a hospital for surgery of any kind. I take my chance wil nature in that respect.

ATB from Fredrik

Well, if you count me among the intolerant, you've misread my post. I'm just addressing practical matters (albeit colored by the knowledge that anyone who has watched someone die of lung cancer would never take up smoking with that end as their stated goal).

Dear Jayd,

I saw your post above and edited my answer to suit.

I did not read you post as intollerant. My father died of cancer. It does not frighten me...

ATB from fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
One beneficiary of this law will be off-licences. I am not against the change in restaurants, but in pubs and bars where no food is served I do thoink that it would have best been left up to individual managements. They would work out if they preferrecd a smoking or non-smoking cliental.

The Wetherspoon chain banned smoking some time ago, and no doubt many other organisations and even independants would go the same way, but not all if the law had allowed for this. That would seem fair enough to me, but then I am out of date.

I reckon that other aspects of it are plumb crazy! A lorry driver in a sleeeper cab has to get out to have a fag! You can see it now - guys at M-way service stations in the middle of winter standing by their lorries having a smoke before turning in. Blooming silly I say!

ATB from Fredrik

But at least you don't get taxi cabs smelling of bloody tobacco!

Last went in a taxi in 1985, and I don't recall if it was smelly. Fredrik