Jump to content
aberdeen-music

What does everyone think of the new smoking laws


JaseyBoi

Recommended Posts

Is the solution to this problem not obvious?

Simply, there should be no smoking ban enforced by the Government, but instead, business owners should be allowed to decide whether to ban or allow smoking in their establishments. If there is a market for non-smoking and smoking establishments, which I am sure there is, then people who want to smoke will be able to go the establishment that allows smoking, whilst someone who does not want to share the room with a smoker can go to the non-smoking establishment.

It is known as a free market

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 213
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Is the solution to this problem not obvious?

Simply' date=' there should be no smoking ban enforced by the Government, but instead, business owners should be allowed to decide whether to ban or allow smoking in their establishments. If there is a market for non-smoking and smoking establishments, which I am sure there is, then people who want to smoke will be able to go the establishment that allows smoking, whilst someone who does not want to share the room with a smoker can go to the non-smoking establishment.

It is known as a free market[/quote']

That provides no consistency though. The likelihood is that any pubs who did choose to go non-smoking would probably end up being more and more relaxed in implementing their rules until they give up enforcing non-smoking altogether and effectively nothing would change. The non-smoker wouldn't have much more choice than they already do. And who cares about a free godamned market. Severe steps have to be taken sometimes to do the greater good in the long run even if it displeases many and i'm backing this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest tv tanned
Precisely. It's a fucking survey. Hence' date=' very fallible indeed. Name-dropping "BMA" doesn't make your arguments any more credible in the matter, either, as much as you'd like to think it does. Regardless, BMJ also publish studies that prescribe to both sides of the argument. Evidently, the jury is still out on the matter. Evidently you're selective with regards to which "studies" you cite as excuses for your pompous, self-righteous crusade.

You're still a bunch of selective hypochondriacs.[/quote']

So, let me get this straight.

You ask for scientific evidence.

Then when you get scientific evidence you disagree with, you dismiss the source out of hand, providing no "alternative" evidence yourself, and proceed to launch personal attacks.

What exactly are you a doctor of anyway, apart from tiresome diatribes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest tv tanned
Quote myself lol. So' date=' serious, why cant this work?[/quote']

Because staff would still be subjected to second hand smoke whenever they entered said room to remove glasses and clean tables etc. Only to a much greater degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly they are talking about repeated exposure.

Clearly I am as well.

Clearly people who work in pubs' date=' clubs and restaurants, or who regularly visit the pub, will be exposed to second hand smoke.

I suppose you put the evidence down to coincidence do you?

My argument is fairly simple. Rights have to be balanced. The right to breathe clean air outweighs other people's right to smoke.[/quote']

Your argument is fairly simple. It's also bullshit. What are the chances of getting cancer if you completely discount smoke from the equation? If you can tell me that, then a 20% increase in the risk starts to mean something. However, it may mean your chance of getting cancer increases from 1% to 1.2%. You can use statistics to prove anything (especially when you don't have a basis for comparison).

Oh yeah, if you can qualify "the right to breathe clean air outweights other people's right to smoke" then I'd like to hear it. As I said before, the "right" argument is bullshit from both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest tv tanned

There really is no need to be like that, if you want to be like DrTChock and win the argument by swearing lots and being condescending then fair doos.

I don't need to "qualify" the statement, it is simple enough libertarian theory, as espoused by John Stuart Mill. Liberty should only be curbed when it infringes upon another. There is a balance of rights in our society, and certain rights automatically outweigh others.

The right to smoke is not a fundamental right.

I really fail to see where you are going with this need to define the increased probability. It really doesn't matter. The simple creation of an increased probability is something which requires to be addressed. Regardless of the starting point. All you are doing is applying the same flawed logic which applies to Val's "only 500 people die every year" that somehow numbers are not important if they are not in the teens of thousands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your argument is fairly simple. It's also bullshit. What are the chances of getting cancer if you completely discount smoke from the equation? If you can tell me that' date=' then a 20% increase in the risk starts to mean something. However, it may mean your chance of getting cancer increases from 1% to 1.2%. You can use statistics to prove anything (especially when you don't have a basis for comparison).

Oh yeah, if you can qualify "the right to breathe clean air outweights other people's right to smoke" then I'd like to hear it. As I said before, the "right" argument is bullshit from both sides.[/quote']

You cna't seriously think that statement needs backed up. There are far more people who do not smoke that want to sit in a pub and breathe clean air than there are fould breathed addicts intent on killing themselves and those around them.. slowly.

If i puked on you, i'd offer to pay for a dry clean, do you offer the same to your friends after you stink up their clothes?

ps. i've not really got a prpoblem with smokers if the ban didn't come in it'd be business as usual, as it is coming in i'm kinda glad that i wont get sore eyes in pubs anymore. But DrTchook is being a bit of a dick and I agree with Tv tanned - if the good Doctor can come up with any calid reasons why smoking in pubs doesn't harm anyone but himself i'd be happy to read!.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your argument is fairly simple. It's also bullshit. What are the chances of getting cancer if you completely discount smoke from the equation? If you can tell me that' date=' then a 20% increase in the risk starts to mean something. However, it may mean your chance of getting cancer increases from 1% to 1.2%. You can use statistics to prove anything (especially when you don't have a basis for comparison).

Oh yeah, if you can qualify "the right to breathe clean air outweights other people's right to smoke" then I'd like to hear it. As I said before, the "right" argument is bullshit from both sides.[/quote']

The problem with this whole debate (and the myriad other arguments about the ban previously posted on this site) is that those who want to keep things as they are seem to be absolutely terrible as providing a decent argument.

I'm sure there's people out there who can provide such an argument, but right now TV Tanned is quite easily winning this debate.

Resorting to saying 'statistics can prove anything' or that people are being 'selective' shows a misunderstanding of the basic precepts of science, that there is no complete certainty. But a body of evidence can be amassed to show such probability that we can assume knowledge, and thus act on it. To not do so would be like not walking outside in case gravity reverses and I get sucked into outer space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having spent a fair while reading this debate in full, I have to say for once, I fully agree with Tv Tanned.

I have been asthmatic since I was 7 years old but have had very few problems until the last couple of years, during which I have worked in a bar. Both I and my 19 year old brother are asthmatic. My 15 year old brother is not. I have considered the possibility that this is due to the fact that my mother stopped smoking when my 19 year old brother was born and never started again, but because she had smoked during that pregnancy and when I was a child, we have developed asthma. However, I have no conclusive evidence for this; it is merely a suggestion which I have toyed with.

As a child, I was warned that I should never take up smoking as it would seriously affect my asthma, and in my entire life, I have smoked one cigarette. In the past couple of years, I have had far more trouble breathing than ever before, and I am convinced this is due to the amount of smoke in the pub and club in which I work. I enjoy my job, and the fact that it is very probably ruining my health and that every night my clothes stink of smoke does not deter me from working there.

However, the smoking ban will make my job far more pleasant. I will no longer choke on a customer's smoke and need to take my inhaler during my shift. I won't be burnt by a flailing cigarette when out glass collecting. I won't have to deal with any more idiots who don't understand how to work the cigarette machine.

As well as protecting the health of the staff within the bars, the health of fellow customers will be catered for. I am very much in favour of the argument that if someone chooses not to smoke, in order to protect their health, they should not then be subjected to second hand smoke. People can argue all they want that banning smoking in public places in an infringement of smokers' rights and that it is a free world, blah, blah, fucking blah.

I am all for allowing people to do as they want...so long as it doesn't harm other people. And smoking does harm other people. I don't have the time to find conclusive scientific evidence, but Tv Tanned has already highlighted appropriate reports. However, medical harm aside, I would consider other effects of passive smoking to be harm. The smell of smoke on one's clothes, the sore dry throat from breathing smokey air and the stining eyes which feel like you've just spent the last hour cooking on a barbeque all constitute harm to the non-smoker, in my opinion.

In any situation, it is important to balance the interests of every party, and in my opinion, the current scenario does nothing to protect the postition of the non-smoker. Why should a non-smoker feel they can't socialise with their friends simply because it will affect their health and general well-being? I don't feel this is selfish. I do feel that imposing your smoke on someone who has made a conscious decision not to smoke is selfish.

In order to balance the interests, a compromise must be reached. One extreme is to allow smoking everywhere. The other extreme is to ban smoking entirely. A compromise would be to ban smoking in public enclosed spaces. This will prevent the non-smoker from inhaling smoke and suffering other side-effects from second hand smoke, but will not prevent smokers from enjoying their cigarette, albeit outside.

Originally I was opposed to the ban, as I felt that it would be difficult to impose and that it would simply anger smokers and be detrimental to publicans. However, during recent months, I have warmed to the ban, as although I am used to the current situation and resigned to the fact that I will always smell of smoke and feel short of breathe when working or out enjoying myself, it would be very pleasant to be free of these unwelcome extras of my job or a night out.

I'm sure the ban will anger smokers and will be difficult to impose at first. I still regularly have to draw attention to the signs on the bar which say "no smoking at the bar" But in time, I'm sure this will become easier. Perhaps some smokers will even give up smoking altogether.

I know that I have written most of this port from an entirely personal point of view, but that is because it is something which affects me in every day life and therefore I feel I can talk best from personal experience.

Call me selfish if you wish, but there are millions of other non-smokers and even some non-smokers who will feel the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The right to smoke is not a fundamental right.

I was trying to ignore this thread, but basically this statement has really pissed me off because it is so sickeningly inhuman that it almost defies comprehension.

Tv-tanned, I would like to hear your definition of what constitutes the "fundamental rights" of human beings and those things that can be considered less-than-important rights which could be easily forgone. A list would be nice, if only for the entertainment value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I dont mind people smoking but I do feel better knowing that my chances of getting cancer is lowered.

Can't remember who said it but I agree with the fact that smokers can choose to smoke but non-smokers can't choose to not inhale the fumes....

Basically I wanna live to see my grandkids and even great-grandkids....smoke doesnt help my chances...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was trying to ignore this thread' date=' but basically this statement has really pissed me off because it is so sickeningly inhuman that it almost defies comprehension.

Tv-tanned, I would like to hear your definition of what constitutes the "fundamental rights" of human beings and those things that can be considered less-than-important rights which could be easily forgone. A list would be nice, if only for the entertainment value.[/quote']

There is absolutely nothing inhuman about this at all, this sounds more like a personal attack than anything else. And there is certainly nothing sickening about it.

Why should he define what constitutes a fundamental right? He's not the one arguing for their existence. Rights have to be positively asserted.

And if he was to deny their existence he'd be maintaining a stance held by many perfectly human philosphers and other sane individuals. Whether or not he is right, it is still a reasonable position to adopt.

The idiots are winning indeed. Or in this case, simply combing threads to find something to nitpick on and be 'controversial', as if being contradictory to a popular opinion infers superior intelligence. Very admirable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well' date=' given that he suggests that "The right to smoke is not a fundamental right", this implicitly suggests that he is in possession of some kind of list of fundamental human rights, and frankly,I would like to see this list.[/quote']

Fundamental human rights? Well, where should one start? I suggest reading the Human Rights Act for a start ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't need to "qualify" the statement' date=' it is simple enough libertarian theory, as espoused by John Stuart Mill. Liberty should only be curbed when it infringes upon another. There is a balance of rights in our society, and certain rights automatically outweigh others. [/quote']

It seems someone has been reading Roy Hattersley in the Guardian recently

I believe Mill was more of a utilitarian than a libertarian, although both ideas have been closely connected through the years. However, I think it would be near impossible to find someone that classifies themselves as a libertarian (note the lower case l) today that would support a Government ban on smoking in public places. I have no doubt that they believe that it is the right of the owner of an establishment to decide whether to ban smoking in their property or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A number of my family members have been sent to their graves early as a direct result of smoking (and passive smoking).

I have never smoked a cigerette in my life and I am sick and tired of coming back, completely stinking of everyone else's smoke everytime I go out. I feel it is a basic human right not to be forced to breath in everyone else's smoke. I would describe myself as a Civil Libertarian and I do not see public smoking as a civil liberty. It is a civil liberty to be able to go to pubs and clubs without being forced to inhale everyone else smoke.

The public smoking ban in Ireland has widely been declared a complete sucess and 1 in 12 smokers have given up since the ban. Pubs have often became more pleasant places as a result.

The smoking ban will help protect bar staff and enterainers who work in the bar. As a musician I am concerned that I will spend my life performing in enclosed smokey spaces and recieve a similar fate to Roy Castle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The British government currently plans to give police powers to detain people for 90 days without being charged of any crimel under the new terrorism act (if approved by parliament)l.

Anti-terror legislation was used against an 80 year old man at the Labour party Conference who shouted "that's a lie". These are real civil liberties issues.

The right to smoke around non-smokers in pubs and clubs is not a human right. I believe you are infringing other people's human rights when you force others' to breath in your smoke.

If someone was held down and force fed harmful substances. This would widely concidered an infringement of human rights. I don't see how public smoking is any differnet.

Your argument is fairly simple. It's also bullshit. What are the chances of getting cancer if you completely discount smoke from the equation? If you can tell me that' date=' then a 20% increase in the risk starts to mean something. However, it may mean your chance of getting cancer increases from 1% to 1.2%. You can use statistics to prove anything (especially when you don't have a basis for comparison).

[/quote']

My friend who has recently been studying the effects of smoking as part of his Uni course has been presented with a lot of information on this topic. Basicly in short, it is hard to pinpoint the exact cause of someone's death as a direct result of smoking, when you look at an individual case.

However, when information is collected and a comparison is made between smokers and non-smokers. It is found that 80% of smokers will die as a result of smoking and non-smokers live 14 years longer than smokers.

Smokers often say things like "i don't want to get old" in defence of their bad habbit. Smoking makes you get older, quicker. A 32 year old smoker is equivelant to a 36 year old non-smoker.

People who claim smoking isn't harmful in this day and age are living with their heads in the sand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest tv tanned
I was trying to ignore this thread' date=' but basically this statement has really pissed me off because it is so sickeningly inhuman that it almost defies comprehension.

Tv-tanned, I would like to hear your definition of what constitutes the "fundamental rights" of human beings and those things that can be considered less-than-important rights which could be easily forgone. A list would be nice, if only for the entertainment value.[/quote']

I would suggest you try reading either the ECHR or the Human Rights Act, both of which give clear indications of specific areas where governments can 'derogate' from adherence.

In other words they recognise that some rights are not absolute, and therefore you cannot just commit to a certain act with impunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest tv tanned
Well' date=' given that he suggests that "The right to smoke is not a fundamental right", this implicitly suggests that he is in possession of some kind of list of fundamental human rights, and frankly,I would like to see this list.[/quote']

No, but it is pretty simple to understand.

You don't have a 'right to smoke'. If that were the case then nowhere would be off-limits for smokers.

Yet smoking isn't allowed in a large number of places already.

Hospital wards for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...