What does everyone think of the new smoking laws

[Guest tv tanned]

If that were the case' date=' then smoking would be illegal, yet it is not.[/quote']

I should have realised when you stood up at Durham Schools Debating Comp last year and loudly proclaimed that the suffragettes had done nothing for women, that debating with you could be interesting.

As Cloud says, plenty of things we do are legal, but that doesn't mean that they are human rights for heaven's sake.

[beeker]

neeeeoooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwmmmmmmm... *BANG*

val, shot down.

Has anyone got a well thought out argument for keeping smoking in public places? No, thought not - because there aren't any. It's the same as me howking out a big greener onto a smokers clothes... i'll excuse it as a bad habbit will i. Keep smoking to your own homes. Where half of you probably smoke outside or with the window open anyway!... wonder why?!

pah.

[Stripey]

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.

I've got as much right to smoke as you have to eat pies.

[Guest bluesxman]

I've got as much right to smoke as you have to eat pies.

I guess that indicates TV Tanned has won the sensible argument.

[Stripey]

I guess that indicates TV Tanned has won the sensible argument.

Nonsense, the point is that the right to do absolutely ANYTHING that we can possibly imagine and achieve, is an unalienable fundamental right. There are no rules.

[Guest tv tanned]

Nonsense' date=' the point is that the right to do absolutely ANYTHING that we can possibly imagine and achieve, is an unalienable fundamental right. There are no rules.[/quote']

no, it isn't.

That is why we have a legal system.

You don't have the right to kill me, much though I'm sure you would enjoy it, because the right to life is viewed as being more important than the right to kill people who you cannot defeat in an argument without resorting to personal abuse.

Equally, the right to smoke, which impedes on the health of others, and therefore could infringe the right to life can be curtailed, and is already curtailed in places such as hospitals.

I may have the right to eat pies, but it is perfectly acceptable for me to be prevented from doing so in certain places such as libraries and clothes shops.

[Stripey]

no' date=' it isn't.

That is why we have a legal system.

[/quote']

I'm not talking about the legal system, I'm talking about rights that exist at a layer of abstraction beyond the legal system, at the level of existence itself. A statement like "You do not have a fundamental right to smoke" is incorrect. Anything goes, everything is permissible.

[Guest Neubeatz]

No one has any more rights than anyone else, some have more money, and some are better liars, some "buy the law"

It's a dog eat dog post Thatcher tory britain, and the biggest tory is the prime minister. Yes the "new labour" is in fact tory orientated, that's why they promised the apathetic electorate that they would not change tory fiscal policy before the election,

The tory cunts that dominate with their money, are here too, manipulating the local music scene, heh! and opinion on smoking.....

Prove me wrong

[Guest tv tanned]

meanwhile, back in the real world where real people interact and those interactions have real consequences, we accept that certain rights are more important to the fabric of society than others, and thus we regulate accordingly.

It can safely be said that, in the grand scheme of things, the right to smoke is not one of those 'fundamentally important' rights, and therefore can be curtailed by legislation.

[Guest tv tanned]

No one has any more rights than anyone else' date=' some have more money, and some are better liars, some "buy the law"

It's a dog eat dog post Thatcher tory britain, and the biggest tory is the prime minister. Yes the "new labour" is in fact tory orientated, that's why they promised the apathetic electorate that the would not change tory fiscal policy before the election,

The tory cunts that dominate with their money, are here too, manipulating the local music scene, heh! and opinion on smoking.....

Prove me wrong [/quote']

I'm skint, and I'm not a tory.

Consider yourself proven wrong.

[Guest bluesxman]

Nonsense' date=' the point is that the right to do absolutely ANYTHING that we can possibly imagine and achieve, is an unalienable fundamental right. There are no rules.[/quote']

Bollocks, total bollocks.

[Guest Neubeatz]

I'm skint' date=' and I'm not a tory.

Consider yourself proven wrong.[/quote']

No, your not dominating/manipulating anything...

[framheim]

I'm not talking about the legal system' date=' I'm talking about rights that exist at a layer of abstraction beyond the legal system, at the level of existence itself. A statement like "You do not have a fundamental right to smoke" is incorrect. Anything goes, everything is permissible.[/quote']

well that's just silly and doesn't have any relation to this argument. of course you have the right to smoke in this context but you also have the right to kill millions of people through torture and execution if you wanted going on this argument.

if you want to live your life purely on this argument go and form a lawless society on an isolated island somewhere. as it stands you're in a society governed by laws and have to follow those laws or go through certain process to change them. just ignoring their existence and the existence of the society we live in is no way to win a reasonable debate.

tv tanned's statement was fair and justified in the context of our society, though perhaps too general. everyone has a fundamental right to do whatever they want to themselves within the law. they negate that right when it affects others to the detriment of their way of life. so you can smoke all you want in your own flat but you no longer have a fudemental right to smoke when it's sitting beside a non smoker in a public place.

personally i'm on the fence about the smoking ban, i think it'll help me quit smoking which is a good thing but at the same time i do enjoy a cigarette with a pint. hence my failure to quite smoking. i do think that it sucks for non smokers to go out and breathe in smoke and to come home reeking of smoke as well, there's no escape for them really.

[Guest tv tanned]

No' date=' your not dominating/manipulating anything...[/quote']

Mrs Tanned always says the same things...

[beeker]

I'm not talking about the legal system' date=' [/quote']

Then why are you posting about "new smoking laws" then? You bring nothign to this argument, except to prove that again the smokers on this board cannot justify their reasoning for being allowed to smoke in a society with laws and regulations all aimed at preserving quality of life. Smoking infringes on peoples quality of life, therfore it should be confied to accepted areas - your own home.

Out of interest, do you smoke in your own home or do you do it outside or with the windows open?

[Guest tv tanned]

tv tanned's statement was fair and justified in the context of our society' date=' though perhaps too general. everyone has a fundamental right to do whatever they want to themselves within the law. they negate that right when it affects others to the detriment of their way of life. so you can smoke all you want in your own flat but you no longer have a fudemental right to smoke when it's sitting beside a non smoker in a public place.[/quote']

Thanks for putting that clearer than I managed Dave.

[beeker]

well that's just silly and doesn't have any relation to this argument. of course you have the right to smoke in this context but you also have the right to kill millions of people through torture and execution if you wanted going on this argument.

if you want to live your life purely on this argument go and form a lawless society on an isolated island somewhere. as it stands you're in a society governed by laws and have to follow those laws or go through certain process to change them. just ignoring their existence and the existence of the society we live in is no way to win a reasonable debate.

tv tanned's statement was fair and justified in the context of our society' date=' though perhaps too general. everyone has a fundamental right to do whatever they want to themselves within the law. they negate that right when it affects others to the detriment of their way of life. so you can smoke all you want in your own flat but you no longer have a fudemental right to smoke when it's sitting beside a non smoker in a public place.

personally i'm on the fence about the smoking ban, i think it'll help me quit smoking which is a good thing but at the same time i do enjoy a cigarette with a pint. hence my failure to quite smoking. i do think that it sucks for non smokers to go out and breathe in smoke and to come home reeking of smoke as well, there's no escape for them really.[/quote']

Ok the first sensible post by a smoker. kudos.

[Stripey]

meanwhile' date=' back in the real world where real people interact and those interactions have real consequences, we accept that certain rights are more important to the fabric of society than others, and thus we regulate accordingly.

It can safely be said that, in the grand scheme of things, the right to smoke is not one of those 'fundamentally important' rights, and therefore can be curtailed by legislation.[/quote']

Ah I see, so you are changing your wording now because your initial statement was fundamentally incorrect. You should think before you post, if you find it so difficult to accept you are wrong from time to time.

so, the rights of individuals to choose to smoke are "not a fundamentally important right"? Yet the right for companies to import and sell cigarettes and for the government to collect taxes on them, IS a "fundamentally important" right? Freedom of the individual must take priority over the freedoms of the open market or the rights of the government. Therefore, I'm totally against a smoking ban until the companies are banned from selling tobacco and the government stops collecting tax on it.

So, I guess you don't give a toss about human rights in the end, you are essentially a hypocrite.

[Guest Neubeatz]

Mrs Tanned always says the same things...

Ha Ha' date='

On topic though, the mass millions of pounds accrued by the tobacco companies on the backs of miserable addicted dying millions of people does smack of "profit before people", and the [b']banning of smoking in enclosed public areas can only be a good thing.

I say this as a reformed nicotine addict, still withdrawing after 2 years....!

[beeker]

Ah I see' date=' so you are changing your wording now because your initial statement was fundamentally incorrect. You should think before you post, if you find it so difficult to accept you are wrong from time to time.

so, the rights of individuals to choose to smoke are "not a fundamentally important right"? Yet the right for companies to import and sell cigarettes and for the government to collect taxes on them, IS a "fundamentally important" right? Freedom of the individual must take priority over the freedoms of the open market or the rights of the government. Therefore, I'm totally against a smoking ban until the companies are banned from selling tobacco and the government stops collecting tax on it.

So, I guess you don't give a toss about human rights in the end, you are essentially a hypocrite.[/quote']

no one is questioning your right to smoke, it's where you can and cannot smoke that is governed by the law. You don't own the pubs, so why do you think it's your right to smoke in them? You elected the government so you chose to let them make the law.

smoke at home.

the above quote seems to infer that you are for human rights yet you chose to smoke around people. Would you smoke around a little baby, or would you feel uncomfortable blowing smoke in ti's face.. wonder why.

[framheim]

Ah I see' date=' so you are changing your wording now because your initial statement was fundamentally incorrect. You should think before you post, if you find it so difficult to accept you are wrong from time to time.

so, the rights of individuals to choose to smoke are "not a fundamentally important right"? Yet the right for companies to import and sell cigarettes and for the government to collect taxes on them, IS a "fundamentally important" right? Freedom of the individual must take priority over the freedoms of the open market or the rights of the government. Therefore, I'm totally against a smoking ban until the companies are banned from selling tobacco and the government stops collecting tax on it.

So, I guess you don't give a toss about human rights in the end, you are essentially a hypocrite.[/quote']

eh? again that doesn't make any sense. you're just stretching the argument till fits your illshaped points.

the ban has nothing to do with tobacco companies or tobacco tax. if it did then i doubt it would even be happening. it's not a complete ban on smoking, it's just smoking in public enclosed spaces. what utter nonsense.

[Guest tv tanned]

eh? again that doesn't make any sense. you're just stretching the argument till fits your illshaped points.

the ban has nothing to do with tobacco companies or tobacco tax. if it did then i doubt it would even be happening. it's not a complete ban on smoking' date=' it's just smoking in public enclosed spaces. what utter nonsense.[/quote']

I don't think I need to add to this.

Frankly this is getting rather silly, as gridlock's failure to remain within the realms of reality demonstrate.

[Stripey]

eh? again that doesn't make any sense. you're just stretching the argument till fits your illshaped points.

the ban has nothing to do with tobacco companies or tobacco tax. if it did then i doubt it would even be happening. it's not a complete ban on smoking' date=' it's just smoking in public enclosed spaces. what utter nonsense.[/quote']

It makes perfect sense, from the standpoint of civil liberties. Smoker and non-smokers alike ought to oppose this ban on principle, for the reasons I outlined above.

Frankly this is getting rather silly' date=' as gridlock's failure to remain within the realms of reality demonstrate.[/quote']

You don't appear to understand what reality, or freedom is, so how on earth can you begin to moralise on such an issue when you don't have a clue what you are talking about?

[Guest tv tanned]

It makes perfect sense' date=' from the standpoint of civil liberties. Smoker and non-smokers alike ought to oppose this ban on principle, for the reasons I outlined above.[/quote']

So where exactly are the campaigns by Liberty and other civil rights organisations?

You don't appear to understand what reality, or freedom is, so how on earth can you begin to moralise on such an issue when you don't have a clue what you are talking about?

I appear to understand it a damn sight better than you.

Unless you actually think that people should be allowed to do absolutely anything they like, free from any form of consequence, then the smoking ban is entirely in keeping with the recognised order of society whereby certain rights are limited or curtailed.

[Stripey]

So where exactly are the campaigns by Liberty and other civil rights organisations?

That is their perogative.

I appear to understand it a damn sight better than you.

Unless you actually think that people should be allowed to do absolutely anything they like' date=' free from any form of consequence, then the smoking ban is entirely in keeping with the recognised order of society whereby certain rights are limited or curtailed.[/quote']

Hahahahah. There is nothing about the crap you say that makes me think you have any understanding of the nature of freedom, and since you frame it so naively in terms of "the recognised order of society whereby certain rights are limited or curtailed" then in my opinion, you yourself are not free.

Of course I'm not advocating the complete abolition of the rule of law, don't be absurd. The gradual erosion of civil liberties in the guise of moves like this smoking ban, or emergency "terrorism" legislation, is a hugely important issue, and if you can't understand a simple logical position which puts the rights of the individual before the rights of the government or commerce, you ought to stay out of discussions of these issues until you inform yourself better.