Safe Speed Forums

Anti-smoking legislation is happening worldwide, not just here.
It was originally proposed as a measure to stop people who work in smoke-filled atmospheres (pubs etc) from being exposed to tobacco smoke.
If smokers paid any attention to those who do not smoke, the law would have been not needed. But they didn't, and still don't. Public transport has been non-smoking for ages, and still people light-up on buses. Planes have been the same, and still people hide in the toilets and smoke (a prison job that).
People seem to think that they can smoke at work because they are able to. Well, now they cannot. Not only that, but the person running the establishment can also be fined....so it tends to be maintained better now.
Your human rights are not being violated and the gov was elected with that measure in the manifesto. The Lords are irelevant, and soon to be no more. Replaced with another elected house one hopes.
Oh, and I support the anti-smoking law.

What utter nonsense.

I despair of people like you. The Labour manifesto was to introduce restrictions, expressly not an outright ban in pubs. People voted for them on that promise. This is widely recognised as one of the great injustices - not only did Labour pledge a partial ban but it then went on to fudge and distort figures from its own opinion polls which actually showed two-thirds of the public supporting sensible arrangements rather than a blanket ban.

And you honestly support abolition of the Lords, the last checkpoint against ill-considered laws? That's all we need to know about you.

That's exactly what it is - completely against all smokers in all possible ways.
Many people, on both sides, would have respected it had it instead been used as an anti-secondhand smoke law.

The reason why people light up where they shouldn't is because they have been given no reasonable option otherwise. It is indeed an anti-smoking law.

I can recall part of the late Dave Allen's routine once. He related how he had been at a party and someone had blown smoke in his face.

He objected and asked the smoker not to do this. The smoker had what he thought was a frightfully witty riposte. He said: "Well, you have a glass of whisky in your hand!"

Dave Allen's reply was: "Yes, but I don't propose to p**s down your leg!"

The problem with smoking is that it is NOT a personal act. The smoke does not stay with the smoker.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

For decades now the lords has been nothing more than a forum used to stab the government in the back, based on political dislike. Whichever government.
The lords is GOING to be replaced with an ELECTED house WHATEVER you think.

What part of the UK do you live in? I see people smoking at work quite often! Where's all these 'fag-police' that were supposed to be patrolling?

It actually pleases me to see democracy is still alive - those laws people agree with are generally respected, and those that aren't, are totally ignored!

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

That's ok then. Just remember that if you are burgled that person is a practicing democrat, he/she doesn't respect the laws of property, so he/she is taking yours.
And there is always the problem with the employer, in that it can be fined as well as the person. And, of course, if the employer allows people to smoke at work and one (or more) of the other employees doesn't like it, then there is always recourse to the civil courts as well.
Then there is the problem with the job (as in employment). The legislation was introduced as a health and safety law. Breaking health and safety laws is a criminal offence. So, you will get the required warnings and then be unemployed.

Are you deliberately trying to miss my point?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Not missing it, as finding it difficult to separate from obscurity.

Your point is that democracy equals people paying no attention to a law they disagree with ?
Or: That democracy depends on people disobeying laws they see as ....unlawful ?
Or that democratically inclined people are lawbreakers ?
The difference between a burglar and a person smoking where it is [now] not allowed is one of degree, not definition.
But then, who cares ?
Being a criminal is now a social choice !

No. My point was that people will generally obey those laws that are just and sensible. Most people know that thieving is wrong. Most people don't thieve.

Those laws that are stupid are generally ignored by most people.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

And my point was that people who don't obey laws, even ones they don't agree with because they don't respect them, are called criminals.

The law of the land does not say:
"taking a persons property with intent to deprive the owner of possession of that property will be called theft, unless the taker does not respect the law, in which case it is ok"

The same way that democracy does not mean that 100% of the population have to agree with something for it to be democratic, a majority is sufficient. It also does not mean that if you are in the 49% that voted against something (or someone) you can ignore the vote result and continue as before.
My employer does not respect th health and safety at work act, and ignores it regularly. He is, as a result of that ignorance, having to find several tens of thousands of pounds as a result of that decision to ignore a law he does not respect.
In reality it is not the law that he, and you, disrespect. It is other people.

Is the consumption of tobacco legal in this country? The current legal mess passed by the Health Nazis refers to the smoking of tobacco in enclosed public spaces, implying that a person can 'enjoy' a herbal cigarette (no, I don't mean weed...) in said public space. These products taste and smell like bonfires for a very good reason - they are tiny bonfires with all the associated ppm 10's, mustards, dioxins, unsaturated benzoyls and many other causes of oxidative stress in the body - far more than tobacco produces. So the Law is cool with this, then?

_________________
Aquila



Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat...

Errr...no.
The law bans SMOKING in workplaces, public places etc.
It doesn't seem to have the word tobacco in it, anywhere.
You can still consume snuff if you want, you can't smoke it though.
Now, if they could just amend the law to include the wearing [on the body] of brut 33 as well.....

I think if smokers had not lit up where they should not have done and given a little more thought to those around them there would be no anti smoking laws.

Is it OK for the minority to ruin it for the majority?
Is it OK for the response to be a needless, all-over blanket ban as opposed to compromising?

I don't think that has anything to do with the reasons for bringing in the smoking ban.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Not many people that watch football cause trouble.

Not many muslims want to blow people up.

Not many BMW drivers are agressive drivers.

Not many people with brown skin break the law.

If smokers had kind of policed themselves and told the shelfish smokers to have some respect for others then all smokers would not be in the posistion they are now, as it is they are now reaping what they have sown.

I like farting, but try not to let my love of the sport upset other people. I also like loud rock music, my neighbours however are not so keen and have asked to turn it down, which I have done. There is no need to fall out and people that listen to Bi Jovi (I've heard it through my walls ), are more sensitive types.

I really don't like banning things, but the smoking ban has been win win for me.

So what of the compromise instead of the blanket ban?
Should we ban football, Muslims, BMWs?


Me too, but it has been lose-lose for many people - unnecessarily so.

I prefer drinking in pubs in a non-smoky atmosphere, but on the other hand that objective could have been achieved by confining smoking to defined separate rooms.

But there have been many reports of a serious decline in the trade of pubs since the ban came in - is no pub at all better than a smoky pub?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed