Smoking in England banned from July 1st...

[Elaina]

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

 

[Miss Neecerie]

Actually, Tobacco is legal, Smoking is legal, What has become illegal is the property owner right to choose whether they want smoking or not. Now BIG BROTHER has made that decission for you.

Last I checked, in most jurisdictions, constituents -voted- for the regulations being discussed.

 

[tinmanzzz]

I'm Sorry ????

Last I checked, in most jurisdictions, constituents -voted- for the regulations being discussed.

I'm Sorry, are you saying it is illegal to sell tobacco or to smoke a cig.(fag) ????

 

[Sachet]

I like knowing that I won't have to be subjected to someone else's smoke polluting my air in public places. My not smoking does not harm another person. Someone smoking near me, especially within an enclosed establishment, is harmful. The facts are indisputable.

I'm all for a compromise by business owners such as this:
"To effect a compromise, some laws allow smoking where there are adequate physical barriers between smoking and non-smoking sections, and air from smoking sections cannot be mixed back into non-smoking sections."

What could be fairer? Those who wish to smoke could do so without impinging upon the rights of others who do not wish to breathe contaminated air.

Common courtesy and common sense can usually meet if people are willing. My smoking friends and I don't find this to be a challenge.

....Sachet

 

[Feraud]

I'm Sorry, are you saying it is illegal to sell tobacco or to smoke a cig.(fag) ????

Hmmm, I did not read that at all. I read the comment as, "constituents voted for the regulation." Rather straightforward I think.

What is next, dog fighting as an acceptable sport because "it is my dog (a.k.a.- property)!"

 

[Phil]

This is one of those topics that is so polarizing it can and often does degenerate into what amounts to YELLING and bickering. I was hesitant to post my thoughts - but here goes nothing.

I'm strating to feel the same way. I leave you now with the words most appropriate for this thread, as said by a great man, Brick Tamlin.

 

[tinmanzzz]

constituents voted

Hmmm, I did not read that at all. I read the comment as, "constituents voted for the regulation." Rather straightforward I think.

What is next, dog fighting as an acceptable sport because "it is my dog (a.k.a.- property)!"

Actually, constituents have voted to approve dog fighting( at some time in many places), and have voted to restrict Rights based on Race, religion, creed and education.
Simply because a law has been pasted does not make it a Just Law. If people had not stood up to unjust laws, there would not have been a Civil right movement......
This is really not about smoking, It is about Individual Rights.[/COLOR
ps who profits most from the sell of cigarettes?????? Not the retailer, not the Maker???

 

[Feraud]

Actually, constituents have voted to approve dog fighting( at some time in many places), and have voted to restrict Rights based on Race, religion, creed and education.
Simply because a law has been pasted does not make it a Just Law. If people had not stood up to unjust laws, there would not have been a Civil right movement......
This is really not about smoking, It is about Individual Rights.[/COLOR
ps who profits most from the sell of cigarettes?????? Not the retailer, not the Maker???

Ummm, this is not about standing up to "unjust laws", it is actually about the simple act of smoking a cigarette. No different from a guy who wants to drink a beer or smoke a joint to get his fix.

Lumping in the smoking of a cigarette with the Civil Rights movement, restrictions against Race, Religion, Creed, and eduction is absolutely demeaning to those who stood up and sometimes lost their lives for these noble causes.

The ones who profit most from the sale of cigarettes are the cigarette companies. People speak of unjust laws and individual rights but they are unwittingly defending corporate profits. That is no "just cause" I would take up.

 

[Fedorista]

 

[Dr. Shocker]

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&new_topic=59

The Smokers Club is a smokers rights organization I belong to and we have representatives in the UK as well keep track here

Deaf man attacked for smoking at bus station

Jul 21 2007

by Anna Hammond, South Wales Echo


A DEAF man was beaten up at Cardiff central bus station for smoking a cigarette.

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_headline=deaf-man-attacked-for-smoking-at-bus-station&method=full&objectid=19488015&siteid=50082-name_page.html

 

[JohnTheGreek]

So wait, for the crime of telling you that the restaurant doesn't allow smoking, the kid doesn't get any tip, not even 15% (I usually give 20%)?

As someone who never made the rank of waiter (I was a busboy), I always tip well when it is deserved. This kid got stiffed because he was an annoying twerp...not because he was enforcing any regulations. This could have been done politely and I might even have complied.

Re: Fines.....

As someone who paid literally DOZENS (72 to be precise) of parking tickets during my five year graduate school career, I am often content to pay a premium for what I want. It is silly however, to pay a premium to undertake a behavior that is legal and has little or no impact upon others. Before anyone states otherwise, remember that there are "lies, damnable lies and statistics". If people simply "dont care for" smoke, then that is an entirely different matter and perhaps the market should ideally decide the optimal allocation of cigarette smoke. Dr. Ron Coase may have had it right. We need to assign property rights to the clean air in a restaurant and let one group pay the other for the right to smoke.....or let the smoking group be paid by non smokers to put it out. I favor the latter option, obviously. lol Of course we could always just let the actual OWNERS of the property decide, something the non-smokers here seem strangely unsatisfied by.

[huh]

 

[JohnTheGreek]

Ummm, this is not about standing up to "unjust laws", it is actually about the simple act of smoking a cigarette. No different from a guy who wants to drink a beer or smoke a joint to get his fix.

No, it's not just about smoking a cigarette or cigar or pipe, it's about the right to self-determination...and frankly, if someone wants to drink a beer or smoke a joint, I don't really have a problem with that either. I fail to see how can we expect a government to keep their noses out of the substantial issues of individual freedom when they can't even disregard those that are of little consequence?

JMHO,

John

 

[Feraud]

No, it's not just about smoking a cigarette or cigar or pipe, it's about the right to self-determination...and frankly, if someone wants to drink a beer or smoke a joint, I don't really have a problem with that either. I fail to see how can we expect a government to keep their noses out of the substantial issues of individual freedom when they can't even disregard those that are of little consequence?

JMHO,

John

I see your point John and agree with the ideas of self determination. At the same time, I cannot help feel smoking and its accompanying health hazzards should be somewhere on any government's radar. It should be there along with the other issues that affect a country's health like obesity, drunk driving, or education.

When it comes to smoking in a public place, this issue is bigger than "my rights".

 

[MudInYerEye]

I take no umbrage over the smoking ban but if they ban the spiking of heroin in restrooms then I will be plenty pissed off.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Actually, constituents have voted to approve dog fighting( at some time in many places ...

Did the dogs get to vote too?

.

 

[jamespowers]

No, it's not just about smoking a cigarette or cigar or pipe, it's about the right to self-determination...and frankly, if someone wants to drink a beer or smoke a joint, I don't really have a problem with that either. I fail to see how can we expect a government to keep their noses out of the substantial issues of individual freedom when they can't even disregard those that are of little consequence?

JMHO,

John

I see it as the same issue as Prohibition was in the golden age. They banned it and they can repeal it. People disregarded the law then just as some disregard it now. Self-determination always wins out in the end.
People will do whatever they want to do no matter what laws you pass. Simply making something illegal doesn't get rid of any activity. If it did, there would be no murders, robberies and the like. The difference is that those laws make criminal activities out of acts that are not victimless crimes. [huh]
I own myself therefore I determine what lifestyle I choose. If someone can tell me what to eat, do and think, etc. then I do not own myself. The person telling me what to do does. I think we made slavery illegal right?

Regards,

J

 

[Hondo]

Bravo!!!! :eusa_clap
Remember Patrick Henry: “Give me Liberty or Give me Death!!!!"

I see it as the same issue as Prohibition was in the golden age. They banned it and they can repeal it. People disregarded the law then just as some disregard it now. Self-determination always wins out in the end.
People will do whatever they want to do no matter what laws you pass. Simply making something illegal doesn't get rid of any activity. If it did, there would be no murders, robberies and the like. The difference is that those laws make criminal activities out of acts that are not victimless crimes. [huh]
I own myself therefore I determine what lifestyle I choose. If someone can tell me what to eat, do and think, etc. then I do not own myself. The person telling me what to do does. I think we made slavery illegal right?

Regards,

J

 

[Marc Chevalier]

“Give me Liberty or Give me Death!!!!"

In lieu of Death, I'd be willing to accept a bit of totalitarianism on, say, Tuesday and Thursday afternoons.

.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

I will take cake please.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Let them eat it.

.