Smoking ban in England

[Rameses the Great]

I completely understand Augusta, but I don't think the government is passing that line. Public smoking should be banned. Fatty foods to an extent should be left to the consumer. This is how we are free. It is that corporation are putting so much unhealthful things in food these days, it must be contained. I agree with banning trans fat because it does so much harm in terms of health. However banning junk I think is too far fetche'd even for idiotic politicians.

 

No government can restrict what you want, but they have to put a cap for the benefit of people. No one is telling you don't eat junk or don't smoke.

 

In other words I see rather too many political strifes coming here, and it is getting rather cliche. Fascism? Fascism is when you stick a gun to someone's head and tell them what to do. Is this Fascim, hardly.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Sorry to play the devil's advocate Cato but take a closer look at the article you cited.

 

"Trans fats are the chemically modified food ingredients that raise levels of a particularly unhealthy form of cholesterol and have been squarely linked to heart disease. Long used as a substitute for saturated fats in baked goods, fried foods, salad dressings, margarine and other foods, trans fats also have a longer shelf life than other alternatives."

 

Chemically modified food ingredients

 

This doesnt mean that they are banning bacon or big macs. New York has simply banned a food additive that is detrimental to public health. There has to be some point where public health concerns outweigh one's personal freedom.

 

Actually, bacon is chemically modified (nitrates), along with Big Macs and McDonald's fries are fried in ... trans fats. And no, I don't think it's up to anybody to tell me what to do with MY health--it's my body, my choice.

[CiceroD]

In other words I see rather too many political strifes coming here, and it is getting rather cliche. Fascism? Fascism is when you stick a gun to someone's head and tell them what to do. Is this Fascim, hardly.

 

Thank you Ramses!

 

Okay Bacon is chemically altered. Pickles and Saurkraut are too! but Nitrates aren't the point.

The point is Trans Fats. Mcdonalds can definitely switch too natural saturated fats with an increase in cost.

 

Similar to how properly FDA inspected meat costs more!

[P.Clodius]

All this is besides the point. For the reasons I stated in my last post I dont think that a ban on smoking, such as the one happening in Britain can happen in the US.

Britain is actually copying the US, smoking has been banned in public places in CA, NY, NJ, and probably others..

[Germanicus]

Public smoking should be banned.

 

That's exactly the point Cato has made repeatedly - a bar is not a public place.

 

Fascism? Fascism is when you stick a gun to someone's head and tell them what to do. Is this Fascim, hardly.

 

You think fascism got a hold in Germany with a gun or a vote ?

[Moonlapse]

How about we just ban discretion altogether and get it over with? Eliminate any choices or information that might be ungood, under the penalty of law, and we can all become like empty vessels filled to the brim with goodness.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

A bar is not a public place

 

Bars are frequented by members of the public, any member of the public can walk into a bar and order a drink when ever he or she chooses (within the licensing laws obviously), unless it's a private members bar then thats a different matter.

[Rameses the Great]

Bars are frequented by members of the public, any member of the public can walk into a bar and order a drink when ever he or she chooses (within the licensing laws obviously), unless it's a private members bar then thats a different matter.

 

Precisely, if you want to smoke in the confines of your home or a private bar go ahead. Bars are not reserved for private people, of course age, but any adult can go there making it public.

 

You think fascism got a hold in Germany with a gun or a vote ?

 

That is not the point, the thing is you guys are making a big deal out of public smoking. No one is telling you not to smoke, just to respect other people around you. I don't think this is Fascism, if anything I think people are taking freedom for granted.

[Princeps]

In other words I see rather too many political strifes coming here, and it is getting rather cliche. Fascism? Fascism is when you stick a gun to someone's head and tell them what to do. Is this Fascim, hardly.

 

Thank you Ramses!

 

Okay Bacon is chemically altered. Pickles and Saurkraut are too! but Nitrates aren't the point.

The point is Trans Fats. Mcdonalds can definitely switch too natural saturated fats with an increase in cost.

 

Similar to how properly FDA inspected meat costs more!

 

I think you are missing "the point". The point is not trans fats, or nitrates, or tobacco, it is oppressive, dictatorial, government control (a less emotive and more accurate definition of fascism than "someone sticking a gun to your head", which is entirely inadequate).

 

I'm still in favour of a ban on smoking.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Bars are not reserved for private people, of course age, but any adult can go there making it public.

 

Bars are privately owned, and thus the owners have the right to set whatever policies they want for their own private property. If bar owners wish to prohibit smoking, set aside separate sections for smoking, or even have smoking in their whole establishment, that's their right as owners--every bit as much as whom they choose to play music, what beers they want to serve, and (gasp) even whether they want to serve fries that have touched a trans fat. Bar owners no more forfeit their rights by allowing others to visit their property than you forfeit your rights by allowing people to visit your property.

[Rameses the Great]

Bars are privately owned, and thus the owners have the right to set whatever policies they want for their own private property. If bar owners wish to prohibit smoking, set aside separate sections for smoking, or even have smoking in their whole establishment, that's their right as owners--every bit as much as whom they choose to play music, what beers they want to serve, and (gasp) even whether they want to serve fries that have touched a trans fat. Bar owners no more forfeit their rights by allowing others to visit their property than you forfeit your rights by allowing people to visit your property.

 

I recall a courtcase dealing with private ownership. I believe it said if you import things from state to state and is not sufficiently owned by the owner, then it is at the jurisdiction of the government. A private club that is owned by someone and runs it on his own has the right to do anything he/she pleases like deciding who can register.

 

So I think that constitutes for something.

[Primus Pilus]

Bars are frequented by members of the public, any member of the public can walk into a bar and order a drink when ever he or she chooses (within the licensing laws obviously), unless it's a private members bar then thats a different matter.

 

Precisely, if you want to smoke in the confines of your home or a private bar go ahead. Bars are not reserved for private people, of course age, but any adult can go there making it public.

 

A bar is NOT a public place unless it is owned by a government entity or by a collective community group. A private owner is a private owner. If you walk into my home it does not become a public place simply because of your presence. The same is true of any privately held establishment. An owner of any privately held business should maintain the right to manage it as he sees fit, provided he follows the law, avoids discriminatory practices, etc. Clearly they are subject to any number of safety/building codes, licensing, etc., but they should still maintain the right to the operation of their business. Any non smoker can enter that establishment any time they please (within business hours), but it is their choice whether or not they stay due to the selection of drinks, the clientell, the food, the atmosphere or what have you. Any smoker may also freely enter or leave under the same circumstances, but it is up to the bar owner to determine the best method for his business to prosper.

 

That is not the point, the thing is you guys are making a big deal out of public smoking. No one is telling you not to smoke, just to respect other people around you. I don't think this is Fascism, if anything I think people are taking freedom for granted.

 

You damn well are telling people where they can or cannot exercise their rights. This is not about smoking but rather it is much more about free enterprise and the rights of property owners. Smoking is a nasty habit that many hate, and therefore the rights of the property owner get clouded under the veil of doing what may be good for public health, but this is simply a step in a wrong direction for a free society.

[Rameses the Great]

You damn well are telling people where they can or cannot exercise their rights. This is not about smoking but rather it is much more about free enterprise and the rights of property owners. Smoking is a nasty habit that many hate, and therefore the rights of the property owner get clouded under the veil of doing what may be good for public health, but this is simply a step in a wrong direction for a free society.

 

Again, I am speaking on the matter of the issue. We probably have different political views, something I'm sure we don't want to get into.

[Jasminia]

Personally, I think that the decision of being a smoking vs. non-smoking establishment should be the decision of the restaurant/bar owner. Here in Fayetteville, AR, many smoke-free places were opening up without having been required by law to do so.

 

In other words, people were already getting non-smoking choices before the government came in and removed choice from the owners of the establishments.

 

Smokers choose their dining experiences based on the smoking situation at the restaurant -- why should nonsmokers not do the same? Just because nonsmokers wanted to eat at the smoking Thai restauarant instead of the smoke-free Thai restaurant does not give them the right to force all restaurants to the preferences of one group of people. This is yet another example of people not taking responsibility for their actions.

 

This doesn't seem quite fair. but since it's apparently legislatable, here's some other things that ought to be banned:

 

1) driving for people over the age of 60 unless they pass annual driving competency tests

2) people with annoying laughs

3) excessive perfume/cologne use

4) complaining about cigarette butts if ashtrays fail to be provided

5) ignorance at a podium

 

and most importantly ...

 

6) stupidity

[Northern Neil]

Here in Britain, our government is getting a reputation for bringing in legislation about things which are emotive, but not, in the scheme of things, important. For example, 700 hours of parliamentary time was wasted bringing in unworkable legislation about fox hunting, usually to a packed house, whereas readings of an important child protection bill were received by an almost empty house. This anti - smoking thing is just such another gimmick, and whats more, these new laws are usually made by people who disagree with the activities of other people and their lifestyle choices, affecting freedom of choice and bringing yet more blandness to a society which seems hell - bent on making life safe and risk free for all of us, yet interminably boring.

 

As a non smoker myself, I do not give a hoot if someone in a pub on the next table is smoking. If the establishment complies with existing health and safety legislation, then extractor fans will remove smoke from the room effectively - and at any rate, smoking can be confined to certain areas.

 

Again, fox hunting. Dont like it myself, but why ban something because I dont like it? Whatever people think about it, it brings diversity to our society in its own small way, just like motorcycling, conkers, cheese rolling, and morris dancing - all of which have been under scrutiny by do - gooders looking for yet more things to ban in order to produce a bland, cotton wool - wrapped society that ultimately does nothing but follow sport (apart from Rugby - thats too dangerous), soaps, and eat bland, plastic - wrapped supermarket food. That drives its kids round the block to school, because of the increase in traffic they themselves are fuelling. That disallows the playing of live music in pubs unless a financially crippling license is bought. That cheerfully rips off its citizens to a shocking degree, yet will prosecute someone for selling a few things on ebay whilst on unemployment benefit (welfare). That bans ball games in school playgrounds for fear of litigation from parents wanting a free trip to Sanitised Package Holiday Land.

 

A couple of months back, one of my work colleagues twisted her ankle because of wet leaves on the pavement. She said, perfectly seriously, that street trees in towns should all be cut down so that she and other shoppers dont sustain further injury. Town councils will probably see this as a way of avoiding litigation.You know what? I bet she gets her way eventually!! Which brings us back to smoking bans. To help the public? No. To avoid litigation and a drop in the price of shares in tobacco companies owned by individual MPs and the British stock exchange? Maybe.

 

When the government gets a chance to make laws which really would make a difference, what do we get? The Stone report (Brit. government initiative to curb global heating). They then worry if they have gone to far. TO FAR??? They should be putting limits on motor vehicle numbers per household. They should be banning the sale of Chelsea Tractors to those who do not need them to make a living. They should be putting tax on aviation fuel. But no - those things would end up getting them kicked out of government, so we get laws banning the passtimes of minorities.

Edited January 11, 2007 by Northern Neil