Norway set to ban public smoking...

[WarFalcon]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2528127.stm

yet another reason not to go there
in a free country it should be up to me to kill myself, as long as i dont harm anyone else (i.e. smoke inside buildings etc)

[Tietäjä]

A good idea.

Seconded Wu_Trax

[Flayer]

smoking is bad.
its a good idea

Originally posted by Flayer
smoking is bad.
its a good idea

so is alcohol and cofee, wanna ban that too?
(and once we started, name one thing that doesnt cause cancer )

PS hell, im already annoyed because they banned smoking in the rail station. if they would come up with such an idea here i would probably leave the country

[Ragnarak]

Originally posted by wu_trax

(name one thing that doesnt cause cancer )

icecream

[Dilly_D]

Go Norway....I think it's a great idea (and yes, I am a smoker)

[eple]

I don't smoke, most of my friends do, but I don't really see the big problem in banning them from smoking inside. So you'll have to stop smoking in some areas, it's not as drastic as getting cancer from working in smoke-filled enviroments is it?

What about the waiters, bartenders etc, who is getting sick every year because of their work. In norway, the bartenders are all swedish, but hey, I hear they are people too. Is their health and lives less worth than some blokes "right" to inhale dead plants?

anyways, this isn't near as drastiic as the laws in some american states. (in california they take away your drivers license if you smoke when under 18 ffs!)

[Structural Integrity]

Smoking is stupid....

yeh, I smoked a while, but quickly stopped because there was no point in smoking. Please, anyone, smoker, explain to me, what is the point in smoking? Does a cigarette offer anything more than chewing gum, or a big block of chocolate?

The guy who invented the whole "putting a burning stick in ones mouth and sucking it" should be dug up and shot in the face, twice, with cum and a gun.

[Chrism]

Good idea. If you wish to kill yourself, do it at home, don't inflict it on other people.

[Add]

Originally posted by wu_trax
yet another reason not to go there
in a free country it should be up to me to kill myself, as long as i dont harm anyone else (i.e. smoke inside buildings etc)

isn't that just what they were ensuring, not everyone is as considerate as you...

[Add]

Originally posted by Ragnarak
icecream

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=ice...er%2Baspartame

:o

Originally posted by Add
isn't that just what they were ensuring, not everyone is as considerate as you...

i seriously doubt smoking outside does do any more harm to anyone than lets say cars or other pollution

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by wu_trax
i seriously doubt smoking outside does do any more harm to anyone than lets say cars or other pollution

Since cars and other pollution certainly does do harm to people that's a bit of a bad example. I suppose the justification is that industry and cars are both necessary while smoking isn't.

Seems a bit of an abuse of the liberty principle personally but that's the state for you...

btw : I think South Africa has had this kind of law for almost two years now, although I'm not sure. "Fortunately" the law enforcement there can be a bit of a joke.

[hyfe]

Originally posted by wu_trax
i seriously doubt smoking outside does do any more harm to anyone than lets say cars or other pollution

which is why only smoking in public places indoors is proposed to be banned.

Originally posted by hyfe
which is why only smoking in public places indoors is proposed to be banned.

doh, i guess i should have read the article

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by hyfe
which is why only smoking in public places indoors is proposed to be banned.

The problem is that the proposed ban includes eating establishments and places like that. That constitutes private property if you ask me. No one forces you to go to a bar and it is privately owned, hence smoking or non - smoking should be up to the bar owner, not the government.

[LHC]

it's still a 'public house' though. ie anybody can go to it, as long as they are above 18

[Jammers]

we should replace the tobacco in cigarettes with cyanide, producing the same effect an awful lot quicker, and saving me the hassle of having to hold my breath for upto 20minutes so i dont die of cancer, merely of suffocation.

[Ragnarak]

Originally posted by Add
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=ice...er%2Baspartame

sex?

jelly?

chocolate?

there must be something

[LHC]

You wouldn't die of suffocation anyway. Once you fell unconscious from the breath-holding, you'd begin to breath again. Unfortunately breathing in cyanide fumes.

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by LHC
it's still a 'public house' though. ie anybody can go to it, as long as they are above 18

Doesn't matter, its private property and noone is forcing you to go there. The only possible 'public' smoking ban that I can think of would be one inside government buildings... Even then I doubt it would be right, but it would definately be easier to defend\validate

[LHC]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
Doesn't matter, its private property and noone is forcing you to go there. The only possible 'public' smoking ban that I can think of would be one inside government buildings... Even then I doubt it would be right, but it would definately be easier to defend\validate

How is that fair on the people inside it though? You have the right to be there as much as anybody else, and why should you be forced to avoid it, simply because of a foul stench and increased risk of cancer? If you want to smoke, you should do it where you won't harm others.

[Starbucks]

because i dont smoke

another reason to move there

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by LHC
How is that fair on the people inside it though? You have the right to be there as much as anybody else, and why should you be forced to avoid it, simply because of a foul stench and increased risk of cancer? If you want to smoke, you should do it where you won't harm others.

I don't think you have a right to tell someone else what they can or cannot do with their own property.


Also, I laugh at the 'cancer' arguement. If you were a life long stewerd or bartender who was around smoking 8-10 hrs a day then maybe, but for the casual patron, I doubt it. (btw, if you are a steward or a bartender your whole life you might wanna think about getting a life, heh)

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by Starbucks
because i dont smoke

another reason to move there

I don't like smoking either, but a little tobacco smells far better than the foul stench of oppression.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by LHC
How is that fair on the people inside it though? You have the right to be there as much as anybody else, and why should you be forced to avoid it, simply because of a foul stench and increased risk of cancer? If you want to smoke, you should do it where you won't harm others.

I'm afraid I have to agree with WF here. Some places are going to be pleasant for you to go into (e.g. if you don't like loud music, don't go to a night club, if you don't like smoke, don't go to a smoking bar, etc) others are not. Stay clear of places which you don't like (for whatever reason). I am generally wary of the market being a useful tool, but I think you'll find here that it's in most bars/restaurants financial interests to either have a non-smoking section or not allow smoking. If I wish to open a bar, and want my patrons to be able to smoke in it - why should it matter what others want. I can clearly note the door (if you wish) - "This is a smoking establishment". Bars, etc are one area (generally) where there is not a monopoly - in the part of London I live there is probably 8 or 9 pubs and 12 or 13 restarants to only about one solicitors, no undertakers, two banks, one doctor, etc.

My only problem here (under the existing system) is that employees do have to face a smokey environment and due to (often) lack of alternative employment and no democratic controls of the workplace, have to put up with it.

As for Government buildings, I'd personally prefer to have it up to the regular users of the building (e.g. visitors and employees) whether smoking is permitted - except where there is a clear health need (e.g. hospital) to not smoke. Where there is a private company which is providing a public need then generally they can make special arrangement for the people who dislike/can't tolerate smoke but still need to use their building.

[LHC]

I don't go to pubs and smoke anyway, so it doesn't affect me. Maybe I'd have a different opinion if I did. Maybe if I smoked I'd care for the rights of smokers a little more. But since smoking smells and makes your teeth yellow, I hate it.

And I can't set aside personal hatred to have a fair discussion.

[Matrim]

The restaurant owners over here complain that they will lose many customers with this new law and have to start visit the soup kitchen.

In my dear town, in Norway, someone started a non-smoke cafe some months ago - it soon had to change its policy because business without smoke was bad.


To me it looks like smoking will be banned alltogheter sooner or later anyway.


At least that's what I read in a sci-fi novel - in the future people think of such self inflicted poison as something insane - so it must be true.




Matrim

[JonnyBGood]

I was wondering actually. Who owns these so-called "public places"?

[Miserableman]

If you go to a restaurant, you shouldn't be allowed to smoke. You're not at home, you're in a public place and you have to obey the rules set out for that public place. You can't walk around Wimpy banging saucepans together, whether you consider it your right or not - you'd be invading the civil rights of other customers, and would get arrested for breaching the peace. Why should you be allowed to burn poisonous chemicals in their vicinity, exposing them to carcinogens and making their clothes stink? You're invading the rights of other people by doing so, and it's only because it's common practise in society that people get away with it.

[Matrim]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I was wondering actually. Who owns these so-called "public places"?

Norway is the last old school commie land left, so a man called Kjell Magne Bondevik owns just about everything.


We've always been kind of loose on that 'private property' thing anyway.


We have a saying in Norway:


"Your land is mine,
and when you smoke I don't dine"


That's not true, but it did rhyme.


To answer your question, the public places are owned by public people - a bar-owner owns a bar - who like to call the public places 'private property'.


Thank you.



Matrim

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by Miserableman
If you go to a restaurant, you shouldn't be allowed to smoke. You're not at home, you're in a public place and you have to obey the rules set out for that public place. You can't walk around Wimpy banging saucepans together, whether you consider it your right or not - you'd be invading the civil rights of other customers, and would get arrested for breaching the peace. Why should you be allowed to burn poisonous chemicals in their vicinity, exposing them to carcinogens and making their clothes stink? You're invading the rights of other people by doing so, and it's only because it's common practise in society that people get away with it.

1) A restaurant is privately owned and the decision to allow or disallow smoking should lie with the owner.
2)No one is forcing you to go to a privately owned eating establishment, bar, etc... where smoking is allowed.

[Zh|l]

Luckily for me where I work is already no smoking. I actually do support there to be such a law (one is being considered for England in the far future). What really annoys me generally are people who smoke in food area's when other people are eating.

This 'right' stuff is total crap tbh, I wont claim 'smoking kills people' but it does have smell and health risks involved if you are nearby. The only reason I support a law for this is due to there being many of the populace who will just smoke regardless even if asked whether they could not politely.

I find smoking distasteful, but luckily for me all my friends who smoke rarely smoke in my presence or purposely dont do it all the time. (The only thing that really annoys me really is smoking whilst eating, and smokers who ignore a no smoking area, along with those who have to smoke right at you)

[Plastic-Wrap]

Originally posted by wu_trax
yet another reason not to go there
in a free country it should be up to me to kill myself, as long as i dont harm anyone else (i.e. smoke inside buildings etc)

They ban it because public smoking creates second hand smoke for people who dont smoke and end up getting lung cancer cos of people smoking around them :P

[Makain]

Originally posted by wu_trax
so is alcohol and cofee, wanna ban that too?
(and once we started, name one thing that doesnt cause cancer )

PS hell, im already annoyed because they banned smoking in the rail station. if they would come up with such an idea here i would probably leave the country

Drinking coffee* and alcohol (if you follow the law) in public indoor places also doesn't kill 300-500 people a year. Its not like they are infriging on your rights, you can still smoke outside or in private. They are just ensuring other people don't die because of the choices of others, unless you want to push for the right to do things which have a chance of killing other people.

[Cyp]

The "right" of smokers to smoke near people, because they feel like breathing in fumes is equivalent to the "right" of machinegun-operators to fire bullets at everyone, because they feel like breathing in burnt gunpowder.

The meaning of "near" used there will usually be around 100m-500m, depending on wind conditions.

If a restaraunt doesn't specifically chose to ban machinegunning everything in sight, what business does the government have in banning it? After all, people won't get killed unless they choose to go near the restaraunt, and they could just stay home and starve to death, rather than going to a restaraunt and being machinegunned to death.

[NEWSBOT3]

Originally posted by Cyp
The "right" of smokers to smoke near people, because they feel like breathing in fumes is equivalent to the "right" of machinegun-operators to fire bullets at everyone, because they feel like breathing in burnt gunpowder.

The meaning of "near" used there will usually be around 100m-500m, depending on wind conditions.

If a restaraunt doesn't specifically chose to ban machinegunning everything in sight, what business does the government have in banning it? After all, people won't get killed unless they choose to go near the restaraunt, and they could just stay home and starve to death, rather than going to a restaraunt and being machinegunned to death.

cyp == teh win

Knut Almquist
Norwegian Hospitality Association

Heh, what a complete cnut.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Cyp
After all, people won't get killed unless they choose to go near the restaraunt, and they could just stay home and starve to death, rather than going to a restaraunt and being machinegunned to death.

I can't tell how much of this is sarcastic and in which direction, so...

There is more than one restaraunt in the world. If one company (or organisation, chain, etc) owned every eatery in Norway then obviously the government would have a place in deciding if this mega-chain should allow smoking (since there was no other choice). Unless Norway is drastically different from the UK (a possibility) there are probably dozens/hundreds of different places in which to get food. Different types of policies would probably emerge in different types of establishment (similar to different styles of food), etc.

So if you don't want to breathe in smoke, go to a place which doesn't allow smoking. If there aren't any places like this and if there are enough people like yourself then I'm sure some places will modify their business to attract your custom.

There are numerous pubs/clubs I've been too which play music far too loud (undoubtedly causing hearing loss for people exposed to it long term). I personally really hate loud music when eating/drinking so I stay clear of these places now. I don't write to my MP asking him to legislate against loud music in pubs. It's up to the patrons/workers/proprietor to decide what they like.

And as to your analogy : Yes, if there were a group of people who wished to duel to the death (or simply shoot each other and get off on the fumes) in cafes/pubs/etc then why not? So long as the place was probably signed (i.e. a sign saying "You will be brutally murdered if you eat here") and people were made to sign a disclaimer upon entry, what's the prob?

[Archi]

Lets play a little game, lets change the word smoking to farting.

You will not be allowed to fart in a public place or you will be fined $50.00.

All farters must sit in a seperate part of a resaurant and/or bar.

Anyone who is a repeat violator of the above policies will get pshyciatric counseling along with the above stated penalties.

Also anti farting billboards and ad campaigns will be initiated to instruct our children so they do not grow up farting.

Anyone caught selling burrito's, chili dog's, refried beans or any other gas producing materials to minors will be fined $500.00.

I realize that farting is a body function, but think about it. put anything you like in that category, it is still denial of freedom no matter how you slice the cheese.

Either ban the product outright or leave it alone!

[Snurx]

Luckily, most bar owners and nigth club owners will not follow these rules, as people just will begin to create their own parties at home, instead off going out. The "buisniss" in norway is allready on the way down, as there has been several mishaps these last month (several resturants busted whit bad food, or smugled food, and bars taken whit technical booze) and the beer is too exspensive!

But, to stay on the subjeckt, its a stupid, yucky, discrimintaing and ****ed idea, given to YOU by the stupid, moraly, ****ed priest Kjell Magne. I really hate his stupid ass!
They try to affect and decide over every single part off life in Norway, and its bad!
AND TO YOU BITCHES THAT SAYS NORWAY IS A COMMIE STATE, KRF, Høyre and Venstre are NOT commies, (luckily) but then, neither was or is ap! We have even more ugly wannabe-turbo capitalists.

I am drunkensick, tired and all that. Sorry for the stupid reply. Feel free to throw it to my face at some other time.

[WarFalcon]

Secondhand smoking risks are overblown at best. According to the EPA a scant 5,000 people die every year from second hand smoke and most of them were either smokers themselves at one point, lived with a heavily smoking spouse, or worked in a heavy smoking environment. (ie all preventable situations) Saying that this is a matter of public safety is a mischaracterization of the issue, its really a matter of protecting property rights against the intolerance of a society that has become hostile to smoking.

[Smugs]

Well done Norway...

I have no problem with smokers as long as they do it in their own homes or in smoking sections like u get in some restaurants.

There is nothing more anoying than to be sat on a bus and have some ******* light up behind you and blow smoke on to you, i find this very inconsiderate and offensive and on more than one occasion have had to stop my self beating the **** out of the little ******* who was doing it.

If smokers want to kill them selfs smoking it up to them but when it effects my health as well then i think i have a right to stick there fags up their asses.

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by Miasma
You havent told me where one persons rights end and another begins.

You have the right to do whatever you want so long as it does not infringe on the rights of someone else.

Have you not said before that the goverment should serve the people and do what it can to protect their rights/stop infringements of them.

Yes, and I'm advocating no less now.

If a smokers right to smoke impinges on the right of a non-smoker to NOT breathe in toxins (and it is what they are,lethal or not they are still chemicals which cause irritation to the eyes and lungs and are strong enough to stain plastics*) should the non-smokers rights not come first.

Smoking and not breathing smoke are not either rights. However, smoking as behavior on private property is a right (right to do as you please with your property). So as long as the smoker is smoking on private property with the consent of the property owner then he is in the right. If the non smoker doesn't wish to be around the smoker then they must leave, not impose their will upon the properties of another.

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by Miasma
So you have the right to impinge on others as long as its on your property or the property owner consents.......that sounds like a dodgy precedent there WF.

'You have the right to harm others on your property and the 'harmee' must seek to leave, until they do **** em'

First off, second hand smoke is something that takes years to do any harm to someone, if then. A casual patron to a smoking institution is not going to take any harm, and they are there of their own accord and can leave of their own accord. The institution owner has the right to allow smoking if they want to just like you have the right to leave if you don't like it. Why you want to insist on conforming the world to your views is bewildering to me. You arn't satisfied that some owners can forbid smoking in their establishments if they want to, or can section off their buildings or whatever, no you want to go the extra mile and tell them what they cannot do on their own property. Next you'll be wanting a law forbidding smoking within a distance of any non - smoker. This is like racial segregation only you are using a different critera for the separation.

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by Miasma
I personally dont care, if someone smokes around me and I dont want it (IE non-smoking buses/restraunts) I will tell them to put the ****ing thing out or **** off away from me. I was just curious on where you stood regarding one right interfering with another.

I'll say it again Norway is not the first country to do this, wasnt California/LA one of the first?

probably, but California is far left of the nation and these measures haven't been reviewed by the Supreme Court yet

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Miasma
You have the right to harm others on your property and the 'harmee' must seek to leave, until they do **** em'

Yes, you have the right to harm someone who consents to it (not including minors or retards). In this context, you consent by voluntarily going into an establishment (or someone elses home) knowing they smoke. If they start smoking and then refuse to let you leave then obviously they're infringing your rights by imprisoning you.

I don't support private property in the way others do, but if you support banning smoking in private establishments, then why not people's homes?

[Nadar]

Norway rox!

[Zh|l]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
First off, second hand smoke is something that takes years to do any harm to someone, if then. A casual patron to a smoking institution is not going to take any harm, and they are there of their own accord and can leave of their own accord. The institution owner has the right to allow smoking if they want to just like you have the right to leave if you don't like it. Why you want to insist on conforming the world to your views is bewildering to me. You arn't satisfied that some owners can forbid smoking in their establishments if they want to, or can section off their buildings or whatever, no you want to go the extra mile and tell them what they cannot do on their own property. Next you'll be wanting a law forbidding smoking within a distance of any non - smoker. This is like racial segregation only you are using a different critera for the separation.

Im sorry but the 'right to leave' doesnt fit here, this is flawed logic. If I chose to eat at a certain pub because I like the food, and the next closest pub serving food is an hour's drive away - I would want to eat my food without a health risk of passive smoking than take my 'right' to 'leavel. I will wish for my 'right' to eat in 'clean air'.

This is all mundane for me, since here in the UK smoking is normally restricted to certain area's at work and such, but occassionally you get twats who ignore restrictions. People with the entire arrogance of 'it is my right to smoke' would annoy me, are you saying if someone asthmatic asked you to not smoke (assuming you were smoking) you would just say no and smoke anyway?

If so, I think we should just 'end' the arguement and discussion here as you clearly only wish to do what you want and do not care for other's wellbeing.