Total smoking ban passed (previously "Get in my son")

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

NOTE: i have already said, depending on a bit of luck when i go out i can avoid smokers completely, so once again, you have been [shotdowninflames]

Noone cares what you personally do in your life, see my early comments about basing your political beliefs on trite self-absorbed nonsense.

[meglamaniac]

Yo Irish, you don't seem to be getting my point here either.
What I was saying describes how things are at present, without rules. Freedom works both ways - non-smokers should be free to enjoy a pint without inhaling spent tar. As non-smokers are in the majority, this way makes more sense in various ways, and as a nice side effect makes your government somewhat popular with 75% of the electorate.

Rules are only required due to the impingment of smoking onto the freedoms of the majority. You don't seem to be getting that.

As for the loud music example, there are already rules for that (environmental health etc).

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

Rock concerts are not everywhere. Smoking in public places, especially SOCIAL public places, is. It is exceptionally hard to "choose not to go somewhere where people smoke for a pint" as that basicly rules out everywhere.

1. They're not public places. I support a smoking ban in public places, like libraries. Pubs and clubs are private properties.
2. If it was so dominant a position as you suggest, then there would be more economic incentive to have non-smoking pubs in general.
3. Noone's forcing you to go out to a pub.

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

The metafor of a rock concert doesn't really work anyway, as everyone going to the rock concert likes what they're getting. Consider this a more sensible example:

Imagine 25% of people like a good loud rock concert.
Imagine 75% of people like a nice rendition of Beethoven.
Now imagine that, in order to please the 25% minority, every classical music concert has a 30 minute rock concert intermission in the middle, while there is no requirement for a 30 minute classical music intermission at rock concerts.
Does this seem slightly unfair and one sided?

Welcome to the resentment most non-smokers feel for smokers.

Bad analogy, and generalising from self. Stop trying to argue that all non-smokers feel the way you do, as has been previously pointed out the people you're arguing with don't smoke either.

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Tyranny of the majority :eng101:

surely all democracy is is tyranny of the majority?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

Freedom works both ways - non-smokers should be free to enjoy a pint without inhaling spent tar.

We can. In non-smoking pubs, or at home. See: Tyranny of the majority, and forcing people to be subject to arbitrary laws in private property.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

surely all democracy is is tyranny of the majority?

Not necessarily, and in any case I'm more of an anarchist.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

Rock concerts are not everywhere. Smoking in public places, especially SOCIAL public places, is.

I have no problem with banning smoking in public places, however 'public' implies 'owned by the public/government', eg the street or government buildings. This has nothing to do with the present topic though.

It is exceptionally hard to "choose not to go somewhere where people smoke for a pint" as that basicly rules out everywhere.

Its pretty easy, I've not been anywhere where people smoke and drink for months. Anyway, if there was a demand for smoke free pubs then the market would provide them.

The metafor of a rock concert doesn't really work anyway, as everyone going to the rock concert likes what they're getting. Consider this a more sensible example:

Just like everyone who goes to a smoking pub likes what theyre getting? There may be people who go to rock concerts who wish it were quieter, and there may be a lot of people who avoid going to concerts because of the volume, even if they like the music.

[Kurashima]

Im an Asthmatic.

I live on a small island which has crap weather and very little to do outdoors other than in the summer.

If I wish to socialise, I must do it at a friends house, or in the pub.

The latter causes me breathing difficulties. The former does not, as my friend doesnt smoke.

I am therefore wholly in favour of a Smoking Ban in all enclosed public spaces.

If youre a smoker and you dont like this point of view, please feel free to have my Asthma. You wont be a smoker for long after that.

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Noone cares what you personally do in your life, see my early comments about basing your political beliefs on trite self-absorbed nonsense.

how the **** **** was i being trite? once again nodrog the troll rears his ugly head.


i was stating an opinion, read my posts properly before you comment on them please

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

Yo Irish, you don't seem to be getting my point here either.
What I was saying describes how things are at present, without rules. Freedom works both ways - non-smokers should be free to enjoy a pint without inhaling spent tar. As non-smokers are in the majority, this way makes more sense in various ways, and as a nice side effect makes your government somewhat popular with 75% of the electorate.

Rules are only required due to the impingment of smoking onto the freedoms of the majority. You don't seem to be getting that.

If I wanted all pubs to play classical music and I got 75% of the population to agree with me do you think all pubs should be forced to do that? What about if I got 75% of the population to agree with me that all pubs should be forced to show gay porn on giant tvs. WHAT ABOUT THE FREEDOMS OF THOSE OF US WHO LIKE SOME GAY PORN WITH OUR PINTS?

Or, negatively speaking, what if I got 75% of the population to agree that all pubs shouldn't be allowed chairs or signs with the word "toilet" in them?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Im an Asthmatic.

I live on a small island which has crap weather and very little to do outdoors other than in the summer.

If I wish to socialise, I must do it at a friends house, or in the pub.

The latter causes me breathing difficulties. The former does not, as my friend doesnt smoke.

I am therefore wholly in favour of a Smoking Ban in all enclosed public spaces.

If youre a smoker and you dont like this point of view, please feel free to have my Asthma. You wont be a smoker for long after that.

I have claustrophobia therefore it should be illegal for pubs to have an area of less than 50 metres squared.

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I have no problem with banning smoking in public places, however 'public' implies 'owned by the public/government', eg the street or government buildings. This has nothing to do with the present topic though.

no, public is anywhere the public can go, which is why there were 2 votes, one for pubs and one for private member clubs, as i have already said, i disagree with the result for the private member clubs whilst agreeing with the result for pubs

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

how the **** **** was i being trite? once again nodrog the troll rears his ugly head.

I'm obviously trolling since I've never expressed libertarian sentiments on this forum before, and I'm just doing it in this thread because I dont like you.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I have claustrophobia therefore it should be illegal for pubs to have an area of less than 50 metres squared.

Youre a lying bastard is what you are Nod.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

no, public is anywhere the public can go, which is why there were 2 votes, one for pubs and one for private member clubs, as i have already said, i disagree with the result for the private member clubs whilst agreeing with the result for pubs

Ok so what if I make my pub a private members club and give out membership cards on the door to anyone who asks for one?

(this is a roundabout way of asking what the difference between a pub and private club is. There is no meaningful distinction here; private property is private property)

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

no, public is anywhere the public can go, which is why there were 2 votes, one for pubs and one for private member clubs, as i have already said, i disagree with the result for the private member clubs whilst agreeing with the result for pubs

We had a problem concerning this while running a poker tournament last year, ie we wanted lots of people but it had to be a private member club. So we got a piece of paper and had everyone sign their names on it, otherwise we didn't let them in. Once they did that, they became a member. If this was the solution pubs adopted would you support it?

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I'm obviously trolling since I've never expressed libertarian sentiments on this forum before, and I'm just doing it in this thread because I dont like you.

actually, you are trolling, although you do it very near the line, you do do it constantly, which is why i have just reported one of your posts, because i for one am sick of your nonsense, your stupid posts, and your trolling.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

which is why i have just reported one of your posts, because i for one am sick of your nonsense, your stupid posts, and your trolling.

lol

[meglamaniac]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Bad analogy, and generalising from self. Stop trying to argue that all non-smokers feel the way you do, as has been previously pointed out the people you're arguing with don't smoke either.

Kindly explain where the analogy does not reflect the current situation.
I am aware that most of the people making noise in this thread don't smoke - go go gadget political idealism.
It might not be a representative sample but the BBC poll is now up to 17,409 votes with 79.92% in favour of a total ban. That means for every person objecting, there are 9 in favour, and I haven't even included the supporters of a partial ban in that. This is democratic. It is fair to the majority of the population.

No doubt tomorrow every newspaper and TV news show under the sun, along with various opinion poll organisations will be running polls and I'll put money on it that none of them come close to 50/50 unless they only poll smokers.

The main crux of the argument here seems to be that it runs against the political ideologies of a couple of posters here. I have little time for that. This is the real world, and most of the real world will a little happier tonight.

[roadrunner_0]

funnily enough, all of the private member clubs near me charge membership fees, they have committees who decide if you are allowed to be a member etc

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

funnily enough, all of the private member clubs near me charge membership fees, they have committees who decide if you are allowed to be a member etc

Well, mine doesnt.

[roadrunner_0]

im not including rileys in my definition of private member clubs btw

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

Kindly explain where the analogy does not reflect the current situation.
I am aware that most of the people making noise in this thread don't smoke - go go gadget political idealism.
It might not be a representative sample but the BBC poll is now up to 17,409 votes with 79.92% in favour of a total ban. That means for every person objecting, there are 9 in favour, and I haven't even included the supporters of a partial ban in that. This is democratic. It is fair to the majority of the population.

No doubt tomorrow every newspaper and TV news show under the sun, along with various opinion poll organisations will be running polls and I'll put money on it that none of them come close to 50/50 unless they only poll smokers.

The main crux of the argument here seems to be that it runs against the political ideologies of a couple of posters here. I have little time for that. This is the real world, and most of the real world will a little happier tonight.

fyi, "most people agree with my stupid opinion ergo I'm right" and "lol welcome to the real world" were voted #2 and #5 respectively in a poll of "most commonly used internet arguments by people who have ran out of rational justifications for their position" carried out in 2004 (#1 was "I'll beat u up")

[s|k]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Should the state be allowed to dictate to people what they can and cannot allow on their own property. Please tick box:

Yes [ ]
No [ ]





PS If I was a publican I'd ask everyone who comes to my pub whether or not they were a smoker. If they said yes, let them in but no smoking, if they say no accuse them of being drunk and chuck them out. That way everyone loses.

I don't think people should be able to allow murder on their own property. Should I tick yes?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

im not including rileys in my definition of private member clubs btw

Why dont you just define private membership clubs to be "anywhere I dont go to regularly" and save yourself the hassle of drawing a rigid line?

[meglamaniac]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

fyi, "most people agree with my stupid opinion ergo I'm right" and "lol welcome to the real world" were voted #2 and #5 respectively in a poll of "most commonly used arguments by people who have ran out of rational justifications for their position" carried out in 2004 (#1 was "I'll beat u up")

So "ur fukkin ded" didn't make it then?
fyi, "I have a position on the far side of an argument so I can try my hardest to annoy everyone, and it's not trolling because i'm being eloquent" was voted #3 on the same poll. Stop trolling.

[roadrunner_0]

because i sometimes sign in a guest to private member clubs with friends who are members.

to me, a private member club is somewhere where you actually have to be a vetted member of the club, rather than somewhere you can walk into off the street and become a member of in 2 mins ( yes, i have been a member of a rileys before) otherwise there is no difference between a pub and a private member club

[meglamaniac]

I would have thought a sensible definition of a private members club is a club which has a policy of only admitting people who are members, or in some cases guests of members.

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

because i sometimes sign in a guest to private member clubs with friends who are members.

to me, a private member club is somewhere where you actually have to be a vetted member of the club, rather than somewhere you can walk into off the street and become a member of in 2 mins ( yes, i have been a member of a rileys before) otherwise there is no difference between a pub and a private member club

The actual situation of most private members clubs having a long process required to become a member has nothing to do with the possibility of the sheet of paper and the name signing thing.

Please stop using examples from your life (your opinion regarding what a private members club "should" be, or is) as if they are an argument after the discussion has moved onto a different level.

[Emperor Rozenski]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

The BBC poll on that exact same page has 80% in support, 11% in support of a partial ban, and 9% for no change. That's from over 13,000 responses.

Keep watching it, pro-smoking groups usually seem to hammer the BBC's smoking polls, they always start out at 80%-90% in favour of a ban then 'mysteriously' end up at 50/50, or even against a ban! - Yeah right, that's representitive of public opinion! Kinda sad really, they know that public opinion is genuinely against them, what do they hope to achieve? Then again, people who think their rights include being allowed to poision other people at will clearly have a skewed sense of reality anyway!

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

The actual situation of most private members clubs having a long process required to become a member has nothing to do with the possibility of the sheet of paper and the name signing thing.

Please stop using examples from your life (your opinion regarding what a private members club "should" be, or is) as if they are an argument after the discussion has moved onto a different level.

i live in the north east of england, within 2 miles of my home there are...7 private members clubs and 2 snooker clubs, the snooker clubs are not private, hence anyone can join, the 7 private clubs require a reccomendation from a member and an interview with the committe, before you can join






THAT is the difference between a club and a private members club


EDIT: obviously, i they were going to pass different laws for pubs/ PM clubs they would have to codify the difference, but, quite frankly, that isnt my problem and isnt what the argument is about

[PSH]

I am against a total ban, I can understand the wishes of non-smokers to socialise in a non-smoking environment but why can't there be smoking pubs in the way that there are non-smoking pubs at the moment?

As for there being no such thing as a passive drink health hazard, pop down to your local casualty one Friday or Saturday night and take a look around.

[Deepflow]

the definition (in this case) should be from a legal point of view, not an anecdotal one.

[lokken]

The government gives licences to places that sell alcohol. Technically, it can add any condition it damn well likes, considering it dishes out the licences and can decide on what basis to give them if such establishments are open to members of the general public. Whether you are free to do x is neither here nor there, they've simply responded to the needs and demands of their electorate and attached conditions accordingly.

I don't really agree with imposing it on private clubs as the membership might be agreeable to it - if anything the most they should be forced to do is take a vote on it every few years to decide whether they want it or not. As for those spuriously handing out membership, they'd be viewed as a sham, and shut down.

If anything the effect on freedom isn't too much to worry about. Instead of the non-smokers being forced to put up with it, it's publicans and the smokers themselves who now have to make a choice, instead of previously it being non-smokers who could go these mythical places called non-smoking pubs (which quite frankly outside big cities, don't exist). Roles have been reversed. But it's obviously beneficial to health and means you stink of fags less when you never smoked in the first place.

I'm all for it when it comes to places you can just walk into off the street.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

the definition (in this case) should be from a legal point of view, not an anecdotal one.

I agree.

What is the legal definition?

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

I agree.

What is the legal definition?

bugger knows, why don't you tell me?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

bugger knows, why don't you tell me?

because I was too busy pointing out that you were being a fatuous arse.

insulting rr for no good reason when in fact you know bugger all.

[roadrunner_0]

if you have actually read all of the BBC stories on this over the last couple of days you would realise that the plans for private members clubs whould actually have been ok, but, as it happens, they were voted against, which, once again and for hte record, i will state that i disagree with

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

because I was too busy pointing out that you were being a fatuous arse.

insulting rr for no good reason when in fact you know bugger all.

I didn't insult him, I wouldn't do that, I merely suggested he frame his argument in a different fasion.

You insulted me, but then I wouldn't expect anything else from you.

[Cooling]

Consider the compliance cost issues (if any). Here there was seen as a need for pubs to provide their patrons with an outdoor garden bar (where possible). These have proved popular in some of the more established bars.

Others force their patrons out onto rickety deck areas. Inevitably these end up being standing room only. On the plus side it gives the effect of a permanent smoke machine as the cloud drifts indoors.

All of this costs money of course.

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

if you have actually read all of the BBC stories on this over the last couple of days you would realise that the plans for private members clubs whould actually have been ok, but, as it happens, they were voted against, which, once again and for hte record, i will state that i disagree with

I agree there, I have no problem with private members clubs allowing smoking. I just don't support the ban at all.

[roadrunner_0]

i support the ban in pubs for the simple reason that you can go outside and smoke, under most pubs rules im not allowed to go outside and drink (for the purposes of this post, beer gardens count as 'on the premises')



EDIT: sorry, to clarify, i say beer gardeens are on the premises in that a lot of the time, especially in town centre pubs, beer gardens are closed on a night

[Deepflow]

Fair enough, I don't agree with you, but I would just be recycling arguments from earlier in the thread if I argued.

In the end, your side of the argument "won" in as much as it's soon going to be law

[roadrunner_0]

where would GD be if everyone agreed though? it would be no where near as good a place to waste my time

[Phang]

if an unabusable definition of private members club was introduced (two week waiting period, interviews, suchlike) then one half of the present problem would be solved. If they were required to provide hazmat suits to every potential member of staff, the other half would be solved.

in this case, i would oppose a total ban. otherwise, and primarily due to the second clause, it seems the best option, because the situation of "unemployment or cancer" should never be able to arise.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Phang

if an unabusable definition of private members club was introduced (two week waiting period, interviews, suchlike) then one half of the present problem would be solved. If they were required to provide hazmat suits to every potential member of staff, the other half would be solved.

in this case, i would oppose a total ban. otherwise, and primarily due to the second clause, it seems the best option, because the situation of "unemployment or cancer" should never be able to arise.

1) we have a fully working definition of private members club. You may have noticed this:

a) because parliament voted on the distinction and they would not waste time voting on a non-existant concept,
b) private members clubs have been made exempt from other laws for the past 200 years: ie. licensing and sexual discrimination laws.

2) Being unemployed and staying at home will dramaticly reduce your risk of cancer. A new law will not prevent that.

3) The issue of 'preserving' life has been blown out of all proportion:

a) because you will all still die.
b) because these measures will not protect you from cancer

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by s|k

I don't think people should be able to allow murder on their own property. Should I tick yes?

This reminds me of that time I expressed a preference for allowing people to do what they want and someone was all like "lol what about killing each other". To be honest I don't think that was the first time that had happened on the internet but I may be wrong on that.

[Yahwe]

poll results from auntie

What type of smoking ban should be introduced?
Total ban
79.45%
Partial ban
11.78%
No change
8.77%
21105 Votes Cast

they just don't seem to understand do they?

the 'general public'. they don't seem to comprehend what freedom is.

they can't seem to grasp why something they dislike shouldn't be made illeagal merely because they dislike it.

they don't seem to remember what was fought for or what this country is.

so sad.

EDIT: still i once thought GD was better ...

[pig]

Im a smoker.

Im not too upset about the ban, however the private member clubs is the bit that gets me. They are private.

Also a question, since theres going to be loads more patio heaters what about the Environment, the environment ;/

The best speech on the whole matter was by the MP Mr Pound.

Read and enjoy it

Then up sprang Mr Pound, who has been Labour MP for Ealing since 1997. We might wish, he said, to be "seagreen incorruptibles, standing on snow-capped peaks, saying 'let there be no tobacco! Let a thousand children breathe uncluttereded air!' - unless of course they live in a city, or a town, or a village or anywhere there is a motorcar ..."

Purely in the interests of research, he had found himself questing for licensed premises in Dublin, where it is illegal to smoke in pubs.

He had discovered that one type of tavern to be found there was rimmed with patio heaters and benches outside "so you had to fight your way through a fug to get into the damn place".

"My advice is 'buy patio heater shares now!'" he told cheering MPs, and even the prune-mouthed, whey-faced prescriptivists joined the laughter.

He was interrupted by Lynne Jones MP. "Hang on a second," he told her. "I'm a little short of breath, so what little I have I want to make the most of."

He described his younger days. "Every morning I would rise and have a reflective cigarette, and then I would have breakfast and a cigarette. I would say my prayers, but I would remember what my Jesuit confessor told me: you must never, ever smoke while you're praying. But you can pray while you're smoking."

By this time MPs were in tucks of merry laughter.

It is rare that anyone makes a rollicking, comical speech in a parliament that seems to be occupied mostly by harshness and pomposity.

"I would then get on the bus and leap like a live gazelle to the upper deck where I would have a couple of Players Weights, jump off the bus, and by the time I got to my primary school ..."

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

they just don't seem to understand do they?

the 'general public'. they don't seem to comprehend what freedom is.

they can't seem to grasp why something they dislike shouldn't be made illeagal merely because they dislike it.

they don't seem to remember what was fought for or what this country is.

so sad.

EDIT: still i once thought GD was better ...

insert some analogy about "freedom to kill people" and why it's bad here.

oh and freedom not to smell of smoke when I go out etc etc.

I can't be bothered to go over the same arguments again and again.

At the end of the day - I'm a non-smoker and I'm happy (perhaps selfishly, i don't really care) that I will be able to go out without breathing in other peoples smoke.
I believe it will be a good thing for health reasons and I believe it will not be bad for business.

done dusted i'm going to bed