The proposed law

[IncubusGod]

Most people here dont seem to grasp the concept that this law means:

You can't smoke in workplaces.

Not 'public places' not 'just pubs and restaraunts'. This is because if you enter a smoke filled pub,for instance, and you don't want to put up with the smoke you can just leave.
However that luxury is not afforded to those who work there. They can't just leave.If they did they'd be fired.
This is to protect those in the workplace from the harmful effects of smoke. Workplaces include pubs,restaraunts,clubs,factories etc.

The argument about public vrs private would be more relevant to banning smoking in public and so on.This is not what's happened here.

And

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Create designated "Smokers Pubs" , and let them go in there. Leave the choice up to the bar owner though..

Again how do you protect the workers from the harmful effects of smoking? Give them resperators? Full body chemsuits?
Workplaces are required to be areas where people can earn a living without having to incur illness or harm.

[MrL_JaKiri]

How about you let it be known that it's a smoking pub, so people without a ****ing problem with it can work there?

It's not like all pubs have super-asthmatics as barstaff.

[Evil Skragg]

MrL!?!?! Ny god, yer awake at this ungodly hour TOO!?!?!

[IncubusGod]

You don't need to be a super-asthmatic to suffer ill effects from second hand smoke. Just sitting there,in a pub,inhaling all that smoke over time will damage you.

Plus what if someone has no choice but to apply for the job in that pub or establishment. Is it fair to make your employees ill just because they need to pay the mortgage and the kids need new school books?
Why not extend that logic.

Why not save money and take away resperators in cotton mills and flax mills? You can let it be known that employees will be inhaling dust particles every day that will give them cancer and kill them 15 years early so that anyone without a ****ing problem with it can work there?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

Why not save money and take away resperators in cotton mills and flax mills? You can let it be known that employees will be inhaling dust particles every day that will give them cancer and kill them 15 years early so that anyone without a ****ing problem with it can work there?

You're being silly here.

The problem with things like Asbestos (for example) was not that workers knew the risks and continued to work anyway. The problem was that the dangers were relatively unknown and kept from workers, etc.

If there are jobs which are dangerous then people can be paid extra to recompense them (e.g. Firemen & Police). Pretty simple really. The problem (as is generally the case) that workers aren't sufficiently organised to properly demand wages (fragmented labour market, etc). Stronger organisation is the answer to employer tyranny, not banning everything that moves.

As for "forced" to working in a pub, welfare benefits can pay people's mortgages and feed families where necessary. It's not ideal, but if I was concerned about smoke, it's what I'd do (if there were no other jobs other than bar staff).

[JonnyBGood]

It was nice to wake up this morning and not stink of smoke though! As Incubus said pub and club takings are up and people are drinking more. Frankly I think it's pretty amusing that this has, and will continue to, cause smokers to consume more alcohol possibly leading to health problems in later life and doubtlessly contributing to a higher number of alcohol-related injuries/deaths. Will the government be taking responsibility for this as they're taking the responsibility for everything else? I ****ing think not.

[IncubusGod]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

As for "forced" to working in a pub, welfare benefits can pay people's mortgages and feed families where necessary. It's not ideal, but if I was concerned about smoke, it's what I'd do (if there were no other jobs other than bar staff).

Have you SEEN welfare payments in this country? They couldnt cover a mortgage let alone feed a family for a week. If you have a mortgage and kids needing feeding and you have the choice of a bar job that will in all probability give you cancer in 15-20 years time with the levels of smoke but a regular and modest paycheque that will cover your outgoings or applying to the social welfare that wont cover shit most will take the bar job.

Sure you could apply,get less money than you can live on through welfare then maybe go on the housing list and wait 1year+ for a place but if you went to apply for welfare and the officer see's you've turned down work then you get fk all.

This is what this law is trying to avoid. I would have thought most people would support a law protecting workers.

Clearly alot of those who lean to the left abandon their beliefs in workers rights to health and safety when their habit is at stake.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

Have you SEEN welfare payments in this country?

Hmmm, let's see. I grew up in a family on welfare, I work in an organisation which get's 70% of it's income from welfare recepients, I've been trained in welfare benefits, and a good proportion of my job is advising people on benefits. I'd tend to say yes.

If you are on income support, and have a mortgage, you can apply for housing benefit to cover your mortgage payments (similar to if you were renting). That's completley seperate from any payment you'd get from JSA or Income Support or DLA or whatever. The government will be changing to the Local Housing Allowance or somesuch shortly so we'll need to see what that covers.

If people apply to everything they are legally entitled they can feed themselves, although I agree it's a pittance. Half the problem is people not getting everything they could as the system is deliberately nightmarishly complicated.

Clearly alot of those who lean to the left abandon their beliefs in workers rights to health and safety when their habit is at stake.

I'm not a smoker. Never have been, and I doubt I ever will (despite whatever else I might take). The issue isn't even smoking per se. It's about state power. I don't want the state to have anymore. The workers have had over fifty years of increasing state power in the name of social democracy and we're still no closer to self-liberation. More state power is absolutley the last thing we need.

What we do need is self-organisation and solidarity to ensure that if there are concerns among bar-staff they are adequately protected and/or compensated. Not via bland edicts from above, but from struggle from below.

[IncubusGod]

You assume I was talking about the U.K? In a thread about Ireland's smoking ban and me posting several times about the effects of it over here.

Your not that bright are you.


Here its different,you can claim rent allowance but that doesnt come close to covering a normal mortgage. It doesnt even cover normal rent expenses for a week. 70% last I knew of it (my cousin is claiming it).

You then have to cyphon off some of the basic you recive for living.

My point remains vaild. Why go to all this trouble when you would be under so much pressure to just take the job.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

Your not that bright are you.

I was speaking more generally I admit, although what I said applies for Ireland too.

The Mortgage / Rent supplement as I understand is there to do _EXACTLY_ the same as housing benefit in the UK - i.e. to stop people's income falling below a level deemed unaccptable. Obviously there's certain criteria ("reasonablenes").

The welfare systems of Western Europe are pretty similar. I can think of no country in Western Europe and in the EU where welfare would not cover housing + food if applied in a sensible manner.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

My point remains vaild. Why go to all this trouble when you would be under so much pressure to just take the job.

Well, I would certainly go for the job, yes. But you're positing an individual who despises smoke, so I presume they'd do all they can to avoid it.

If you're talking about the levels of harm done via passive smoking on a person who doesn't really care then it doesn't strike me as an unreasonable amount. How many individuals are in a position where they need to pay a mortgage and the _ONLY_ job they can get is in a bar? It's not exactly tonnes is it?

edit : And as I say, the answer is workers action, not state control. Let's be clear what we're doing if we ban something. Even if you had someone who wanted to own a pub for smokers, and only imply bar staff who _loved_ smoke, they would not be able to because you've banned it.

[IncubusGod]

My point is this,I dont argue the benifits could allow people to cover housing and living. I was simply pointing out that having to go through the process itself for an established family in their own house would be so hideously complicated,traumatic and hard that pressure would be put on the person to take the bar job(the only job available to them in this argument) no matter what cost to their health in the long run.

And the "bar" can be subsituted with any work area where smoking had to be endured by the staff.

Im not trying to argue with you about benift levels. Im simply pointing out that workers are and would be forced to put their health at risk on a regular basis simply to get by.
The point of this law is to protect workers. Not to infringe on smokers rights just for the sake of it.

People can go on about the governments power and their bringing in of restrive laws but who else will look after the rights of citizens?
I was under the impression that governments were elected bodies appointed to serve and protect the citizens of its country. Clearly with capitalist economies the businesses only wish to serve their shareholders,unions can only do so much. Its up to the government to protect people.
This measure is no different than compulsary hard hats,face masks,saftey shoes,H&S audits and innuerable other regulations that are in place to prevent the employer placing profit over the health and wellbeing of their employees.

edit:
(the ONLY job thing was just for arguments sake)

And you couldnt have a bar open and advertise only for smokers to apply. That is discriminatory.
Again workers rights take precidence and again people bitch and moan when they work for them then suddenly impact their habits.

Plus does it strike anyone as odd that people are so brainwashed that they consider their slavish addiction to a product that will probably kill them and is costing them huge sums yet providing very little if no pleasure or use to them to be their RIGHT,then argue about that instead of focusing on the Tobacco Firms who have made them their bitch?

[Ebany]

On the housing benefit form I was filling in recently, it repeatedly said that it did NOT cover motgage payments, only rent. They seem to think if you own a house and are that badly off you should sell it and pay more in rent, then they will help you.

I dont know if there is some other form of housing benefit you can get that does cover mortgages though, I'm sure one of my house buying financial things would have mentioned it by now given they are always talking about how to afford it.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Ebany

On the housing benefit form I was filling in recently, it repeatedly said that it did NOT cover motgage payments, only rent. They seem to think if you own a house and are that badly off you should sell it and pay more in rent, then they will help you.

I dont know if there is some other form of housing benefit you can get that does cover mortgages though, I'm sure one of my house buying financial things would have mentioned it by now given they are always talking about how to afford it.

Although it's administered in a similar fashion, it's technically known as "Income Support Mortgage Interest". It exists for a similar reason to housing benefit. The basic difference is that you can start a tenancy and immediately claim for housing benefit (this is how most social housing / council housing takes place) but you'll find it very hard to get a mortgage while on benefits (obviously). It's also structured so it's not actually helping you pay for the capital cost of the house. The premise being that the benefit system shouldn't be helping people to amass wealth I guess.

It mainly exists so people who are made redundant after taking out a mortgage don't immediately face repossession while looking for work.

The whole system is a bit of a mess, and I'm interested to see how changes in housing benefit could affect both sides. Theoretically, with people willing to share you could see individuals being able to make money via their housing choice.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

People can go on about the governments power and their bringing in of restrive laws but who else will look after the rights of citizens?

Erm, us? Who do you think is the biggest risk to freedom? A quick tour through history shows that most widescale human rights violations are carried out by someone wielding, or allied to state power.

Besides, I'm talking about the rights of citizenry anyway. This isn't a case of "Who wants more rights, kids?". You're prefacing a specific right (to work in a non-smoking environment) over other rights (right to allow smoking or whatever in a private establishment).

Plus does it strike anyone as odd that people are so brainwashed that they consider their slavish addiction to a product that will probably kill them and is costing them huge sums yet providing very little if no pleasure or use to them to be their RIGHT,then argue about that instead of focusing on the Tobacco Firms who have made them their bitch?

I'm not interested in the rights of smokers, it's a disgusting habit as I've said numerous times. I'm interested in what we're allowed to do in private spaces.

As I say, I like listening to loud music in night clubs. This is damaging my health, and the health of the staff. While there are earplugs, this isn't suitable for all staff and so the exact same argument can be made to ban music over a certain volume in any "public" place.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

Clearly alot of those who lean to the left abandon their beliefs in workers rights to health and safety when their habit is at stake.

Clearly you haven't read the thread, otherwise you would know that Dante doesn't smoke, I don't smoke, and we both would prefer (from a purely selfish point of view) bars to be nonsmoking.

[Phang]

dante


please explain


why are you supporting the employers over the employees in a debate about working conditions? what sort of communist are you?


ps i fully support anything to cut smoking rights so long as we have drug laws in place

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

why are you supporting the employers over the employees in a debate about working conditions? what sort of communist are you?

Yes because that's exactly what the debate is isn't it?

If it matters, I support the notion of most pubs, etc being run in a co-operative fashion so the workers would decide what rules to enforce in their place of employment (e.g. no smoking, townies, etc).

This isn't employees vs employers. It's people who want the state to have more power vs everyone else. On an individual case where (say) employees are on strike to have smoking restricted from their pub, I'll go stand with them on the picket line, spit on the scabs, donate to the strike fund, etc.

ps i fully support anything to cut smoking rights so long as we have drug laws in place

I've no idea what a "smoking right" is, but as I oppose pretty much all drug laws (except labelling regulations maybe) so this is moot. If you mean something banal like "the right to smoke" then no such right exists.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I've no idea what a "smoking right" is, but as I oppose pretty much all drug laws (except labelling regulations maybe) so this is moot. If you mean something banal like "the right to smoke" then no such right exists.

i mean as in, "I don't think there should be any form of tolerance given to smoking that isn't given to other, illegal narcotics and banning their consumption in the workplace is a welcome step toward this. (I also oppose drug laws but so long as there are such laws, they ought to be universal and tobacco/possibly even alcohol should be subject to similar restrictions)


Oh, and for the state vs everyone else point, stop being so utterly idealist. Complaints brought about by individual workers or small groups of workers - hell, even unions - would not affect a change and would leave employees with the choice of 'stay in a highly uncomfortable environment' or 'leave and be unemployed'. Without state intervention this would remain the case. This is not about removing individual freedom (to hurt yourself and those around you) but giving individual freedom (to work without getting cancer). CT had a good point for the public/private thing: Applying for a liquor license means your establishment is at least in one sense supposed to be a public place.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

(I also oppose drug laws but so long as there are such laws, they ought to be universal and tobacco/possibly even alcohol should be subject to similar restrictions)

I see where you are coming from, but only in a "Let's show how stupid the law really is" sort of way. I can't really justify making the law really really bad just so worse bits of the law seem stupid. Under your logic we should be imprisoning people who drink coffee, tea or coca-cola.

Oh, and for the state vs everyone else point, stop being so utterly idealist. Complaints brought about by individual workers or small groups of workers - hell, even unions - would not affect a change and would leave employees with the choice of 'stay in a highly uncomfortable environment' or 'leave and be unemployed'. Without state intervention this would remain the case.

Nonsense. Unions wield an enormous amount of power when they aren't artificially hobbled by oppressive state measures. The workers could easily oppose 90% of stupid employer actions if they simply utilised the power they already have. Giving the state more power is a step away from human liberation, not towards it.

Besides, I'm not sure if this is such a big issue. If you choose to work in a bar there are plenty of things that are just a given. You have to put up with moronic drunks. If you are female you will have morons coming onto you. It will be smokey, and the environment will stink of beer.

This is not about removing individual freedom (to hurt yourself and those around you) but giving individual freedom (to work without getting cancer). CT had a good point for the public/private thing: Applying for a liquor license means your establishment is at least in one sense supposed to be a public place.

And see Tact's excellent response to CT's post. I oppose the whole notion of centralised licences anyway. "Hey I give you permission to sell hot food, aren't I benevolent".

As I've said ad nausea : This not about smoking per se (the right to hurt yourself as you put it) it's about what leaseholders or freeholders can do.

Also : You're not GIVEN rights except via contract. Rights simply exist and are either respected by others, or they are violated. The government does not give me the right to speak freely. They simply don't imprison me for speaking my mind.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Phang

CT had a good point for the public/private thing: Applying for a liquor license means your establishment is at least in one sense supposed to be a public place.

No he didn't. It's a piss poor point which assumes that x is alright and therefore y is fine too, whereas in reality x is some bizzare assumption which doesn't really make much sense.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

"Hey I give you permission to sell hot food, aren't I benevolent".

Benevolence doesn't enter into it, nor does the wisdom of the license system. The point is that given the system, the government sets out restrictions it feels should be placed on the business, for example of the smoking ban to increase worker rights. This is nothing to do with an increase in state power, merely a change in the specifics.

And on the union point? This is true but only up to the point where workers cant be hired in five minutes. Bar work is not the sort of profession where the union has anything to use against the employers. No; government intervention is basically the only effective means for aiding bar staff and a number of similar or cash-in-hand jobs.

Oh, and on the drug point? I didn't express myself clearly. I'm opposed to drug laws against people IN THEIR OWN HOMES but the possibility that someone goes in a bad trip and endangers others after shooting up in a restaurant makes me less friendly to drug use in public. Tobacco is absolutely damaging to those around a user and as such anything to safeguard people's right not to be affected is by me.

Put it this way: There's nothing to stop people smoking on a street who, likely being a bunch of townie pricks as so many smokers are, find it hilarious to breathe smoke into the faces of passers-by. That's not something the passer-by can neccessarily avoid, yet giving the guy the right to aviod others giving him cancer would require a far more totalitarian action (banning smoking in public full stop).

[queball]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

A public place is one maintained by the community (I realise Mark answered this two days ago, but I don't check this site on weekends). In our current system this means (generally) government controlled/owned/etc as I mentioned earlier. It's easy to invision an alternate system though.

So you're arguing towards the current system of private/public? Then that's where you're inconsistent. Or just to be crystal clear, by "controlled/owned/etc", what do you mean exactly? Legally or morally or what? Presumably wearing a sash that says "0wner" doesn't imply ownership, and owning the deeds only sets out specific rights. I just want know exactly where the ownership comes from. You can answer "oh, that's silly, obviously the deed-owner is the owner for this purpose" if you like.

You might think this is blurring the public/private distinction, but that sounds like a typical status quo argument to me. This seems to be revealing more useful public/private distinctions, if they weren't there already.

The government (as distributors of licences, etc) have plenty of all alternatives so I'm not sure why you're setting up a false dichotomy of "doing nothing" or totally banning the practice. For instance, they could simply charge more for "smoking licences" to general licences. They could force a 20% quota on all local authorities on new establishments to be totally non-smoking. They could force all licence holders to two days a week non-smoking. Whatever really.

Ok. So those are more examples than suggestions, but here goes: smoking licences would involve slightly more paperwork and tend to discriminate against the poor pubs in favour of the rich pubs. Legislating new establishments would take ages to have any effect. The last option is interesting but I don't see why you'd be happier with only two-sevenths the statism.

Originally Posted by Phang

This is nothing to do with an increase in state power, merely a change in the specifics.

agree completely

[JonnyBGood]

I think the objection was more to do with the actual right and wrong of it rather than an objection to an increase in state power with this being the final addition.

[Phang]

in that case, it means people smoke less which is great for every reason

• less cancer from smoking
• less cancer from passive smoking
• harms profits of tobacco companies -> less advertising etc -> even less smoking ad infinitum
• less money lost by the NHS due to smokers
• more money in the rest of the economy that isnt being spent on cigarettes
• less ****ing smoke to have to breathe in
• profit

[JonnyBGood]

I dunno about the UK but in Ireland the profits off taxes on cigarettes are ****ing huge.

And you're only noting the positives. And some of those you really shouldn't be noting unless you outlaw red meat, salt, alcohol and various other things as well.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

And you're only noting the positives. And some of those you really shouldn't be noting unless you outlaw red meat, salt, alcohol and various other things as well.

They'll be next. :/

[Phang]

fag tax (olo) is quite useful for the government, but so is all the money not being spent on cancer treatment and the money spent on cigarettes going elsewhere in the economy.

cigarettes cost the country money.

ps alcohol should be illegal based on drug laws but its too culturally significant and also it brings in money rather than costing it so not ****ing likely heh

[queball]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I dunno about the UK but in Ireland the profits off taxes on cigarettes are ****ing huge.

It doesn't particularly matter about whether smokers pay more than they cost. Health costs are there whoever pays for them. Then that argument only works if you plug it into incentive theory - "I only get out of bed so I can have a cig". That money would get spent on other things.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Phang

ps alcohol should be illegal based on drug laws but its too culturally significant and also it brings in money rather than costing it so not ****ing likely heh

By culturally significant do you mean popular? I mean, American prohibition failed because the laws weren't harsh enough to overcome alcohol's popularity. You can see that as a problem of culture or of law. And it encourages people to use other drugs, like opium and hash in India, Muslim countries, etc, which parents here seem to see as worse.

PS. don't you think anti-smoking laws will hurt the punk scene dude

[Phang]

im being slightly bitter about the pisshead culture we live in. basically yes, its too popular.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Phang

fag tax (olo) is quite useful for the government, but so is all the money not being spent on cancer treatment and the money spent on cigarettes going elsewhere in the economy.

cigarettes cost the country money.

If the money taken in tax is greater than the money spent, then the govenment doesn't loose money.

QED.

[Phang]

yes, but cigarette tax - healthcare costs < money spent on cigarettes that would otherwise be spent elsewhere in the economy and get taxed. => People have better lives, govt. income is about the same, non-tobacco companies are better off.

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by queball

By culturally significant do you mean popular? I mean, American prohibition failed because the laws weren't harsh enough to overcome alcohol's popularity. You can see that as a problem of culture or of law. And it encourages people to use other drugs, like opium and hash in India, Muslim countries, etc, which parents here seem to see as worse.

PS. don't you think anti-smoking laws will hurt the punk scene dude

why the hell will no smoking laws hurt the punk scene? the only 2 or 3 proper punks i know dont smoke??????

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Phang

yes, but cigarette tax - healthcare costs < money spent on cigarettes that would otherwise be spent elsewhere in the economy and get taxed. => People have better lives, govt. income is about the same, non-tobacco companies are better off.

You're assuming the tax rate is the same, which isn't so.

[Stew]

But people will live longer and spend more = more taxes?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

ps alcohol should be illegal based on drug laws but its too culturally significant and also it brings in money rather than costing it so not ****ing likely heh

That's a pretty disgusting attitude, dude.

"Hey, I'd like to take away these people's freedom but they keep resisting me."

Any restriction on what individuals do with their own bodies is tyranny. Full stop. This bullshit of "Oh but a small proportion of users cause me trouble" is nothing but intolerance as far as I'm concerned.

And as for these arguments about tax revenues - wtf? "Government outlaws freedom after it's found to be too expensive". I'm happy to pay for the NHS. I'm happy my taxes pay to stich up the drunks who go out fighting, happy it pays for heroin junkies to be given methodone and the hundred a day smokers cancer treatment. If you're not then just vote to abolish the NHS. Not banning everything that moves to balance the books.

Clearly the notion of solidarity has utterly failed on everyone whose busy advocated the end of freedom so they can have a 5p in the pound tax rebate.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

So you're arguing towards the current system of private/public? Then that's where you're inconsistent. Or just to be crystal clear, by "controlled/owned/etc", what do you mean exactly? Legally or morally or what? Presumably wearing a sash that says "0wner" doesn't imply ownership, and owning the deeds only sets out specific rights. I just want know exactly where the ownership comes from. You can answer "oh, that's silly, obviously the deed-owner is the owner for this purpose" if you like.

Right quite simply if we're asking how I think things should work :

Human rights stem from biology as I've said. We need space as I've also said. This is a finite resource and one where there is always squabbles. Therefore a sensible solution would be to say the planet Earth belongs to the human race collectively. As this is an ever changing flux, it's impractical to assign everyone a plot of land (plus, who get's what?). As such, communities are entrusted with certain areas. This pretty much lines up with who lives where. We can use existing fault lines like nation-states, towns, boroughs, wards, whatever really.

Now, clearly this communal power puts enormous power in collectives as opposed to individual hands. It's totally inappropriate that most land be in the hand of communal bodies anyway (for stuff like housing for example). Therefore, we create varying levels of tenure to reflect this. Houses would probably exist on some sort of 125 year (or whatever) land lease from the local authority which would be protected by some sort of legal arrangement (constitution). Shops and other facilities would exist in similar fashion with tenures being proportionally auctioned, assigned (or maybe by lots) and some held temporarily. Details would vary according to needs obviously.

Anyway, in these private spaces (homes, leased shops) the local authority (or mini-state if you prefer) would have no authority to enforce edicts / etc.

Under the current system, the idea of land ownership is weird and wacky and we all pretend it's legally justified where as it really just floats around in the air. It's pretty much completley unjustified. However, for political purposes it's disasterous to foster a political climate where private areas aren't sovereign.

Ok. So those are more examples than suggestions, but here goes: smoking licences would involve slightly more paperwork and tend to discriminate against the poor pubs in favour of the rich pubs. Legislating new establishments would take ages to have any effect. The last option is interesting but I don't see why you'd be happier with only two-sevenths the statism.

Oh, don't get me wrong - I'm not. I think all of the things I suggested would be bad, merely better than a total ban (I was trying to show there are alternatives for the 'Oh won't somebody think of the children' crowd for whom something has to be done).

p.s. I'm not sure why we all got sidetracked by pubs anyway. These kind of blanket bans on smoking in "public" apply in shops which sell absolutley no licenced goods. So the "Oh by getting a licence you agree for the state to anal probe you" argument is not strictly valid anyway.

Originally Posted by Phang

Benevolence doesn't enter into it, nor does the wisdom of the license system. The point is that given the system, the government sets out restrictions it feels should be placed on the business, for example of the smoking ban to increase worker rights. This is nothing to do with an increase in state power, merely a change in the specifics.

Nonsense. The licencing system (which is wrong anyway blah blah) sets down certain restrictions. Increasing the amount of restrictions is a loss of freedom. As such, anyone who respects freedom should oppose them.

[queball]

On utopia:
You'd lose some immediacy. Martial law and other kinds of edicts might seem ugly, but emergencies happen, and are unavoidable. There has to be some mechanism by which the immediacy of a situation can be managed. Otherwise it seems you're being unreasonable, putting long-term concerns over short-term concerns, theory over reality. Perhaps these collectives could work out some volunteerist scheme for handling this sort of thing, but then you've pretty much got representative democracy again.


To start talking about political purpose, and compromise, there is a kind of bias involved. How do you decide which cause is most important, or the "underlying issue" if there is such a thing? If you're being political, why support unpopular causes on an internet forum? It's cool in a kind of "hey, here's something to think about" way, but how does that connect to people assenting/supporting a law? Worker's rights are politically important, yeah? From whatever random web page I happen to be reading in my boredom...
"The preservation of a liberal society which maintains and sustains freedom requires us to look beyond liberalism to forms of social solidarity which are not wholly dependent on exclusive private property and economic growth, and are more open to participatory forms of democracy."
agree/disagree? (heh)


And it looks like this is indeed about workplaces rather than places open to the public, my bad. But I'd still say there exists a personal privacy different in kind from what happens to your shop in terms of moral rights.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

On utopia:
You'd lose some immediacy. Martial law and other kinds of edicts might seem ugly, but emergencies happen, and are unavoidable. There has to be some mechanism by which the immediacy of a situation can be managed. Otherwise it seems you're being unreasonable, putting long-term concerns over short-term concerns, theory over reality.

This is true, but I don't see how it applies here. Again, to use a property analogy - any reasonable tenancy gives the owner (or it's agents) permission to enter the property in life threatening emergencies occur (e.g. gas leak or similar). Private property wouldn't / doesn't over-rule human rights so if you were abusing a kid in your house, you could still get arrested. These things merely need to be heavily justified in retrospect (i.e. through investigations) or in advance (in court, to obtain a warrant of some kind).

If there was a "proper" emergency like a war of national survival then all the rules horribly go out the window anyway. Britain was completley underpinned by the notion of private property, but when WW2 started if you chose for _your_ factory to produce weapons for the German's you'd simply have been imprisoned. I'm not saying this is a good thing but it does seem an elemental truth of politics.

To start talking about political purpose, and compromise, there is a kind of bias involved. How do you decide which cause is most important, or the "underlying issue" if there is such a thing?

Everyone has priorities which stem from actual material concerns or just judgements. Which is more important, third world sweatshops or deforestation in Brazil? Which can we do more about? Who knows? It's all political judgements. All of this debate could be rendered blissfully irrelevent by some kind of ecological crisis, we simply don't know.

We do the best we can. Is freedom "more important" than workers rights? I don't think you can phrase the debate like that, but if you can then it's up to the individual involved to make a judgement call. Doctor's spend all day long dealing with sick people so to them "the health of the public is the highest law".

If you're being political, why support unpopular causes on an internet forum? It's cool in a kind of "hey, here's something to think about" way, but how does that connect to people assenting/supporting a law?

Well, I enter into these discussions mainly to flesh out my ideas. I'll have a vague opinion on something (like the child porn one) and then it becomes more concrete as the debate goes through. You guys are smart enough to point out any gaping holes in people's logic, and raise legitimate concerns. Is it doing any good in the general universal sense? Probably not.

I'm not interested particularly in what issues are unpopular or not - well, not in itself. There's no point discussing something everyone agrees on of course but if everyone is in total disagreement debate is similarly uninteresting. In real-life I don't generally bother voicing my opinions on animal rights for example as people get stupidly emotional about it and it's not usually worth the hassle.

"The preservation of a liberal society which maintains and sustains freedom requires us to look beyond liberalism to forms of social solidarity which are not wholly dependent on exclusive private property and economic growth, and are more open to participatory forms of democracy."agree/disagree? (heh)

That sounds reasonable enough, but things like that are vague to the point where it could be someone advocating workers control of industry to some sort of corporatist fascist solution. What does "look beyond liberalism" mean for instance?

And it looks like this is indeed about workplaces rather than places open to the public, my bad. But I'd still say there exists a personal privacy different in kind from what happens to your shop.

Maybe. It just seems perverse that a few guys working together in a workshop can't smoke at work(even if none object). I realise it wouldn't be enforced and that's an extreme, but why do we need to create laws which crimanlise perfectly good behaviour?

It's like the PA Forum Rules. A few months ago there was a debate about the censor rule. People were evading the censors and being threatened with bans because of it. But why do we have the censor evasion rule? Just in case there's an emergency (basically) and someone posts the word "f*ck" five hundred times. Which is kind of fair enough in a weird logic.

But people weren't posting **** five hundred times. It was the odd relatively harmless post. So why the threats? Well, we need to enforce all the rules to the letter otherwise people will disobey all of them, etc, etc. Do you see where I'm coming from?

Rules like this would probably be OK if it was someone cool enforcing them. But there's no guarantee of anything like that. It's not even the slippery-slope argument. Maybe for the first twenty years the "Smoking Ban Enforcement Committee" will be located inside a department with cool hip dudes who are down with the groove. But then, as some sort of budgement cutting exercise it's relocated elsewhere. And freedoms (or just quality of life) starts to deterioate simply because we have a bad laws on the statute books.

[queball]

I do think this has some of the same characteristics as an emergency. Every war, every truely political issue does, and that's one way to understand why liberalism doesn't work. The vocal non-smokers are, apparently, stubborn gits, and want action now . I think that quote was talking about the kind of post-WWII vision embodied in the EU, UN, you might call it positive rights I guess.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It's like the PA Forum Rules. A few months ago there was a debate about the censor rule. People were evading the censors and being threatened with bans because of it. But why do we have the censor evasion rule? Just in case there's an emergency (basically) and someone posts the word "f*ck" five hundred times. Which is kind of fair enough in a weird logic.

But people weren't posting **** five hundred times. It was the odd relatively harmless post. So why the threats? Well, we need to enforce all the rules to the letter otherwise people will disobey all of them, etc, etc. Do you see where I'm coming from?

hmm, JJ didn't quite advice me to enforce rules to the letter, quite the opposite in fact

Personally, I would love to be able to advocate private property as the basis of freedom, but I don't see how I can do it honestly. I don't like how I give some principle, then have to admit that I would relax that principle for pragmatic reasons, which is what I was trying to pull on you vis-a-vis squatters' rights. Surely everything is about universal good, and if you aren't going for universal good, but just fleshing out various good-like concepts, then you can't get your moral superiority on.

How can a ban on smoking become corrupted btw? As long as it's not corrupt to start off with, I don't see it being a bigger problem than the guy smoking cannabis in the cinema the other day, people sniffing coke in clubs, etc.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

I do think this has some of the same characteristics as an emergency. Every war, every truely political issue does, and that's one way to understand why liberalism doesn't work. The vocal non-smokers are, apparently, stubborn gits, and want action now. I think that quote was talking about the kind of post-WWII vision embodied in the EU, UN, you might call it positive rights I guess.

I don't think the quote was saying anything like that. But nvm.

I'm not sure why it matters that there's a vocal minority that want action now. There are plenty of vocal minorities who want action now, so what? What if I want an end to all mixed-race marriages NOW. Does it matter? Can I compare the situation to WW2 and demand individual rights are trampled on for my preferences?

hmm, JJ didn't quite advice me to enforce rules to the letter, quite the opposite in fact

Oh of course, it wasn't a complaint about the mods per se. Merely an example about how a reasonable rule get's twisted either way. Either we have a bunch of unenforced laws on the books which everyone ignores, or we have laws which actually are enforced to the letter, but are reasonable in the first place.

Let's imagine something silly like : A PA forum without clause #1 (i.e. if people are banned, there always has to be a reason). We found out that one of the gimmicks (Work_Monkey say) was on a specific ISP (AOL say). So JJ then inserts a rule that anyone who uses AOL can be banned on sight. That way, the mods don't need to bother thinking of a reason to ban him, they can ban him just on the basis of AOL. And there was much rejoicing. Except, you and I both use AOL too. But it's OK. The Mods won't enforce the rule with us, as we're dudes.

But then, after an argument or something you annoy one of the mods. You're then banned for having AOL as your ISP. The rule hasn't been corruped, merely enforced.

Surely everything is about universal good

It depends what you mean by the universal good (of course). I'd follow Russell on this : Ultimately, we're all utilitarians on some level. We'd all like to act so our actions produced results for the best. But except in the most trivial of cases it's impossible to calculate the overall effect our actions will have. So we create rules as sort of a heuristic short-cut. Maybe killing people is for the overall best in the long long run, but it's impossible to judge so we just say killing people is wrong.

Property isn't the basis of freedom. It's merely part of it. With squatters rights, the issue is presently (and forever basically) property has been illegitimately distributed. So whether some hippies dwell in a building in Kentish Town or it's "rightful" owners is morally equivalent. Neither have any more right to be there than the other. So we look at the practical issues of housing, use of properties, etc.

How can a ban on smoking become corrupted btw? As long as it's not corrupt to start off with, I don't see it being a bigger problem than the guy smoking cannabis in the cinema the other day, people sniffing coke in clubs, etc.

I'm not talking about corruption. I'm talking about enforcement (as above). A rule which bans two or three people smoking in small office which only they use is utter madness but seems to be the logical outcome of this kind of legislation.

Interestingly, in California I believe they have a similar type of legislation. According to my houstemate who went to San Fran a while ago there have been some "smokers bars" come into existence which are run/managed by the owner - the only member of staff. As such, they are immune from health and safety legislation. Unsurprisingly, they are popular with customers.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by MrL

You're assuming the tax rate is the same, which isn't so.

No, I'm saying that the lower tax rate provides more income than the higher cigarette tax rate when the cost of smoking-related illnesses is subtracted from the latter.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

This bullshit of "Oh but a small proportion of users cause me trouble" is nothing but intolerance as far as I'm concerned.

Jesus christ. Do you realise you just advocated an end to drink-driving laws?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

Jesus christ. Do you realise you just advocated an end to drink-driving laws?

No, as roads aren't private places. If you were to have private roads then I'd be more than happy to have drunk people on them, so long as everyone knew the risks. If for instance, someone drove around their own land while drunk, where would the problem be?

Where we have communal roads it makes sense to have some agreed practices about speeding, driving licences, etc. Besides, comparing "someone shooting up heroin in public" with potentially fatal motor accidents is kinda weird. What harm does someone taking heroin in a café (say) do to you aside from offending middle class sensibilities?

Yesterday I travelled on public transport with some friends while on drugs and I can safely say we were doing less "social harm" than the ****ers who were trying to sell us stolen goods at the time.

edit : Also the argument about drink driving is that pretty much everyone's capacity to drive suffers terribly after drinking. If the vast majority of people were insanely violent after taking ecstacy (say) then obviously I'd oppose people taking it in public.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yesterday I travelled on public transport with some friends while on drugs and I can safely say we were doing less "social harm" than the ****ers who were trying to sell us stolen goods at the time.

Yes, and my dad while tipsy is a far better driver than some tosser in a BMW doing 80 in a residential area. But the point is that substances which seriously affect judgement and cogent ability should not be used in public places where if something goes wrong, it goes wrong for everyone around you. Put it this way: If on the bus, it had been the ****ers trying to sell you things who had been under the influence as opposed to you, then the amount of "social harm" would ramp up suddenly.

I guess my point is that until we have some way to ban idiots from using mind-affecting substances in an arena where they can endanger others, a blanket ban on substances in an arena where the user can endanger others is the best option. As i have said I have no opposition to drug use when isolated or with consenting others.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

But the point is that substances which seriously affect judgement and cogent ability should not be used in public places where if something goes wrong, it goes wrong for everyone around you.

For consistency, do you oppose mentally ill people with no history of violence being able to walk the streets, or do you think they should all be locked away 24/7?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

As i have said I have no opposition to drug use when isolated or with consenting others.

But, as with the smoking thing, how do you determine consent? I'm not sure if Ecstacy fits under your "mind-altering substance" category but presuming it does, can I take it in a club? I presume not, since I haven't got the consent of everyone there. Doesn't it make more sense to simply have a sign on the door saying : "There are going to be people taking drugs, drinking and smoking inside. Come in, but know the risks!".

But just to clarify under your ideal society : I can't smoke, drink, take pills or anything similar at a club?

Put it this way: If on the bus, it had been the ****ers trying to sell you things who had been under the influence as opposed to you, then the amount of "social harm" would ramp up suddenly.

Not really. You've got an image of drug use being a universal. People who are drunk can get aggressive, agreed. Same with (I understand) crack. And probably coke, although I've never personally found that. But anyway. There's no reason to think that if these cockney wide boys were on mushrooms the situation would have been much worse. They probably would have fallen over.

It's like the misconception that anyone with a mental illness is potentially violent. A lot of mentally ill people are even less likely to be violent than a "normal" person as they have exaggerated fears, etc. Having your perception altered does not necessarily make you dangerous.

(sorry for two posts, only ocurred to me after writing the first one)

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

For consistency, do you oppose mentally ill people with no history of violence being able to walk the streets, or do you think they should all be locked away 24/7?

No, and neither do I support the locking up of all potentially violent idiots. As I said, people who are sane under the influence would have my blessing but since there is no way for that to be monitored a blanket ban is the safest. Basically, my 'ideal society' would have people arrested/dealt with for violent behaviour, just dealt with mroe harshly if they had deliberately consumed a substance that would exacerbate this behaviour (example: dangerous driving/drink-driving).

On the mushrooms point: True for this scenario but it would affect, say, their ability to drive. Again with the blanket ban: If there was a way to make sure affected people wouldnt get into a car, then being under the influence of mushrooms and wandering about the street aimlessly would not be a criminal offence.

For the nightclub thing, the two are not mutually exclusive. You could have drug-inclusive nightclubs (although there is a problem with containment) and hefty fines for anyone who takes drugs in non-drug clubs. Incidentally, I'm not opposed to 'smoker's bars' per se, but the problem for employees exists with smoking that doesn't for ecstasy.

[Vanilla]

I'm sorry but even as a non smoker I don't see the belief behind telling people what to do with their own establishments just because something annoys you. You are well aware of the risks associated with smoking and passive smoking i'm sure.

Would you try and stop people smoking in their own houses? A pub or restaurant is not much further than that, it's a private establishment where the owner dictates how it's to be run. Getting the government involved is something people here are taking in too easily, the government should not be involved. They have done their part, they research and they warn the public of the dangers, if that same public are still going to go to smokey places then whose the chump? Relying on the government is a draconian method.

Smokers have a right not to breathe the smoke, but they choose to go into areas where people do smoke. Private places. Pubs and bars are a smokers place. The owners allow them, and the smokers choose to exercise their democratic right to partake in a legal activity that they find enjoyable. People go on about their rights being violated, but they havn't been. The smokers are pushed into a few places where they can smoke...they do smoke and yet a lot of people say their want clean air when they have gone into the place that smokers are allowed to smoke by decision of the owner of the very establishment purchased and maintained in our capitalistic democratic society

I hate smelling like smoke too! I hate coming from a club and reeking of it (although lets be honest, clubs have smoke machines, half the time the smoke you smell is the artificial type that they pour into the crowd 6 gallons at a time).

Pubs in New York experienced a lot of things, some lost half their customers, many closed. I was living in the states when NY banned it, first hand I saw on CNN how pubs and restaurants closed by the dozen.

The main places it will affect the uk is pubs, clubs and rstaurants. Anyway, why do we need a complete ban ? We already have a partial ban on smoking in public places that seems to work fine. Smoking is banned on public transport, in cinemas, shops and a whole host of other places where you are likely to come into contact with other members of the public. You want a total ban to get rid of the few remaining places those poor people have left (I call them poor not because they smoke, but because they are persecuted so badly in society today for something that is so trivial).

And for the places that haven’t been subjected to this partial smoking ban there is still the option of choosing to sit in a non-smoking area away from all that ‘nasty smoke’.

What about this concept of ‘freedom of choice’ that we love to throw around so much in other areas of politics? Yes, smoking is a nasty habit, but that’s what it is - a habit.

Smokers are addicted to nicotine and they need it regularly - fact. We can’t change them wanting to smoke and although they should be considerate about smoking around others we should also force ourselves to tolerate to a certain level their habit.

Non smokers complain about having no 'freedom of choice'. They have all the freedom of choice they could ever wish for, they just don't like their options.

To other non smokers - What piece of legislation grants you the right to be free from things that bother you or health issues on private property?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

No, and neither do I support the locking up of all potentially violent idiots. As I said, people who are sane under the influence would have my blessing but since there is no way for that to be monitored a blanket ban is the safest.

The amount of people who are potentially violent on say, ecstacy is ridiculously low and almost certainly lower than people who are potentially violent after consuming red meat or coffee, etc.