Well, all I can say is I have been smoke-free for 41 days now.

It will make things easier for me to stay off them if you can't smoke in pubs - BUT...

/rant on

I strongly object to the nanny-state ideals.

The government should not be able to decide arbitarily what is good and bad, allowed and then not allowed like this. It's not up to them to run our lives.

/rant off

"Welcome to the end of the thought process..."

But aren't those decisions exactly what the Government's there to make? The law of the land is based on a democratically supported agreement on what is basically wrong or right. Politicians decide on what's good and bad every day, because that's what we pay them for.

I think the key issue with smoking is the fact that, as far as public places are concerned, it's not just the individual smoker's freedom which is at stake. There's also the freedom and choice of everyone else in the vicinity - including staff who can't even leave if they want to - which has to be considered. Everyone is affected by passive smoking, and everyone should be entitled to the choice of not being subjected to harm in that way.

Since the smoker still has the choice of smoking at home or outside where they're not harming anyone else, I don't see why everyone else's right not to be poisoned in public places should be ignored.

This message was edited by:Tim on 2006-02-15 11:46

Delete! Delete!

2 issues with my skim read of the above :

Does that mean that we elect and pay the Government to take our freedom away in the name of the 'greater good' ? I argue that they are there to serve us by providing services and functions that allow us to exercise our freedom (under democracy) within reason.

Also, the argument about smokers having the choice to stay home applies equally to the non-smokers. Smoking isn't morally or legally bad in any way - it has a health risk attached to, granted, but it is not inherently against societial mores.

I may come back to edit in a bit - have to dive out the door to go out now !

"Welcome to the end of the thought process..."

It's all a question of degrees, but in essence I believe both of your statements are true. If I wanted to kill, maim, or otherwise injure someone else I'd find that the Government I elected and pay for had taken away my freedom to do so, for the greater good. If I wanted to exercise my freedom to walk down the street without someone else killing, maiming, or otherwise injuring me, I'd find that I (probably) could, by virtue of the law enforcement services provided by my Government. Similarly if my toaster explodes in a fireball of twisted metal I can exercise my right to a refund under the consumer protection provided by my government, not to mention healthcare if necessary, while both the retailer and manufacturer who sold it to me will find that their freedom to take my money and sell unsafe goods has been curtailed by a Government they probably pay more for than me. And so it goes on.

Freedom in any situation isn't an absolute, or an unmitigable right; it's subject to negotiation and "reason" at every stage. Who's to decide what's reasonable? The Government, democratically elected by the people, that's who.

I disagree completely. If it was something that only affected the smoker it'd be different - an entirely personal choice - but this isn't. This involves poisoning everyone else around you for what is, in the end, your own personal gain - and I say that is morally wrong, in my opinion. There's no justification for it.

Delete! Delete!

By its very nature, this total ban puts the 'rights' of smokers on a lower standing of those who don't smoke.

Have there been mass demonstrations calling for a total ban? No. Is there an argument for a partial ban? Certainly, yes.

A total ban means that smokers are being marginalised, and treated far more poorly than non-smokers.

The government is not there to tell me what is right and wrong. It is there to listen to its people. And whilst I can't imagine many if any smokers having a problem with not smoking in food premises, the total ban is just another example of how the government seems to think that its citizens are incapable of making any decision for themselves.

"Hmm, it's smoky in there, let's go to the other pub where no-one smokes" It's not rocket science...

"Welcome to the end of the thought process..."

The thing is, I don't think basing it on serving food would work, as too many pubs would be likely to just stop serving food and the non-smokers would still have less places to go. I'd be happy to have some pubs for smokers and some for non-smokers, but I don't think I'd split it by serving food.

Otoh, I'm not sure what you could then use to split them.

-the bouncy sleepy bar of chocolate

The food thing was just an example, as I believe that is how it is now?

But yes, I don't know how it could be split. Hmm, I shall ponder it, so when I become Emperor I can sort it out.

"Welcome to the end of the thought process..."

As you said before, both smokers and non-smokers equally have the choice not to enter premises where people are smoking. But currently only a smoker can enter a premises where nobody is smoking and light up, turning that smoke free environment into a toxic one for everyone else. The reverse isn't true - I can't walk into a smoky pub and expect everyone else to stop smoking. Why not? Are my rights as a non-smoker not equal? In short, no - at the moment they're not. So at the moment, rather than an equal balance shifting in the non-smokers direction, we have one unequal situation yielding to another - but one which at least protects everyone's right not to poisoned if they don't choose to be.

There has been a lot of support for a total ban, and as this was a free vote it's entirely fair to say that each democratically elected MP in the house voted based on their own conscience and the desire of their constituents - not on any party line. If they flouted their constituents wishes then they will answer for that directly. That's how democracy works.

A total ban means that everyone's right to work and play in a healthy environment is being protected. It doesn't mean that smokers can't smoke, just that they can't force anyone else to harm themselves in the same way. In that respect their rights are being no more marginalised than those of a serial killer, rapist, poor chef, bad driver, etc.

If people always knew what was best for themselves, and what was right and wrong in any given situation, we wouldn't need a government at all. We wouldn't need road signs, and we certainly wouldn't need speed limits. There wouldn't need to be any police on the streets. There wouldn't need to be any laws protecting anyone's rights, not even the most vulnerable, because we'd all stand up for them ourselves. Sadly the world isn't like that, because people - or at least many people - just aren't that good, or thoughtful, or at least equipped to judge.

"But wait, I work in this pub and it's the only job I could get, I'm screwed"

or perhaps

"But wait, there's no non-smoking pub in this town"

or there's always

"But wait, why the hell should I have to inconvenience myself just so this selfish bastard doesn't poison me anymore?"

The thing you really notice when you debate smoking is that it's incredibly hard to find a good analogy for it, because there's simply nothing else like it. There's no other act that anyone could even concieve of performing in a public place that's quite so stupid or downright selfish, and no way on earth anyone would defend their right to do it either. How's this for a ridiculous but true example - I want to walk into a pub with a klaxxon that's just loud enough to cause everyone permanent hearing loss over long periods. It gives me pleasure, but does nothing for anyone else other than make the pub a much less pleasant place, make the people in it uncomfortable, and store up long term health issues for them in the future. Would you uphold my right to do that?

Delete! Delete!

Are you addicted to the klaxxon?

Is the klaxxon something that has always been part of the background, the ambience, the atmosphere?

I think all of this can be summed up by Chandler, in the episode of Friends I saw last night:

"Hey, you know, I have had it with you guys and your "cancer" and your "emphysema" and your "heart disease." The bottom line is smoking is cool and you know it"

"Welcome to the end of the thought process..."

So what if I am, why should everyone else suffer? I might be addicted to heroin, does that mean I can do it in the pub (and jab everyone else with my needle while I'm doing it)?

Fox hunting has always been a part of the background, the ambience, and the atmosphere of the countryside. I'm against that too.

Friends, like smoking, is so last year

Delete! Delete!

Smoking and fox-hunting in one post? Are you trying to overdose on moral outrage ?

Essentially, a judgement has been made to penalise one minority of people that have a habit, that is potentially harmful. Instead of thinking of ways to mitigate this risk, they have been segregated.

Maybe I'm just a hippy, but I don't hold with that.

(and E4 has just started showing the whole 10 seasons of Friends from episode 1 again...could I be any happier?)

"Welcome to the end of the thought process..."

No - a judgement has been made to protect everyone from second hand smoke. This isn't even smokers vs non-smokers, everyone's health benefits from this protection, even the smokers to some degree (even if they carry on smoking just as much as always). On at least one level, everyone benefits.

The risk has been removed, that's all. What are your suggestions for mitigating it? Gas masks? Expensive and environmentally damaging extractors everywhere? Smoking sections (ie, segregation, but less effective)? What about the pub staff who have no choice, and have to work in and around smokers - how do you protect them?

Honestly tho, can you think of an analogy for smoking which works, and which doesn't seem ridiculously unfair on the non-smoker? You can't have personal freedom without respect for people's personal space, and that's exactly what smoking in public places walks all over.

Delete! Delete!

Don't they have something on car exhausts these days? Cars pump out more toxic chemicals than a room full of smokers, and that everyone is exposed to every day they step outside?

Why not have extractors? What is the objection to that?

Better a low level humming in the background, than the potential loss of revenue from people not going out, increased litter in the street, crowds outside in the street having a quick ciggy....

"Welcome to the end of the thought process..."

Cars have catalytic converters to extract some of the nastier stuff - this is all well and good until the converters themselves need disposing of, at which point they're an environmental hazard in themselves. But yes, car exhaust is bad for us too (you wouldn't expect to have to deal with it in an enclosed space) but that's an example of the Government's "nanny state" judgement going the other way. Cars, tho unhealthy, are seen as a "necessary evil" and a ban on them would not be supported by the public. Therefore, it's not going to happen (democracy in action, again).

They're very expensive (too expensive for many smaller pubs), impractical, inefficient, an energy drain, and in many situations they just wouldn't work - particularly not for non-smoking staff who can't avoid entering the smoking area.

Delete! Delete!

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't catalytic converters have needed inventing ? Developing?

So, we have the government developing a catalytic converter for cars, running on fossil fuels which are killing us, the planet, trees and little fluffy bunnies, but they can't build a cheaper more efficent extractor fan to avoid discrimination?

Dubya in the US is now talking about getting away from fossil fuel dependance (what's that you say? Hydrogen run cars? Really? And that ideas been around and working for years and not developed? Gosh).

So all that lovely money spent mitigating the risks from car exhaust could have been put into faciliting peoples freedom to choose.

"Welcome to the end of the thought process..."

But the Government didn't invest anything in catalyctic converters, the car industry did. And when you buy a car, one of the many things you pay for is the R&D that went into it, including all those nice little eco-friendly measures that make you feel better about burning fossil fuels.

Now how much has Philip Morris or Imperial Tobacco put into the invention of a cheap and effective extractor system for public places I wonder? How many billion have they set aside for that little project, any guesses?

Delete! Delete!

The car industry, from the goodness of its heart, invested in converters?

Or were they encouraged to do so?

I have to admit, I can't find any figures on investment in R&D (plenty on other environmental projects by tobacco companies though). I did find one figure though - the smoking population stands at 24% currently.

A quarter of the population affected negatively by this bill. Outrageous.

"Welcome to the end of the thought process..."

By public opinion, and common sense, yes I suppose they were. Much as public opinion has, for some time now, been moving against smoky public venues, so it was then turning against the smog and pollution created by cars, and "something had to be done". In that case, the car industry found partial solutions; in this case, the tobacco industry hasn't. As a result, the public - and their Government - have acted instead.

The health of 100% of the population will be affected positively by this bill. It'll give 76% greater freedom to go and enjoy places that were previously toxic to them, while 24% will now be expected - as everyone else already was - not to deliberately poison the people around them. Fantastic!

This message was edited by:Tim on 2006-02-16 10:44

Delete! Delete!

Good lord, I go to Amsterdam for a few days and the whole world changes.

Amsterdam can do that to you... best have a sit down

Delete! Delete!

Tim, you say the public wanted the smoking ban and the Government responded. Isn't that a bit of a silly arguement?

When the war with Iraq started you disagreed with it but public opinion was was it should happen. If when you were stating your opinion about it someone turned to you and said - the public wanted it and the Government responded would you have accepted that? No, you would have still been against the war and said as much.

Having said that, i think the smoking ban is an excellent thing. Mainly for health reasons, i think it's the Governements duty to do something about smoking.

Btw D - well done - 41 days - thats brilliant!!

Honestly now...

It's what democracy is all about though - I might have a strong opinion on any subject that differs from the Government's, or public opinion - but then the onus is on me to convince other people that I'm right, put my arguments forward, and try to rally public support around to my cause. If I succeed in that then, rightfully, the Government should look again at the issue and at the change in public opinion, and hopefully reflect that.

If, on the other hand, I'm wrong - or at least unable to convince anyone else that I'm right - then sure, I can carry on arguing and protesting and all the rest of, I can even put myself up for election if I like and start my own party, but people aren't going to vote for me and the Government aren't likely to change their stance either - why should they?

That's not to say the majority view always triumphs against the minority, or should always triumph. If you did a poll tomorrow, the majority would probably vote for a return of the death penalty, for example - but the minority opposition to that is so strong and so well argued that it's unlikely to ever happen.

Delete! Delete!

and then....

Why not? Because the ruling elite don't like the majority view, so can dismiss it because they're the ones that make the rules round here, sonny jim ?

"Welcome to the end of the thought process..."

Who are this ruling elite, D? They're MP's that we voted for (or let in through abstention). They're people who chose to exercise their right to stand for parliament - the same right you have - and who the public chose to put into office.

I'm sick of the apathy in British politics at the moment, everyone wants to blame everything on "politicians" as if they're some kind of ruling junta who took London by force and now rule as a dictatorship over the helpless british public, and it's bullshit! You get the leaders you deserve, and if you don't like them then do something about it. Start your own party, publish your own manifesto, get out there and win the hearts and minds just like "they" did. You think the Labour party just appeared out of a vacuum one day and siezed power? No! They began as a group of working people with ideals who, instead of moaning about the "ruling elite" who didn't agree with them, got themselves organised and gathered support. They won seats, they put their ideals into action, and now they're the very elite you're moaning about!

So in short; we don't have the death penalty in this country because a very vocal minority of the public and the government they voted for believe very strongly that we shouldn't; and if the majority felt as strongly about it then we almost certainly would. But they don't, probably because when confronted with the arguments in a proper debate, they're not so sure about it - and nor should they be.

Delete! Delete!

So a minority of people shout the loudest, and they get what they want? That is not democracy, that is mob rule. White collar mob rule maybe, but still...

Sure, there is the option to start a new party. But realistically, there is so much historical inertia in the 2 party system within British politics that it would be prohibitive in time and cost, and would be of limited effect.

So instead of saying "if you don't like the way the game is played, go and set up your own" why can't we examine why there is an apparently opaque quality to the accountability of the MP's we elect to the silent majority?

I don't know, or much care, who my MP is. But, I would expect that HE (or she) would want me to know, and would want issues brought to them.

"Welcome to the end of the thought process..."

Absolutely not - it's the polar opposite of mob rule. If the majority were to get whatever they wanted without any reasoning or thought applied, or any consideration of any alternative view - that's mob rule.

Is that not just a fancy way of saying you can't be bothered? Or at least that you don't believe the british public can be bothered to consider an alternative to the current two parties (which is either testament to those parties' success or a damning indictement of the public's apathy)?

It's not a question of setting up your own game, it's a question of playing the same game as the MPs, and actually engaging in the established political process which is already (a) perfectly transparent, and (b) governing your life whether you passively like it or not.

So when did you last bring an issue to this MP you neither know nor care about? Is there something preventing you from finding out who he or she is? Are they witholding their identity from the public gaze? Was there a news blackout in Southampton during the election, while the ruling elite decided who was going to rule over you for the next three years?

This message was edited by:Tim on 2006-02-17 10:24

Delete! Delete!

So that would be minority rule then. Or to put it another way, an elite.

Basically yes. People get stuck in a rut. That's what this post-modern, TV dinner, disposable celebrity, 15 minutes of fame, reality show devouring society of ours is - apathetic. That's why society needs guidance, and protection from heavy handed decisions.

On my TV? Yes. Do politicians, like some fragile flower on the Himalayan mountains, only come out once every few years? Do sociologists creep through the streets, David Attenborough style, whispering "It's election time, so we may get to see that rarest of creatures, a politician in their home town" ?

My point was that as a constituent of this MP, I certainly don't see him putting himself forward as working for his peons. Whether I choose to take advantage of it, that's something different.

"Welcome to the end of the thought process..."

No, not an elite, and not minority rule either. The majority voted for a government who, as a matter of principle, oppose the death penalty. Moreover, on a local level they voted for more MP's who were opposed to the death penalty than were for it (and a minority are for it), and have done so repeatedly since the 1960's. In what way can that be described as minority rule?

And who's going to guide and protect this helpless society? You? Surely you're not suggesting that the government start "guiding" people? (how? by making more decisions that some people might not like? perhaps even by trying to tell people what's right and wrong??)

That's entirely your choice and you're entitled to it, but by disengaging from the whole process in that way you're only disenfranchising yourself. You gain nothing, and most certainly not a government that serves your interests - how are they even supposed to know what they are?

How often do you expect your MP to knock on your door and ask you what you want? Should he/she start following you down the street just in case, pop into your office now and then, ring you every evening?

Your MP is Alan Whitehead by the way - the ruling elite have put up a very convincing subterfuge of a website for him here - http://www.alan-whitehead.org.uk - clearly designed to fool you into thinking he's just a human being trying to do a job for which he was elected.

Suspiciously, he runs four local surgeries for his constituents (like you) every month. Perhaps you'd like to contact Alan, unless it's all too opaque still?

This message was edited by:Tim on 2006-02-17 11:38

Delete! Delete!

That's just what they want you to think....

"Welcome to the end of the thought process..."