Pub landlord gives 2 fingers to the smoking ban

[Ken Davison South Wales]

kleinboet.How about addressing the point regarding non-staff members that have a legal obligation to attend licensed premises as part of their official function?The only people in this thread not actually addressing real issues are the smoking lobby.Yet again it must be emphasised that no-one (other than the House of Commons) can exempt themselves from Health and Safety legislation. The smoking ban is a direct result of Health and Safety issues, and as a matter of law no-one can decide to exempt themselves from observance of the law. Even smokers have a right not to have secondhand smoke forced down their lungs in their working environment.

To whom are we referring may I ask ??

For the record, the 'smoking is allowed in the House Of Commons' deal is a myth. See below."The Health Act 2006 introduces a ban on smoking in workplaces and enclosed or substantially enclosed public places from 1 July 2007. While the Act does not formally apply on the parliamentary estate, the Commission, on the advice of the Administration Committee, has decided that the House should comply with the principles of the legislation, as it is not desirable that those who work on or visit the parliamentary estate should be treated differently in this respect than in other workplaces and public places. The Commission recognises, however, that many who work on the estate are unavoidably present for long periods, particularly when the House is sitting. It is therefore desirable to make reasonable provision for those who wish to smoke to do so, provided that the health and safety of other users of the estate is not adversely affected.With these principles in mind, the Commission has decided that smoking should cease to be permitted from 1 July 2007 in all internal areas of the House of Commons estate, including in bars and private offices. "My bold/underline.Oh well, at least it's the same rule for those that make the laws.

Are so the smoking ban was out of spite

[nick]

To whom are we referring may I ask ?? Are so the smoking ban was out of spite

 

I have no idea what you're on about here Ken, elaborate and I'll do my best to answer.

[snakey1]

The smoking in public places ban could be the first rung on a very big ladder for this country with all kinds of silly little laws being implemented and in 10-20 years time when our lives could be entirely controlled by laws we will all look back and discuss what was the first nail in the coffin for this countries freedom...................Makes you think a little differently when put like that dosen't it?

 

Give em an inch and........................

How about the banning of legally held firearms in 1997 or before that 1988. I didn't see you rushing to support the thousands of innocent firearms holders who were deprived of their rights to pursue their chosen sport and the people who lost their jobs and businesses because of said bans, a sport which incendently killed less people every year than smoking or drinking, but then thats ok because it didn't affect you right, except according to your logic maybe in the long run it has.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Once again kleinboet I must ask you to do me the courtesy of actually addressing the issues I raise which directly impact on your earlier points - in fact answer your very specific queries as to why there cannot be both smoking and non-smoking establishments.

 

once again totally ignoring the questions and issues. usually the last resort of those with no good arguments left.

 

lets try a scenario.

 

lots of folks in a smoking pub drinking and a fight breaks out involving 10 or so drunken bodies (we know this is likely to happen as Ken keeps saying it's a natural result of folk drinking). So the police are called, and there's only one smoking policeman on duty. What do they do?

 

Also, please please please, stop trying to deal with an issue that is not what we are discussing. The question asked right at the beginning was to do with the smoking ban.

 

If you wish to see a ban on alcohol at least start a new thread were we can discuss that, rather than simply trying to muddy the waters.

 

May I ask where I said "it is a natural result of folk drinking? "I think you are distorting my post to meet with your own ends.

 

Go down your local A&E and ask about assaults and abuse, please don't take my word for it.

 

Answer to last bit "Send in smoking PC to kick them out and then round up with none smoking PCs.

Edited January 22, 2008 by Ken Davison South Wales

[mr motorola]

How about the banning of legally held firearms in 1997 or before that 1988. I didn't see you rushing to support the thousands of innocent firearms holders who were deprived of their rights to pursue their chosen sport and the people who lost their jobs and businesses because of said bans, a sport which incendently killed less people every year than smoking or drinking, but then thats ok because it didn't affect you right, except according to your logic maybe in the long run it has.

Snakey , as i remember (pretty vaguely) the ban was introduced with quite a bit of sway from the horrific incident that occured in Dunblane. Comparing a handgun to a cigarette is a pretty poor match as far as i'm concerned.

[Wordbender]

Are so the smoking ban was out of spite

 

Anyone?

 

At all?

[Wordbender]

Snakey , as i remember (pretty vaguely) the ban was introduced with quite a bit of sway from the horrific incident that occured in Dunblane. Comparing a handgun to a cigarette is a pretty poor match as far as i'm concerned.

 

Cigarettes kill well over 100,000 UK citizens every year when used exactly as intended. Our armed officers and military aside, guns kill only when criminally misused, yet smoking hasn't been banned.

 

Yes, you could be right about that comparison.

[mr motorola]

Cigarettes kill well over 100,000 UK citizens every year when used exactly as intended. Our armed officers and military aside, guns kill only when criminally misused, yet smoking hasn't been banned.

 

Yes, you could be right about that comparison.

Aye , but the government are blind to your observation of it being a much bigger killer than guns and continue to sell them by the truck load. Hey ho

Let's turn this on its head and push for everything bad to us 'directly or indirectly' to be banned , as it seems you that you are hell bent on putting smokers down and treating them as lepers. So why not go for every sociable drug at the publics hands. Alcohol for a start. You clearly can't see the woods for the trees can you?

[snakey1]

Snakey , as i remember (pretty vaguely) the ban was introduced with quite a bit of sway from the horrific incident that occured in Dunblane. Comparing a handgun to a cigarette is a pretty poor match as far as i'm concerned.

its not the comparison thats important but the fact that you would support one ban but not the other simply because one does not directly affect you and the other does. you seem to think that your rights have been infringed as a smoker, well what about mine as a shooter or don't you give a damn about other peoples rights as long as infringing them doesn't affect you. I'll think you'll find smoking is/was annually responsible for more deaths and long term illnesses than legally held firearms were in this country so which one does it make more sense to ban ?

[snakey1]

Aye , but the government are blind to your observation of it being a much bigger killer than guns and continue to sell them by the truck load. Hey ho

Let's turn this on its head and push for everything bad to us 'directly or indirectly' to be banned , as it seems you that you are hell bent on putting smokers down and treating them as lepers. So why not go for every sociable drug at the publics hands. Alcohol for a start. You clearly can't see the woods for the trees can you?

they continue to sell them by the truck load because they're making a lot of money in taxes off them and they haven't banned smoking anyway only smoking in a public enclosed spaces, now lets turn your statement on its head if your so against the banning of substances that people can take recreationally and only harm themselves(ignoring the passive smoking aspect) can we assume you are therefore in favour of the legalisation of all drugs both hard and soft(crack, heroin,crystal meths, pcp, ecstacy etc) because that seems to fit in with your argument.

Edited January 22, 2008 by snakey1