Cabinet agrees England smoke ban

qwe said:
that is not my fear. my fear is of this particular law because it's a law against consensual activity
Click to expand...

Well, sort of. It is not consensual between the smoker and the other customers.
And there are also many restrictions on business owners that may involve possibly consensual activity between the owner and the customers or employees.

Anti-discrimination laws are one example. I don't think you would consider those to be negative policies.
 
it is consensual because the others choose to go into that private place and stand near the smoke

and... anti discrimination laws are powerless
 
1. really? putting up with something is a far cry from willing participation in an activity. I think if you surveyed non-smokers and asked them whether they would like to be in an establishment with or without smoke, without smoke would carry the day.

2. really? That's pretty ridiculous. Sure, with all laws there are those who will skirt the system and it takes years to change institutionalized mindsets (ie. racial prejudicies, etc.) But to say something is without power because of those facts is generalizing into absurdity.
 
^i wonder if curse words are fined under the guise of public safety? im not sure what sort of justifications the national government has for fining them (considering the fact that they are only words, they'd have to use an even funnier interpretation of the constitution than the marijuana tax act or the controlled substances act)

posner, an employer can reject you for any reason he likes, whether the reason is legal or illegal. and not much can be done about it
 
Uh...you can twist the situation any way you want. The fact is I and many others are in favor of regulating an unnecessary threat to physical health brought about by a portion of the population onto another.

I'm sorry, but if the majority of people did not want this type of legislation it would not pass AND stay. So, it isn't the government putting its thumb down without the public's consent

However, I will say that you would be at home arguing that global warming is a myth.

The regulation of "curse words" is completely irrelevant to this topic. Unless, of course, you are insinuating a slippery slope argument (which is utterly ridiculous) or you are asserting an I'm-16-and-hate-the-government argument.
 
I will also say that you two make it sound as if businesses can and do run their businesses how they want without government interference and that a ban on smoking is a unique and grievous interference with how they do that.

But governments strictly control how businesses are run period. The banning of smoking is only a tiny regulation in the overall scheme of things.
 
First, I don't think banning curse words is related. I understand the difference between moral offense and physical harm. My comment on it was just speculation

I will also say that you two make it sound as if businesses can and do run their businesses how they want without government interference and that a ban on smoking is a unique and grievous interference with how they do that.

But governments strictly control how businesses are run period. The banning of smoking is only a tiny regulation in the overall scheme of things.[/
Click to expand...
Again, i am a libertarian. i am well aware that it isn't the only grievous interference
 
The fact is I and many others are in favor of regulating an unnecessary threat to physical health brought about by a portion of the population onto another
Click to expand...

Well I am against the moral corruption brought about by gay porno and men publicly holding hands, so we should ban those as well. Mental health is just as important as physical (playing Devil's Advocate).

However, I will say that you would be at home arguing that global warming is a myth.
Click to expand...

Haha, okay. Because the world has not gone through such dramatic increases and decreases in temperature before.

I will also say that you two make it sound as if businesses can and do run their businesses how they want without government interference and that a ban on smoking is a unique and grievous interference with how they do that.
Click to expand...

Yep, for myself. Can't speak for qwe.

But governments strictly control how businesses are run period.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately.

The banning of smoking is only a tiny regulation in the overall scheme of things.
Click to expand...

Oh. Nevermind. In that case it is okay, regardless of how idiotic it is.
 
A couple points and then I'm done with this thread:

1. It may seem idiotic to you but it is not to the majority of the population. So, it's hard to say that the government is acting against the wishes of the people.

2. The fact that you agree that it is a unique interference on business and then admit that businesses are heavily regulated is a contradiction. You have to settle that one out for yourself.

3. There is a major difference between damage to physical and "mental health" as you have misapplied it----a better phrase would be moral health. They are completely different. Regardless, the difference between moral health and physical health is one of subjectivity versus objectivity.

4. That's a piss-poor counter to the global warming jab. Temperatures have not increased and decreased dramatically while humans have been on the planet.
 
1. It may seem idiotic to you but it is not to the majority of the population. So, it's hard to say that the government is acting against the wishes of the people.
Click to expand...
but you are so sure that a majority of the people in these establishments don't want the smoke? I imagine most of the people there are friends with the smokers there and are quite used to it

and secondly, just because more than half the people want to restrict rights doesn't mean you just go and do it. there is debate first, like this:)
 
there has been much debate on this topic and believe me, having worked in the UK Parliament and in a lobbying organization in Washington, DC there has to be a major push and major backing behind a bill that affects business owners before it passes. This isn't some crack-pot scheme that has been secretly passed. Legislatures, in Britain and America, do not work like that. They are, by nature and design, deliberative bodies.

And yes, there is always fear and distaste for tyrannical majorities. Unfortunately, this is something the judiciary often has to tackle: whether or not the majority is trampling on the rights of the minority. However, this is frankly not a big enough deal to amount to much "real" controversy.

And I assume you are a smoker, but it is absurd to suggest that the vast majority of people who do not smoke wouldn't want to be in places that are not filled with smoke.
 
Last edited:
Eventually this kind of "smoke ban" is going to spread everywhere. Even though I AM a smoker I see the good things that definetely come out of this.
 
As a smoker I find it hard to accept this blanket ban, however, as people have mentioned it is necessary in order to provide places that are smoke free, if that is what is wished. Perhaps we could then be able to see a relaxing of this law to give the owner of the business the choice, thereby creating smoking and non-smoking restaurants, bars... whatever. It is hard to argue a case for smoking after so many reports and such and such warn us of the dangers of smoking and second hand smoke and tbh I really am not bothered enough to look into, read and reference the multitude of reports.

However this sort of legislation does remind us of how a minority can be easily persecuted by a majority by whatever means to whatever end.

And just to be petty, inresponse to ponsers first point in his last post;

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities" - Ayn Rand
 
I assume you are a smoker
Click to expand...
qwe said:
i dont smoke btw
Click to expand...
but it is absurd to suggest that the vast majority of people who do not smoke wouldn't want to be in places that are not filled with smoke.
Click to expand...
no i really think a lot of people don't really care, and if they do (as they would in the example of farting and burning pieces of rubber) the establishment will lose business
 
Xr8ed said:
However this sort of legislation does remind us of how a minority can be easily persecuted by a majority by whatever means to whatever end.

And just to be petty, inresponse to ponsers first point in his last post;

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities" - Ayn Rand
Click to expand...

Calling this legislation persecution is a slight to those who have been persecuted.

And, quoting an author doesn't necessarily make it so.
You have a right to smoke cigarettes in public places? I think you would find upon further examination that you have fewer "rights" than you think you do. But saying you have a right to smoke cigarettes in public places is, well, novel.
So, I guess I'm saying that that quote doesn't address my first point at all.
 
It may seem idiotic to you but it is not to the majority of the population. So, it's hard to say that the government is acting against the wishes of the people.
Click to expand...

While I personally think it is idiotic, it has nothing to do with this. We are supposed to be in a free country, and freedom means sacrifices.

The fact that you agree that it is a unique interference on business and then admit that businesses are heavily regulated is a contradiction. You have to settle that one out for yourself.
Click to expand...

No, it means that while I think businesses should be left alone, I acknowledge that the government has already stuck its fingers pretty deep into them.

That's a piss-poor counter to the global warming jab. Temperatures have not increased and decreased dramatically while humans have been on the planet.
Click to expand...
.

Wrong.

Eventually this kind of "smoke ban" is going to spread everywhere. Even though I AM a smoker I see the good things that definetely come out of this.
Click to expand...

Business can do ban smoking in their areas themselves. It is not hard, people, to make people look down on smoking like TRUTH without getting involved with government. It is disgusting that people have to create laws for every little issue they grace upon. It isn't necessary, and it is detrimental because it adversely affects our freedoms.

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities" - Ayn Rand
Click to expand...

Haha, I love Rand. Anyways, this is the goal of democracies.

I think you would find upon further examination that you have fewer "rights" than you think you do. But saying you have a right to smoke cigarettes in public places is, well, novel.
So, I guess I'm saying that that quote doesn't address my first point at all.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right. We have no right to smoking. However, we should discourage the government from interefering with our rights. People and society can do this, we do not need government to do this and enforce stipulations on such behavior.
 
posner said:
Calling this legislation persecution is a slight to those who have been persecuted.

And, quoting an author doesn't necessarily make it so.
You have a right to smoke cigarettes in public places? I think you would find upon further examination that you have fewer "rights" than you think you do. But saying you have a right to smoke cigarettes in public places is, well, novel.
So, I guess I'm saying that that quote doesn't address my first point at all.
Click to expand...

As I said I was being petty. Of course quoting an author doesn't make it so, I also never claimed any "right" to be able to smoke in a public place. A majority should not be listened to over a minority purely because it has the louder voice, which is what I was highlighting. I am pretty sure the majority wish illicit drugs to be banned, does this mean they should say, for whatever reason, that I should not be able to make my own choices.

All I see this legislation as is limiting. My point is that why should the government always limit choice but rather increase choice. Places that choose to operate a no smoking policy receive certain incentives in order to compensate for loss of business or whatever. However, this legislation is not left down to the choice of the owner of said business. I accept that employees should be protected; however people have a choice as to whether or not they work in environment that smokers frequent.

At the end of the day it is a piece of legislation that limits people’s choice rather than adds to them, that is my main complaint, but it does it in a subversive way, on the surface it says, “here you go, we care about you” However it should really read “we care about you, but not enough to lose several billion”. If you want to eliminate the health risks due to smoking why not just ban it? The reason is the revenue generated by duty on tobacco products is huge, £8.55 bn for the year 2002-2003 from www.ash.org.uk, that far out weighs the cost to the NHS, £1.5bn for the year 2002-20003 from www.ash.org.uk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top