h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I don't think the legislation itself says you can't smoke in your own home but in some countries if you live with a non-smoker you can't.From what I have read I think the problems that were pointed out were that ppl who worked as midwifes, doctors ect who enter ppls homes as part of their jobs are at risk from passive smoking for instance if they enter a house where someone smokes, they are at risk therefore you wouldn't be able to smoke when they visited but I think there is a lot of confusion over this kind of thing and what actually constitutes as smoking in the work place in these kind of instances.

Presumably though you don't grass on your spouse unless your partnership/marriage is in a very bad way.

As for doctors and the like, well, I doubt their sense of professionalism will allow them to stand outside a house and say 'Not coming in, you smoke'. I'd expect you to get a pretty strong lecture about it, mind. But they do that anyway if you see them as a smoker in a surgery.

And anyone actually trying to smoke in a hospital normally gets either booted straight out the door into the 'garden' or wherever or has the damn thing taken away. I can't see that changing either.

Nope I was mentioning it as part of the nanny state so loved by the present bunch of incompetents presently in power that install changes by the back door rather than allowing us the voters to actually have a say on it.I want to excercise my right to discuss it and to be part of the decision making on such issues.Doesn't mean I agree or disagree.

Plus the not being to smoke in your own home was mentined as part of the H&S issues for 'workers' who visit homes or work from home.Doesn't seem like a flier to me but I can see some of the sillier elements trying to push it.

Ok?Am I off the hook?Too bad if I'm not.

For me, the biggest argument regarding smoking bans is one of choice, or lack thereof.

I would like to see landlords, restraunt owners (or owners of any other kind of establishment) have the option to keep their business' smoker friendly zones, after all people have had the choice to make them non smoking for a long time and many places (restraunts in particular) took advantage of their right to do that.

I have worked in a non smoking office and that was fine, I liked the fact that the enviroment was a nice, clean smelling, clear one. I chose to work at that place and as a smoker, I accepted the rules and dealt with it. I didn't whine about my 'rights', I got on with my work and took a couple of smoke breaks out of my time allowed for lunch. Not a problem.

I have also worked in a large bingo club. The vast majority of the customers were smokers and the most of the building would get pretty smokey. Again, this was my choice, I knew what kind of enviroment I'd be working in and I chose to accept it and get on with my job.

Under smoking ban laws, the bingo club will lose customers. Trust me the ratio of smokers to non smokers was very high. The owner's lack of rights to decide on the issue to me is grossly unfair. There has always been the option to have a non smoking establishment.

Recently, someone I know was told they had to put their cigarette out by a police officer. This person was crossing a busy traffic filled street at the time. To me, madness. (Incidentally this was in Ohio in the US, where I now live)

I honestly think if governments are going to go that route and make smoking, even in the streets an illeagle activity, then smoking at all should just be banned. Sod it, make the whole thing against the law.

I think it's this more than anything that winds me up about it. The powers that be are more than willing to take taxes from sales of tobacco products. It's a massive source of revenue. Fact. I get annoyed when my right to choose to allow smoking somewhere is taken away.

3 of 8

Currently happy to support non smoking establishments, but angered at being forced to.

<> (Blues)

I also can't see how entering a smoker's home for half an hour or so could be a health risk to anyone (unless they are asthmatic or allergic).


az

>> ...pretending not to be able to see that makes you far more self-righteous..<<

Those who took exception to my comments have failed to see my point. That outlawing smoking in all places makes it impossible for smokers to establish 'public smoking bars' where only smokers are allowed.

That is the freedom of choice issue that that continues to get overlooked in this thread in spite of so many smokers saying they'd really rather have a choice or some say in the matter.

In making a perefct world for others it is necessary to see the world as others see it not just as you like it. Hey, that's a neat phrase, "as you like it", would make a good title for something.


~jwf~

is a car a public place then???

some years ago i remember a very good chemist/pharmacist called mr patel having a right go at my now ex husband for smoking in the car with our 2 young girls in there... god he tore him off a strip nice one mr patel

i can still remember how disgusted he was about it... that was about 23 yrs ago.. mr patel was extremely enlightened back then...

also when the dangerous dogs act came out i took a particular interest in all proceedings as i used to own a pit bull... there were some cases london way where owners were being prosecuted for not muzzling their dogs in their own cars... there was an outcry as you can imagine..

these people were having their pets confiscated never to see again in some cases.... now the law stated that the dogs must be muzzled in any public place... but since when is a car interior a public place???

so in that case any tom dick or harry can enter my car??? you can see how the law can become extremely oppressive and corrupt... if people want to smoke in their own cars.. even i have no problem with that... but when the law is abused as it was in the wake of the dangerous dogs act.. well it becomes very worrying...

>> ...since when is a car interior a public place??? <<


In British Columbia, oh about ten years ago, the court's ruled against a defendant charged with 'soliciting a prostitute' who claimed he was falsely arrested because police had no right to search (observe) the goings on inside his automobile without a warrant. He claimed that what he did in his 'private' car was his 'private' business and, just as it would be in his home, a search warrant should have been issued.

The Supreme Court of Canada later upheld the lower court's decision declaring that an automobile is a 'public place' for the purpose of police investigation and ever since, we here in Canada have no legal rights of privacy in our cars.

Sadly, the anti-smoking police now apply this ruling to smoking bans. Already been banned from smoking in the workplace or anywhere on company property, employess must now also refrain from smoking in their own 'private' cars whether they are parked or moving across the company parking lot no matter how far from the building they be. This applies to all public buildings, institutions, college campuses, sports facilities, etc.etc.etc

The only lawful place to smoke anymore (besides a car moving along a public road) is in a private home, and then only with the permisssion of the owner. And that's what upsets smokers. They are left with no right to meet publicly or share a smoke with friends anywhere. This is worse than segregation; it is a denial of the right to assembly, it denies smokers their right to free access of their peers.

Anti-smokers have the right to say they want no smoking in any place that they might want to be. That's OK I guess. They have the right to be rude and intolerant and say "Hey smoker, you stink go away. We don't want you here." And to that extent it is fair, I suppose. But it does not allow or provide for smokers to create 'smokers only' businesses and 'entertainment establishments' which would in turn (obviously) have to deny access and employment to non-smokers.

Remember the old south, where there were washrooms and restaurants for whites only. Well, there were at least the same provisions made separately for blacks.

It's the old separate but equal equation, which somehow has yet to be applied to smokers who at least deserve the right to meet and greet and socialise with those who share their filthy habit. To deny smokers the right to create spaces of their own is inequitable and unjustifiable.

And finally, since there is little point in flogging dead donkeys, to those who say 'smoke stinks and offends' I have to tell you the only reason I smoke is because you stink, the whole world stinks, and smoke is the only way I know to cover up the smell.

I am in complete ernest here; yes, I have tried to quit and might well have licked the nicotine addiction but the ensuing assault on my olfactory nerves from all other sources was intolerable. People stink. Industry stinks. Business stinks. I couldn't stand it and chose to mask it with my own smoke screen.

At least with smoke I know what the smell is, where it comes from, how it is created and what to expect from fellow smokers. But the new anti-smoking laws prohibit me from enjoying the fellowship of other smokers in any general way. And that just isn't fair or legally justifiable. Even the blacks had their own washrooms and drinking fountains. Smokers are left with nothing but to hide away in their own homes (if they can afford to own one).

A world without smoke stinks.
peace
~jwf~

yep jwf your canadian law is the same thing that was thrown at pit bull owners back in early 90's..... this was the same outcome.. that a car is deemed a public place???

so that must mean that the public have a right to access to our car???

what madness...

Speaking of cars, it seems we're all uptight about smoke from cigarettes but what about the passive ingenstion of exhaust fumes from cars? Or is that too much of a hot potatoe for the Government to handle?

thinking (slightly) laterally -

I think I remember cases in the papers where burglars who had been attacked by the householder's dog, successfully sued for damages.

In this wacky do-goody society we're currently enduring, could we see burglars suing for damages if they break into a smoker's house?

yes your right swl i have heard cases of this.. this all goes back to that farmer something martin who shot a burglar....and then went to prison....

thats all wrong...surely we have a right to defend ourselves in our own house...especially some scum bag burglar sneaking round our house when we sleep [at our most vunerable]

anyway my ex was a bit of a scummy character.. and we used to have pitbulls [as pets..even he's not as low as a dog fighter] however he was a druggie but tried to hide it from me as i'm anti drugs...

when i discovered his affair i threw him out pronto.... but the husband of the mistress informed the police he was a dealer... so they came round and as the house was empty they broke in and had special dog handlers as our pitbulls were legally registered so must have thought pitbulls = big time dealer house....

well i didn't even allow smoking in my house...so nothing untoward was found and they then had to wait for me to return and apologise [yes i went mad with them.. told them off in no uncertain terms...asked why they hadn't checked if he was still even living there etc]

but anyway reason i'm telling this is because my pit bull bitch bit one of the dog handlers... but as i wasn't in residence at the time they said they couldn't blame the dog for distrusting guys in body armour breaking into its house....damn right i said..i wonder if they would have taken that view if the house had been a drug den???

so if i'd been present and allowed her to bite one of them that was a different story.... personally i think they were very shame faced and just wanted to get it resolved with the minimum of fuss... still not a nice experience as they'd gone thru all my possesions and i was an anne summers rep at the time so had a quite large box of gear for the parties including dildos for professional reasons of course

but of course

Just for the record, Tony Martin shot someone who had broken into his house, but when shot was running away through his garden. He was *not* in any imminent danger at the time when he shot this teenager in the back from 30 yards away (or whatever).


Professional reasons...

Tony Martin shot someone in the back as they were fleeing with both barrels of a shot gun having waited in hiding to shoot them.

THe case (I understand)heard of his previous record with both far right organisations (and his statements about massacering gypsies) and his record with guns, where he had had his licence taken away from him for shooting up his brother in laws house after a row.

So to paraphrase, after waiting in the dark he shot a fleeing kid wioth both barrels of an illigel shotgun.

If you ask me Murder pure and simple.


As to the dog bite sueing incident are you sure this actually happened? Can you provide a link to a reputable news agency (Eg not the Star) which carries both the story *and* the background? This rather smacks of "Modern myth" to me.

No FB, I can't provide a link and I've possibly got it wrong. It's just one of those things I "seem" to remember. I never really intended it as a serious scenario, more a flippant aside.

>so they came round and as the house was empty they broke in and had special dog handlers as our pitbulls were legally registered so must have thought pitbulls = big time dealer house...<

No, they were thinking 'Pitbulls can be very dangerous, so we'd best take the dog handlers.'

I would have thought bringing aggressive dogs into a house where it is known other aggressive dogs reside, is asking for trouble anyway.

I see no mention of 'dogs', but of 'dog handlers'. They aren't symbiotically joined.

I stand corrected !!

Sorry