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

Well the point there is that they can but they won't.

I don't think they should make total illegal beyond this ban, but there is one issue that hasn't been addressed and would be very difficult to: what do we do about children whose parents smoke?

Hmm, thinking about it I should add a caveat to that - I'm not implying that all smokers maliciously blow smoke into their children's lungs or leave cigarette butts in their school lunch or anything like that, and I'm sure that many do go out in the garden or similar.

<< There's more carcinogens and pathogens in perfume, not to mention cinamyl alcohol which causes a severe reaction. Lung Cancer sufferers are split evenly between smokers and non-smokers. >>

what about exhaust fumes and industrial pollution?

Ban them. Ban everything. Ban Politicians.

Ban British MP's from fixing their own inflatin proof pensions would be more like it..

I see the smoking ban doesn't apply in the House of Commons

Regarding my 'employee beware' posting last night: hands up, fair cop, I was a little sideways when I posted that and it was quite blatantly ridiculous.

I just don't see why we can't have a choice and, to expand on BouncyBleepImZentrum's (please change your name back - it was so much easier before!) comment, surely protecting children from their parents' smoke takes priority over protecting adults who choose to be in a pub.

I *never* smoke in the prescence of children - I've even been known to hide a cigarette when a friend's kid pops up mid-Skype, though I admit that's probably going a bit far!

I just lit a fag, and read the back of the packet and it said 'smoking can cause impotence', thank god for that i already have 3 kids.

By the way, did i see a post that said that smoking is still allowed in the houses of parliment..............do what, wheres Guy Falkes when you want him

Careful BK - you wouldn't want to be caught glorifying terrorism.

I dont think they have agreed on that part yet, so i am still safe

they're keeping records and will get you retrospectively.

just wait, there's a total ban on coffee and coffee-related conversation due in a few years. That'll be back-dated too !!

Im an ex-smoker married to a smoker.

I personally welcome a ban, but have a couple of issues:

1.If smoking is so bad for you, why not ban the sale of cigarettes? (would cut a source of government revenue thats why)

2.If smoking is legal and ok, how can you ban it in public?

As an aside, I heard a couple of my lads 15yr old mates arguing for and against the ban, and one raised the issue of smoking 'areas' in public places. His mate quicky replied " ...they're a daft idea. You don't have a pissing area in a swiming pool do you?"

No you don't. It's the whole pool.

Right, you're all under arrest for glorifying smoking.

RF

Presumably why they dont ban it outright is that the "theoritical" justification for the law is that it represents a H&S risk that people shouldnt be put in danger at work.

Therefore doing it in private whilst possibly risky is not the business of government, but oding it where it might effect someone at work is.

Trouble is the logic behind this argument would support the legalisation of drugs insofar as you did them at home. A point really hilariously made by "Sir Humprey" in Yes Minister once.

>> ...but, please, why can't we have the choice? <<

Because there's more of them (self-righteous non-smokers and do-gooders) than there are of us (self-determining adults) and the protection of minority (us) rights gets lost when the do-gooders feel the jihad come upon them. It's a cruel form of mass hysteria that goes unquestioned because its premise is seen as being for the common good.

Of course all people have a basic and inalienable human right to gather together and behave as we wish in the company of others of own own lifestyle and beliefs, but it may take a few years for the self-righteous majority to remember that all minorities (even stinky unhealthy ones) have rights and freedoms too.

~jwf~

"Because there's more of them (self-righteous non-smokers and do-gooders) than there are of us (self-determining adults) and the protection of minority (us) rights gets lost when the do-gooders feel the jihad come upon them. "

Hmmm...


Right but taking the truth of the "2nd hand smoke harmful or not" debate out the whole idea for the legislation is based on the assumption that it is.

*If* 2nd hand smoke *is* harmfull (and like I have previously noted as far as I can see almost all of the non tobbacco funded research seems to suggest it is, as does my personal anecdotal experience) then it is not just a case of "self-righteous non-smokers and do-gooders" forcing there views on you poor put upon "us (self-determining adults)" (Yeah how must the Tibetens feel compared to poor Uk smokers eh?).

But rather a case of people protecting themsellves form the effects of your habit. Now I suppose the science *may* be debateble but once the case is accepted it isnt about minority rights at all (It would be if you were prevented from smoking at home or out doors) it is aobut the rights of non smokers not to be effected by smoke.

Like I said all the arguments (rightly or wrongly) that SMokers are using would equally apply to any currently prohibited substance.

Are Crack heads a put upon minority from the "self-righteous non-crackheads and do-gooders" ?!?!?!?!

>Because there's more of them (self-righteous non-smokers and do-gooders) than there are of us (self-determining adults) and the protection of minority (us) rights gets lost when the do-gooders feel the jihad come upon them.<

You haven't had any rights removed from you, have you. You can still smoke, just not in enclosed areas where it affects others.

And pretending not to be able to see that makes you far more self-righteous than any 'do-gooder' I've ever met.

I think the problem here is that smoking is not actually illegal but with this ban it feels like it is.It does appear to me (a non smoker) and to many smokers that this is a totally hypocritical position the government have got themselves into.Smoking is a legal activity from which they derive a great deal of taxation revenue and yet most smokers won't be allowed from 2007 to smoke practically anywhere (including it might)seem their own homes.However places that one would expect to be top of the list from a Health and Safety Issue such as hospitals, are exempt.Why? Are not all the non smoking passive smoking idealists in the commons just as concerned about the H&S of the workers there?

Looking at the places this bill targetted as being suitable for this legislation mase me wonder just who this bill was really for.Also all the places left out has caused me concern.

I think this was seen as being the only way they could discourage/ban smoking and get people to give up without going down the road of making tabacco totally illegal which would have been a more uphill struggle because of the overnight total loss of a vast sum of revenue.This way the revenue will still still come in but it will take time for it to cease all together.Result is smokers are targetted but they will still be paying taxes on their vice until they feel forced to give up, giving the government time to raise revenue elsewhere.

Plus by allowing this to be foisted onto us has allowed TB to get through some other major bills without anyone apparently making any fuss.What a difference a couple of months make in politics.

I'm also wondering where else the do gooding banning barstewards are going to go next.That's two they have dealt with.Is this the last vice/habit/activity they will be targetting? Is booze the next thing..noo not after 24 hour opening being allowed.God forbid alchohol(abuse) gets targetted.I do remember hearing one of the jubilant anti-fox hunting MP's promise to target angling next.Or will it be smacking again?

What next of the nations activities is to be deemed a nuisance to be put stop to?Or have they had enough?

Funny bunch they are at the HoP.I wonder will they actually stand up over the education bill?I fervently hope so.But I suspect not.

I'm sorry - so you consider 'smacking' (ie the physical abuse of children) merely an 'activity' that you don't want to see stopped?

I still don't see whre this idea that you won't be able to smoke in your own homes comes from. Can someone actually point me to the clause in the bill itself, not some moronic over-reacting spokesman for the tobacco industry or other rent-a-gob, but actually in the legislation itself, where it says this?