Smoking Ban To Be Reversed?

Millennium3 · 13-05-2008, 03:20 AM

I don't know if it is so much a nanny state as one that is quite prepared/happy/eager to restrict freedoms using the excuse that the restriction is somehow beneficial.

With the smoking ban the primary excuse is that passive smoking is harmful, even though there is serious doubt that this is true. More likely, from a TP and many non smokers point of view, the suggestion that passive smoking is harmful is seized on because they dislike smoky atmospheres - which provides an excuse for them to get things just as they want even though based on a false claim [this may be a conscious or unconscious act].

This is considerably aggravated, particularly for smokers [and publicans], when it is realised that it is relatively easy to provide comfortable smoking facilities in pubs and other public places without causing the non smokers harm or discomfort.

The interesting question for me is why did they not ban alcohol - it is certainly harmful to the consumer and non consumers are much more likely to be seriously hurt by an alcohol fuelled group of youngsters than they are by them smoking.

Does this simply go much deeper, that the government no longer sees its self as the provider of a free society to be enjoyed by the many, but as a thinly veiled dictatorship. If so, what was the root of this change and from where did it come?

mkpdavies · 13-05-2008, 07:05 AM

It comes from human nature. As I said, people are fascists at heart, as long as it is their own brand.

The people get what they deserve.

Millennium3 · 13-05-2008, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

It comes from human nature. As I said, people are fascists at heart, as long as it is their own brand.

The people get what they deserve.

Would you place, say, Gandhi in that fascist category - do you deny altruism?

Geoffrey Collier · 13-05-2008, 09:25 AM

B.A. Ware: If your friend wishes to engage in an activity by choice, and he alone suffers, that could be described as choice. If that choice imposes harm or liability on others, independently of their will, that is another matter, which has nothing to do with either a nanny state or the PC Brigade. It does, however, have everything to do with those who are finally responsible or unfortunately the victim.

A child, a young girl, was scarred for life, after being attacked by a rottweiler dog. These incidents are very common. A lawyer told the parents that, in law, they had a sound case to bring a civil action against the owner; but it was not worth considering.
The dog's owner was unemployerd, penniless and without assets. He was free to keep a dog, by choice; the child, compelled to live a disadvantaged life as a consequence. Should owners of dogs be required to have public liability insurance, but the owner kept an uninsured dog, arguably, the child would have been a victim of a criminal act, and subject to compensation paid by the State.

I saw a a hang-glider gentleman plunge to his death when he lost control. His life, his risk, his hang-glider I wouldn't stop him. But when you die under those circumstances, with a couple of children, compulsory insurance for those dangerous activities, would be more than defensible. Why should some be able to do what they like, by choice, but by compulsion the rest of us pick-up the bill? The NHS provides an indiredt annual subsidy to insurance companies and employers, by having to bear the true cost of inadequate cover.

I agree with you, let us encourage personal responsibility, and let us start with those who finally have to pay for the 'free choices' of others.

Akebono · 13-05-2008, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Millennium3

It needs colouring in!

LOL LOL LOL

Akebono · 13-05-2008, 11:42 AM

Tammy D is quite insipid and correct.

When an older person sidles up to anyone in the street, shuffling and snuffling and griping, complaining and wheezing about egg rationing and powdered milk we have to ellicit sympathy.

They may say things akin to this : " I once watched Jonathon Ross interview that lovely boy David Cameron-Menzies on his late night chat show, sponsored by Snickers, Mars and Kleenex tissues. But I was utterly incapacitated when the question arose if he liked Margaret Thatcher, The Milk Snatcher."

You are by obligation required to grin 'n' bear it. Grimace and Bare it; politely respond with conviction "Norman Tebbit is a lovely piece of work and his wife was badly injured in the Folkestone Hotel back in the mid-1980s"

Then when they nod and smile warmly and say "Why yes this country is going to the dogs and it is not like it was when I was young ... " Then you have to be kind, fair and say "I saw Deal Or No Deal and I think she should have taken the first box."

Richard Whitely-Gervais was a man with a stripey jacket and a kipper tei.
Not as kindly as Dennis Waterman but a superior actor compared to Sir John Thaw.

Brittanis tells it like it is and so do komerad and Tammy-D.

Loving it !

B.A.Ware · 13-05-2008, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

B.A. Ware: If your friend wishes to engage in an activity by choice, and he alone suffers, that could be described as choice. If that choice imposes harm or liability on others, independently of their will, that is another matter, which has nothing to do with either a nanny state or the PC Brigade. It does, however, have everything to do with those who are finally responsible or unfortunately the victim.

A child, a young girl, was scarred for life, after being attacked by a rottweiler dog. These incidents are very common. A lawyer told the parents that, in law, they had a sound case to bring a civil action against the owner; but it was not worth considering.
The dog's owner was unemployerd, penniless and without assets. He was free to keep a dog, by choice; the child, compelled to live a disadvantaged life as a consequence. Should owners of dogs be required to have public liability insurance, but the owner kept an uninsured dog, arguably, the child would have been a victim of a criminal act, and subject to compensation paid by the State.

I saw a a hang-glider gentleman plunge to his death when he lost control. His life, his risk, his hang-glider I wouldn't stop him. But when you die under those circumstances, with a couple of children, compulsory insurance for those dangerous activities, would be more than defensible. Why should some be able to do what they like, by choice, but by compulsion the rest of us pick-up the bill? The NHS provides an indiredt annual subsidy to insurance companies and employers, by having to bear the true cost of inadequate cover.

I agree with you, let us encourage personal responsibility, and let us start with those who finally have to pay for the 'free choices' of others.

Geoffrey you are using erroneous arguments, which people could argue about forever, and a day.
My argument is nothing to do with what happens in the public arena its what happens in the private arena and if people choose to go into these private arenas then they should take on the responsibilities of that choice.

As for your last statement if it is about financial payment and this topic is about smoking I think that smokers already pay for their choice.

Geoffrey Collier · 13-05-2008, 01:38 PM

BA WARE:I don't think I am using an erroneous argument but a consistent one. Some time ago Mark Croucher was making categorical economic statements about smoker's contribution to the Treasury. When I ask for his source and added a few more to the list, he disappeared without trace.

The point I am making, concerns individual choice and its impact on others. Freedom under the law allows adjustments and modifications to peoples behaviour upon others.
This is why the Libertarian's arguments are largely invalid. They are centred on self, but fail to address the impact on others.

I don't think that attempts to modify aspects of a problem, which impinge on others is necessarliy wrong. It is certainly not easy, but a worthy endeavour. These attempts cannot be dismissed as 'nanny state' interference, or motivated by fascists as some appear to think. Anyway, we have disagreed in the past, but I am sure that there is much on which we do agreee.

TannyD · 13-05-2008, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Connor

Sounds like you've had some experience in retail sales.

Wow, how did you guess?

B.A.Ware · 13-05-2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

BA WARE:I don't think I am using an erroneous argument but a consistent one. Some time ago Mark Croucher was making categorical economic statements about smoker's contribution to the Treasury. When I ask for his source and added a few more to the list, he disappeared without trace.

The point I am making, concerns individual choice and its impact on others. Freedom under the law allows adjustments and modifications to peoples behaviour upon others.
This is why the Libertarian's arguments are largely invalid. They are centred on self, but fail to address the impact on others.

I don't think that attempts to modify aspects of a problem, which impinge on others is necessarliy wrong. It is certainly not easy, but a worthy endeavour. These attempts cannot be dismissed as 'nanny state' interference, or motivated by fascists as some appear to think. Anyway, we have disagreed in the past, but I am sure that there is much on which we do agreee.

Geoffrey you ignore the fact that i am talking about what takes place in private. Yes true libertarianism would probably lead to anarchy that is why we have all sorts of laws take speeding for example or MOTs these only apply when they are in the public domain if i go onto private land these rules do not apply ie if i buy a field and me and my mates drive old cars on it can i be arrested for not having an MOT or can i be fined for speeding?

This does not apply where smoking is concerned, you state it is not fascism then why do smoking shelters have to be 50% exposed to the elements not 40,30 or 20 i have written to about 70 MPs asking where this figure was derived from and if it could be changed to 20 % to give smokers some shelter from the elements 90% of them brushed me off none of them gave me an answer about the 50%, they just referred me to the white paper in other words they didn't know or neither care.

No other law that i know of has been brought in based on such dubious science where even MPs cannot explain it except for repeating the same old mantra (passive smoking kills) to me this is fascism.

I accept we have to have laws so that we can co-exist amicably but we should strive to make these laws as liberal as possible, there was a perfectly acceptable solution and that was Labours policy non-food pubs would allow smoking but the big food chain pubs lobbied for either a full ban or no ban because they knew they would loose a lot of custom to the smaller independents.

Having a partial ban is libertarian satisfying both sides

13-05-2008, 07:05 AM	#122 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,615	It comes from human nature. As I said, people are fascists at heart, as long as it is their own brand. The people get what they deserve. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

13-05-2008, 03:20 AM	#121 (permalink)
Millennium3 Moderator Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Berkshire Posts: 3,708	I don't know if it is so much a nanny state as one that is quite prepared/happy/eager to restrict freedoms using the excuse that the restriction is somehow beneficial. With the smoking ban the primary excuse is that passive smoking is harmful, even though there is serious doubt that this is true. More likely, from a TP and many non smokers point of view, the suggestion that passive smoking is harmful is seized on because they dislike smoky atmospheres - which provides an excuse for them to get things just as they want even though based on a false claim [this may be a conscious or unconscious act]. This is considerably aggravated, particularly for smokers [and publicans], when it is realised that it is relatively easy to provide comfortable smoking facilities in pubs and other public places without causing the non smokers harm or discomfort. The interesting question for me is why did they not ban alcohol - it is certainly harmful to the consumer and non consumers are much more likely to be seriously hurt by an alcohol fuelled group of youngsters than they are by them smoking. Does this simply go much deeper, that the government no longer sees its self as the provider of a free society to be enjoyed by the many, but as a thinly veiled dictatorship. If so, what was the root of this change and from where did it come?

13-05-2008, 09:25 AM	#124 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 668	B.A. Ware: If your friend wishes to engage in an activity by choice, and he alone suffers, that could be described as choice. If that choice imposes harm or liability on others, independently of their will, that is another matter, which has nothing to do with either a nanny state or the PC Brigade. It does, however, have everything to do with those who are finally responsible or unfortunately the victim. A child, a young girl, was scarred for life, after being attacked by a rottweiler dog. These incidents are very common. A lawyer told the parents that, in law, they had a sound case to bring a civil action against the owner; but it was not worth considering. The dog's owner was unemployerd, penniless and without assets. He was free to keep a dog, by choice; the child, compelled to live a disadvantaged life as a consequence. Should owners of dogs be required to have public liability insurance, but the owner kept an uninsured dog, arguably, the child would have been a victim of a criminal act, and subject to compensation paid by the State. I saw a a hang-glider gentleman plunge to his death when he lost control. His life, his risk, his hang-glider I wouldn't stop him. But when you die under those circumstances, with a couple of children, compulsory insurance for those dangerous activities, would be more than defensible. Why should some be able to do what they like, by choice, but by compulsion the rest of us pick-up the bill? The NHS provides an indiredt annual subsidy to insurance companies and employers, by having to bear the true cost of inadequate cover. I agree with you, let us encourage personal responsibility, and let us start with those who finally have to pay for the 'free choices' of others.

13-05-2008, 11:42 AM	#126 (permalink)
Akebono Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 82	Tammy D is quite insipid and correct. When an older person sidles up to anyone in the street, shuffling and snuffling and griping, complaining and wheezing about egg rationing and powdered milk we have to ellicit sympathy. They may say things akin to this : " I once watched Jonathon Ross interview that lovely boy David Cameron-Menzies on his late night chat show, sponsored by Snickers, Mars and Kleenex tissues. But I was utterly incapacitated when the question arose if he liked Margaret Thatcher, The Milk Snatcher." You are by obligation required to grin 'n' bear it. Grimace and Bare it; politely respond with conviction "Norman Tebbit is a lovely piece of work and his wife was badly injured in the Folkestone Hotel back in the mid-1980s" Then when they nod and smile warmly and say "Why yes this country is going to the dogs and it is not like it was when I was young ... " Then you have to be kind, fair and say "I saw Deal Or No Deal and I think she should have taken the first box." Richard Whitely-Gervais was a man with a stripey jacket and a kipper tei. Not as kindly as Dennis Waterman but a superior actor compared to Sir John Thaw. Brittanis tells it like it is and so do komerad and Tammy-D. Loving it !

13-05-2008, 01:38 PM	#128 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 668	BA WARE:I don't think I am using an erroneous argument but a consistent one. Some time ago Mark Croucher was making categorical economic statements about smoker's contribution to the Treasury. When I ask for his source and added a few more to the list, he disappeared without trace. The point I am making, concerns individual choice and its impact on others. Freedom under the law allows adjustments and modifications to peoples behaviour upon others. This is why the Libertarian's arguments are largely invalid. They are centred on self, but fail to address the impact on others. I don't think that attempts to modify aspects of a problem, which impinge on others is necessarliy wrong. It is certainly not easy, but a worthy endeavour. These attempts cannot be dismissed as 'nanny state' interference, or motivated by fascists as some appear to think. Anyway, we have disagreed in the past, but I am sure that there is much on which we do agreee.