Smoking Ban To Be Reversed?

TannyD · 14-05-2008, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akebono

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 !

Tammy-D??? Tammy-D??? I have never been soo insulted in all my life!!!!! How dare you, getting my username wrong!! So you are saying I have lost my spirt or spark or life? That I am a lifeless mechanical drone with no spirit? I think you have yet to learn the workings of this forum, amongst other things!!!

Geoffrey Collier · 14-05-2008, 09:29 AM

B.A. Ware: The issue of private property was a subject which I addressed on this thread a couple of days ago. (posting 426}

At the moment very important Bills is going through Parliament. Changes in abortion time-limits and Stem Cell Research. Putting aside any moral objections which some people may have, both sides are presenting distinguished medical opinion in support of their respective cases. Both sides are claiming that their opponents scientific reasearch is flawed. Let us hope that the best available course of action will finally emerge. But whatever is decided, it will be decided by laymen (in the main) who have access to scientific opinion. That must always be the case in a Sovereign Parliament.

If you are not happy; protest, seek changes, in short, employ the democratic process.
Scientific opinion is but one string to your bow. But whatever you do BAW, throw away your clay-pipe. Even the Victorians knew that those caused tongue and gum cancer.

Akebono · 14-05-2008, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TannyD

Tammy-D??? Tammy-D??? I have never been soo insulted in all my life!!!!! How dare you, getting my username wrong!! So you are saying I have lost my spirt or spark or life? That I am a lifeless mechanical drone with no spirit? I think you have yet to learn the workings of this forum, amongst other things!!!

Apologies.

John Cooper · 14-05-2008, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

So in other words. you believe that a man has no right to run his own business as he sees fit. You think people should be forced to run their businesses, just so that others can be employed by that person and to that employees personal specification.

You don't believe in freedom at all. As I said, I don't think many people do.

Why do you think anyone has the right to demand someone employ them on their terms? Why don't you think they should create their own employement, if the employment of another human isn't good enough for them?

There should be no laws about people run business ? So we should allow race discrimination ?

I think you are right and will build a nuclear power station right by your house.

I am sure as a freedom lover you will not mind and I will be creating my own employment.

John Cooper · 14-05-2008, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Millennium3

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.

1)If it were true would you be in favour of it ?
2) What evidence would convince you ? Or only a visit from God ?
There is so much evidence that smoking causes harm to children eg cot deaths the idea that children should be exposed to it on public transport is crazy.

BonnieDundee · 14-05-2008, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zbrahead

Load of old balls.

People have a right to breath in clean air that is not polluted by a fog of drugs.

Of course they do....on their own property. On someone else's, if you are warned then either put up with it or don't enter.

BonnieDundee · 14-05-2008, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Cooper

1)If it were true would you be in favour of it ?
2) What evidence would convince you ? Or only a visit from God ?
There is so much evidence that smoking causes harm to children eg cot deaths the idea that children should be exposed to it on public transport is crazy.

Then their parents shouldn't expose them to it. It is their responsbility to do this not the states.

Would you go into an adult movie with your children and then complain about it and demand it be made child worthy?

BonnieDundee · 14-05-2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Cooper

There should be no laws about people run business ? So we should allow race discrimination ?

I think you are right and will build a nuclear power station right by your house.

I am sure as a freedom lover you will not mind and I will be creating my own employment.

The problem is not that there should be no rules but no intrusive ones which go into the individual's private sphere. The smoking ban and race discrimination laws are such intrusive laws.

Millennium3 · 14-05-2008, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Cooper

1)If it were true would you be in favour of it ?
2) What evidence would convince you ? Or only a visit from God ?
There is so much evidence that smoking causes harm to children eg cot deaths the idea that children should be exposed to it on public transport is crazy.

I haven't argued that smoking should be allowed in enclosed public places whilst there is concern that passive smoking is dangerous. However, I do believe that smoking should be allowed outside, except where it is dangerous to do so [petrol stations] and business should be allowed to provide smoking rooms for their customers - if they so wish.

It is right and proper that the government protect the innocent from harm, however, having informed smokers that smoking is dangerous and is likely to shorten their lives, their duty is done. Otherwise, if you support the logic that the government should protect people from themselves - how many other activities would become banned or made extremely difficult to pursue? It seem as if every day researchers find that this or that activity is likely to induce some health risk - followed to its logical conclusion everyone would be given a schedule of events for each day for the rest of their lives based on how to live as long as possible - even if it became so miserable they could not wait to die!

John Cooper · 14-05-2008, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

Then their parents shouldn't expose them to it. It is their responsbility to do this not the states.

Would you go into an adult movie with your children and then complain about it and demand it be made child worthy?

Do you really think that is comparable to wanting my children to be able to wait for train without some one breathing smoke in their face.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

The problem is not that there should be no rules but no intrusive ones which go into the individual's private sphere.

The problem is that other people's smoke goes in to my private sphere.

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

14-05-2008, 09:29 AM	#132 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,002	B.A. Ware: The issue of private property was a subject which I addressed on this thread a couple of days ago. (posting 426} At the moment very important Bills is going through Parliament. Changes in abortion time-limits and Stem Cell Research. Putting aside any moral objections which some people may have, both sides are presenting distinguished medical opinion in support of their respective cases. Both sides are claiming that their opponents scientific reasearch is flawed. Let us hope that the best available course of action will finally emerge. But whatever is decided, it will be decided by laymen (in the main) who have access to scientific opinion. That must always be the case in a Sovereign Parliament. If you are not happy; protest, seek changes, in short, employ the democratic process. Scientific opinion is but one string to your bow. But whatever you do BAW, throw away your clay-pipe. Even the Victorians knew that those caused tongue and gum cancer.