Smoking Ban To Be Reversed?

John Cooper · 14-05-2008, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Millennium3

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!

Smoking is allowed outside.
I have no problem with letting people abuse nicotine - I just don't want them to harm me (although of course there are other ways of doing this without smoking like smoke free cigarettes, which I think should be encouraged.)

Millennium3 · 14-05-2008, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Cooper

Smoking is allowed outside.
I have no problem with letting people abuse nicotine - I just don't want them to do near me (although of course there are other ways of doing this without smoking like smoke free cigarettes)

I think you will find there is a ban on smoking on railway platforms and I am sure there are other cases.

mkpdavies · 14-05-2008, 01:29 PM

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 only rules should be they can't force people do do things and make clear any risks or dangers involved before employment.

I couldn't care less if you build a power station near me, as long as you compensate the material damage done to my property value or provide me with some sort of equalising package.

If people want to discriminate by race, then that's their call. It is their business and they can choose who they want in it. Personally I wouldn't use a fool who chose employees on the basis of colour.

As I am not so bothered about the liberty of groups to use their collective power, I would be less adverse to you imposing your wishes on them, as long as that was the democratic will of the local area.

TannyD · 14-05-2008, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akebono

Apologies.

So you admit that you don't know what insipid means then?

Westcountryman · 14-05-2008, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Millennium3

I think you will find there is a ban on smoking on railway platforms and I am sure there are other cases.

Yes, it could be for two reasons. Either they're considered to be too enclosed, or they're considered to be places of work - which is fair enough given that most stations have 'dispatch' teams these days.

Geoffrey Collier · 14-05-2008, 04:36 PM

Insurance cover constraints are also a factor.

Millennium3 · 14-05-2008, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eurosceptic Atlanticist

Yes, it could be for two reasons. Either they're considered to be too enclosed, or they're considered to be places of work - which is fair enough given that most stations have 'dispatch' teams these days.

The point I am trying to make is that the government has to warn of the dangers of smoking and whilst there is concern that about passive smoking to continue with laws to protect individuals in enclosed spaces - but that's as far as their duty goes - not to try to protect people from themselves.

Given the doubt about the dangers of passive smoking, nobody in their wildest dreams can be convinced that they are in danger from being close to someone smoking on an outdoor railway platform. If they are, they are much more in danger in town from exhaust inhalation on a busy high street. Exhaust fumes will kill you in an enclosed space in a relatively short time. You could be in the same area with a smoker, probably for years, without suffering any harmful effects.

Sense must prevail if laws are to be respected - and this is important in a well governed society, once some laws are seen to be clearly stupid, the good ones start being questioned.

Millennium3 · 14-05-2008, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

Insurance cover constraints are also a factor.

Do you think that the insurance premiums would raise substantially if the railways allowed smoking on outdoor platforms?

fordtit · 14-05-2008, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TannyD

So you admit that you don't know what insipid means then?

Don't you put that on pancakes?

TannyD · 14-05-2008, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fordtit

Don't you put that on pancakes?

You might, but I don't...

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

14-05-2008, 04:36 PM	#146 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,006	Insurance cover constraints are also a factor.