Labour's smoking ban killed the British pub

[mudskipper]

Well yes, you would have thought that. I mean a place dedicated to smoking, for people that want to smoke, privately, without "infecting" anyone else that was there against their will, that even staff knew and had the choice what they were getting in to. All reasonable, all good, all personal choice.

Ah, but no, those *******, those parasites, those puritans, those miserablists, those that want to force engineer social changes against the will of a subset of population, those that will never cease to be bansturbators once smoking has been made verboten, will it be sugar next, fast foods, fatty people, colourful drinks, those authoritarians that can't afford for their taxpayers funds to cease (won't someone think of their spawns private schooling...), those bastards have decreed, against all logic, that private members clubs are not exempt from the smoking ban.

Makes you fecking proud.

And this has never been about health.

[darmstadt]

Some quick research on Google suggests very few medical conditions that cause weight gain. The best known (although still very rare) is hyperthyroidism, and that's treatable.

Cushing's is another one although bizarrely it's more often brought on by obesity.

So, basically, fat is fat due to overeating in say all but one in 50,000 cases.

I checked my special modified Daily Mail Google system and apparently its benefits that make people fat

[Mich the Tester]

Sure! You're missing the chance to have a good RANT! tulip, I think I need a fag to calm me down.

My outburst is pretty insignificant compared to hyperD's one though. Truly epic, bro! Have a cigar.

Maybe I need to start getting militant about my non-militant beliefs. Although that would be self contradictory of course. I'm a moderate; hated by the left, hated by the right, hated by militants and extremists of all kinds for just not being militant enough and preferring reasonable compromise over authoritarian extremes. But look, it's not moderates who've given us all this regulation of smoking, drinking, eating, driving, running a business from day to day, going on holiday; it's those bloody militants.

To take hyperD's words, 'those puritans, those miserablists, those that want to force engineer social changes against the will of a subset of population' have one thing in common; they're militants. They believe they have the right to throw the full oppressive and violent power of the state against anyone who wants to have a fag, a drink, have a bit of fun in a car or on a bike (motorised or not), anyone who has the temerity to fall in love with someone from another country, and so they campaign to the government to get regulations, restrictions, speed bumps and cameras every 100 metres, long queues to get your biometric passport checked before and after your trip to the sun and so on. Of course, your tax bill keeps rising to pay for this, and the bloody miserablists can't even make the books balance. Even worse, there are militant miserablists who'll kill people for not believing in the same deity as themselves, and then militants who beat up people for believing in the same deity as some of the killers. The mayor of Rotterdam is now under police protection, because militant football 'supporters' are angry at his attempts at clamping down on hooliganism and have sent him death threats; how bloody mad is this?

So there you have it; I'm not a militant and I don't want to be a militant because militants of all flavours and smells are ruining the world for decent, moderate, reasonable people. I still have enough faith in humanity to believe that between 6 and 6.5 billion of the world's 7 billion people are actually rather like me; moderates who don't want to kill people, regulate people, oppress people, steal from people, torture people, scrounge from other people, inspect other people, threaten other people or make other people's lives miserable. Sometimes it's difficult to keep up that belief, because the reason we're so heavily regulated might be that everybody has called for something that somebody else does to be regulated, but still I have some faith in humanity. Perhaps it's time for the moderates to stand up and show that there are rather a lot of us. But first I'll have a piece of cake and some coffee.

[d000hg]

When your finger goes through the paper?

Cut your nails.

Well yes, you would have thought that. I mean a place dedicated to smoking, for people that want to smoke, privately, without "infecting" anyone else that was there against their will, that even staff knew and had the choice what they were getting in to. All reasonable, all good, all personal choice.

The argument that staff shouldn't be allowed to take such a job even if they want to is a valid one I think, but that's only a passing comment.

How come I can find smoking clubs in London if it's not allowed? I struggle to believe the parliamentary bar allowing smoking is a single case, they must be using some clause others can too.

[Gittins Gal]

Perhaps it's time for the moderates to stand up and show that there are rather a lot of us. But first I'll have a piece of cake and some coffee.

And therein lies the problem!

Some people are born with a placard in their hands (cf. Peter Tatchell) but they never seem to espouse moderate causes.

[Mich the Tester]

And therein lies the problem!

Some people are born with a placard in their hands (cf. Peter Tatchell) but they never seem to espouse moderate causes.

Actually I think the core of his cause is absolutely reasonable; leave gay people alone let them get on with their lives. I agree with that completely. Trouble is, he seems to think that to achieve that you have to hassle christians, muslims, hindus, jews and so on and so forth, some of whom might have opinions he doesnt like, but the vast majority of whom already do exactly what his cause says despite their personal beliefs; they leave gay people alone and let them get on with their lives. It's the bloody militants that make gay people's lives difficult.

[Gittins Gal]

The argument that staff shouldn't be allowed to take such a job even if they want to is a valid one I think, but that's only a passing comment.

What, you mean a grown up person can't be allowed to make choices based on his/her own judgement?

That statement smacks of the very worst of lefty, statist, interventionist bollux.

[Mich the Tester]

What, you mean a grown up person can't be allowed to make choices based on his/her own judgement?

That statement smacks of the very worst of lefty, statist, interventionist bollux.

I agree; here in NL the smoking ban has been sold to us as 'protecting the right of every worker to a smoke free workplace'. This is the kind of despicable perversion of language that is more common in totalitarian states, because nobody has been given a 'right'; everybody has been given an 'obligation' to work in a smoke free workplace, regardless of their personal wishes. An obligation, a restriction of liberty has been sold as a 'right'. I despise this abuse of language and the assumption that I'm too dim and illiterate to see through it.

[Gittins Gal]

Actually I think the core of his cause is absolutely reasonable; leave gay people alone let them get on with their lives.

I think Tatchell wants a lot more than that (which makes him militant IMO) but my point is that there are people who will always find some cause over which to wave a placard. If the whole world were gay, he'd be agit-propping for some other cause.

[d000hg]

What, you mean a grown up person can't be allowed to make choices based on his/her own judgement?

That statement smacks of the very worst of lefty, statist, interventionist bollux.

So if I want to work in an asbestos factory without wearing safety equipment, I should be allowed to?

You do come up with some stupid statements.

People needing to support their family will take a job with health risks if you allow them to - just look at factory workers a few decades ago in the UK, or in present day China. They are willingly opening themselves up to health problems because they don't want to starve. It is the government's job to protect people from having to make that kind of choice.