Labour's smoking ban killed the British pub

[Mich the Tester]

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.

Yes, but you should certainly not be allowed to ask others to work there or run the factory in a way that exposes other people or the environment to asbestos. If you want to sit in your own little asbestos factory, sealed off from the world with your asbestosist chums, go ahead. Or don't, because I'd rather you didn't die too young.

[darmstadt]

Smoking ban exemptions:

While the ban affects almost all indoor workplaces, some exemptions were provided:

- bus shelters (provided they are less than 50% covered, some councils however assume no exemptions apply),
- phone boxes (but box types K2 to K8 are included, because they are completely sealed)
- hotel rooms (if they are designated as smoking rooms)
- nursing homes
- prisons
- offshore oil rigs (only in designated rooms)
- psychiatric wards (until 1 July 2008)
- stages/television sets (if needed for the performance, except in rehearsals)
- specialist tobacconists in relation to sampling cigars and/or pipe tobacco.

An exemption was also theoretically possible within the Palace of Westminster, as for other Royal Palaces, although members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords agreed to observe the spirit of the ban and restrict any smoking within the grounds of Parliament to four designated outside areas.

Smoking is permitted in a private residence, although not in areas used as a shared work-space. In flats with communal entrances or shared corridors, these must be smoke-free.

Although prisons and hotel rooms are provisionally exempt, university halls of residence presented some dilemmas in practice as regards defining what is public and private. Several universities have imposed a blanket ban on smoking including halls of residence.





(* Okay I may be wrong about Parliament although some of it is technically exempt, from Hansard:

“The Health Act 2006 introduces a ban on smoking in workplaces and enclosed or substantially enclosed public places from 1 July 2007. While the Act does not formally apply on the parliamentary estate, the Commission, on the advice of the Administration Committee, has decided that the House should comply with the principles of the legislation, as it is not desirable that those who work on or visit the parliamentary estate should be treated differently in this respect than in other workplaces and public places. The Commission recognises, however, that many who work on the estate are unavoidably present for long periods, particularly when the House is sitting. It is therefore desirable to make reasonable provision for those who wish to smoke to do so, provided that the health and safety of other users of the estate is not adversely affected.

With these principles in mind, the Commission has decided that smoking should cease to be permitted from 1 July 2007 in all internal areas of the House of Commons estate, including in bars and private offices. From that date smoking will, however, be permitted in four designated external areas: the Terrace, Commons Court (North West corner), North Terrace (between Portcullis House and Norman Shaw South), and in a designated area on the west side of Canon Row courtyard. Cigarette receptacles will be provided in these areas. “No Smoking” signs will be displayed at entrances to the buildings. I understand that the House of Lords Administration and Works Committee will report its recommendations shortly on the smoking policy for the Lords part of the Parliamentary Estate.”

From 1693: Resolution banning smoking in the House of Commons - UK Parliament

Members Smoking Room (no smoking is allowed, the name is historic) bar prices: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/f...20v1.0.pdf.pdf )

[d000hg]

Yes, but you should certainly not be allowed to ask others to work there or run the factory in a way that exposes other people or the environment to asbestos

If I choose to take a job like this, shouldn't I have to waive my right to NHS treatment? Why should others have to pay for my reckless libertarian idiocy?

[Gittins Gal]

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.

Don't be daft. I don't think anyone is disputing the link between asbestos and certain types of cancer.

The link between second hand smoke and cancer, on the other hand, is far more tenuous. Now that the anti smoking zealots have achieved their goals it looks more like that particular argument ( and the dodgy statistics used to back it up) was just a ruse to justify a ban that would lead to a lot of people giving up.

I wouldn't have such a problem with it if there were (as another poster said) some transparency to the whole thing.

[Gittins Gal]

If I choose to take a job like this, shouldn't I have to waive my right to NHS treatment? Why should others have to pay for my reckless libertarian idiocy?

What difference does it make? I get a bit weary of this "drain on the NHS" argument.

Something's going to get you at some point. What does it matter if it's asbestosis now or senile dementia followed by a stroke when you are 98?

[Mich the Tester]

If I choose to take a job like this, shouldn't I have to waive my right to NHS treatment? Why should others have to pay for my reckless libertarian idiocy?

No, and it is indeed idiocy. Lots of things that can lead to injury or illness can be said to be reckless idiocy by someone. Drug abuse, heavy drinking, playing rugby, getting into fights, rock climbing, swordfighting, wasting your life in the office, working from stupid o'clock in the morning until silly o'clock in the night for the delusion that a 'high flying career' with a bit or even a lot more money is going to make you and your family happy, but I don't go judging people who do those things and I certainly wouldn't want to decide who gets medical treatment and who doesn't, because it is not for me to judge; that's because I am no better or worse, no more or less valuable than those other people.

[d000hg]

What difference does it make? I get a bit weary of this "drain on the NHS" argument.

Something's going to get you at some point. What does it matter if it's asbestosis now or senile dementia followed by a stroke when you are 98?

It seems strange that a libertarian would want the NHS. You complain the government is too big and intrusive on your liberties, and ramble on about a Mummy State, but then when you use your liberties to get yourself into a bad way you want Mummy to come and kiss it better.

[Mich the Tester]

It seems strange that a libertarian would want the NHS. You complain the government is too big and intrusive on your liberties, and ramble on about a Mummy State, but then when you use your liberties to get yourself into a bad way you want Mummy to come and kiss it better.

I think that´s a somewhat disingenuous position; having an NHS is actually part of the realisation that all of us can be unlucky and all of us can make mistakes, some big, some small, some with disastrous consequences.

[shaunbhoy]

No, and it is indeed idiocy. Lots of things that can lead to injury or illness can be said to be reckless idiocy by someone. Drug abuse, heavy drinking, playing rugby, getting into fights, rock climbing, swordfighting, wasting your life in the office, working from stupid o'clock in the morning until silly o'clock in the night for the delusion that a 'high flying career' with a bit or even a lot more money is going to make you and your family happy, but I don't go judging people who do those things and I certainly wouldn't want to decide who gets medical treatment and who doesn't, because it is not for me to judge; that's because I am no better or worse, no more or less valuable than those other people.

Whoooaaaa there. This post is dragging this thread dangerously close to the sensible. Desist at once please, "General" has its reputation to consider!!

As for the OP, Wetherspoons has had more to do with the death of the "British Pub" than the smoking ban.
And a good thing too IMHO.....Way too many of them and way overpriced in too many cases.

[d000hg]

I think that´s a somewhat disingenuous position; having an NHS is actually part of the realisation that all of us can be unlucky and all of us can make mistakes, some big, some small, some with disastrous consequences.

Well I'm in favour of the NHS. But I'm not a libertarian - and my understanding is that libertarianism is in favour of minimalist government intervention in all areas of life. If that's not accurate then I retract my comment.