Reply to: Ban Alcohol

[The Lone Gunman]

I would welcome that - I didn't make the laws. Blame NL.

But wasn't that the situation we had before the ban for non smokers, that they could set up or change a pub to not allow smoking? A no smoking pub for non smokers run and staffed by non smokers?
They just chose not to bother, they chose to carry on visiting smoking pubs then kicked up a fuss that smoking should be banned.
For the sake of 1 little no smoking sign we now have law that curtails our freedoms. Don't believe that your freedoms have not been damaged just because you do not smoke.

[OwlHoot]

I thought sad, lonely, pathetic losers bevcame recruitment consultants? Isn't that what you do when you cannot get a real job?

You say no "decent" arguement was raised in your ban fishing thread, maybe because it was a stup[id thread with very weak arguements on your side?

And "noone has been killed by passive smoking", where have you been the last 50 years? There has been a mountain of evidence to show that you can catch cancer by passive smoking. You are an idiot.

That whistling noise you probably missed was the underlying (or overflying?) point of Dodgy's post sailing way over your head.

While we're about it, why not ban football? Total waste of a saturday afternoon watching a bunch of grossly overpaid primadonnas kicking a pig's bladder around.

[sasguru]

1. Fart
Legislation would be a little drastic, especially for those with irritable bowel syndrome

2. Drive cars that pump out toxic carbon monoxide
I agree. Make 'em pay through the nose.

3 Dont wash so send off BO
Such people are generally shunned I find

4. Fat and occupy excess space on aircraft, buses and other confined spaces.
I agree. Raise taxes on lard and cakes

5. Noise, inmmany forms that are legal yet annoying and stressful.
That's what environmental health officers and ASBOs are for

6 "bagging sun loungers with towels"
Wake up earlier

HTH

[DodgyAgent]

Because the people who work there did not choose to be in a smoking environment and unlike us not everyone gets to choose where they work, so do not bother to come back and say they could choose to work elsewhere.

It is also worth pointing out that 3 out of 4 people do not smoke, so any Pub which decides to allow smoking is also turning away 75% of the potential market.

The person who smokes makes the decision also for those around them. The person who drinks makes no such decision for those around them.

PS Oral Sex is illegal in some places.

So if I wanted to set up a pub just for people who smoke and employed only people who themselves smoked/happy to work in smoke, why should the fact that you dont think that it would be profitable be a reason for banning me from opening the pub?

I may point out to you that there are many things that people do that affect others around them, some of which are dangerous, some of which are anti social, none of which are banned:
1. Fart
2. Drive cars that pump out toxic carbon monoxide
3 Dont wash so send off BO
4. Fat and occupy excess space on aircraft, buses and other confined spaces.
5. Noise, inmmany forms that are legal yet annoying and stressful.
6 "bagging sun loungers with towels"

[sasguru]

PS Oral Sex is illegal in some places.

Where? Tunbridge Wells?

[zathras]

Fair point, so why not allow people to have their own pub where people are welcome to smoke?

Because the people who work there did not choose to be in a smoking environment and unlike us not everyone gets to choose where they work, so do not bother to come back and say they could choose to work elsewhere.

It is also worth pointing out that 3 out of 4 people do not smoke, so any Pub which decides to allow smoking is also turning away 75% of the potential market.

The person who smokes makes the decision also for those around them. The person who drinks makes no such decision for those around them.

PS Oral Sex is illegal in some places.

[Zorba]

Sasguru's point is good. Of course, there is always the risk of the freedom of others being linked to the spending of their taxes on NHS services for people suffering from illnesses linked to smoking, i.e. if you smoke you restrict my freedom to have a health service that doesn't spend millions on illnesses that won't affect non-smokers so much.

But you could say the same thing for obesity, alcohol and even motorists. So I think that would be going too far. I do think that private smoking clubs or pubs should be allowed though - you could always insist that any staff are already smokers, to avoid any involuntary passive smoking issues.

[sasguru]

Fair point, so why not allow people to have their own pub where people are welcome to smoke?

I would welcome that - I didn't make the laws. Blame NL.

[DodgyAgent]

It's a simple principle which has been applied in the more enlightened countries for centuries.

Your rights stop when they infringe mine.

Everyone should be able to do what they want UNTIL it affects other people adversely. People are free to smoke in the privacy of their homes.I deserve the right not to be forced to inhale other people's smoke in a public place.

If someone is drinking that doesn't affect me directly unless they get violent. But then there are laws to deal with that. People are free to drink themselves to death in peace if they so wish.

If two people agree to oral sex, well that's up to them.
If someone forces oral sex on someone, that is called rape, there are laws to deal with that.

Simple concept really, except for hard-of-thinking Telegraph readers who clearly equate banning smoking with a serious infringement of civil liberties. Why set up this straw man debate, there are plenty of real rights which are vanishing under our noses: habeas corpus, innocent until proven guilty, the right to a quick trial for starters. Why don't you moan about those?

Fair point, so why not allow people to have their own pub where people are welcome to smoke?

[sasguru]

Nicotine is not dangerous until someone smokes it. Alcohol is not dangerous until someone has too much of it and becomes aggressive. The jury is still out as to whether or not passive smoking actually causes or contributes to lung cancer or illness (carbon monoxide from cars contributes to ill health, yet we do not ban cars do we?).

The point surely is that smoking has been banned apparently because of the danger to other people and because it is anti social. By the same argument alcohol should be banned because without it there would be far fewer people with liver problems and there would be fewer acts of violence; so if you ban smoking then you should also ban alcohol.

I know that a lot of you "ban supporters" are holier than thou guardian readers who think that banning smoking gives you some sort of moral integrity, but I am afraid this puts you in the same category as the likes of those super controllers such as Patricia hewitt, tessa Jowell, Dawn Primarlo .
(however you spell her name), the Health & Safety mafia et al.

The best the you can do to argue my point is either to sling insults or sidetrack the argument into a technical issue over whether passive smoking contributes to cancer (which I am afraid introduces new dynamics to the argument, apparently oral sex. causes cancer as do a number of other activities and diets...ban them!).

In much the same way that banning smoking will have a positive effect on my own life, banning oral sex will not make a jot of difference to most of you.
It is not unreasonable to presume that if you ban smoking then you should ban alcohol. If you ban alcohol then you should also ban oral sex. In order then to make it easier to cope without blowjobs then maybe we should cover our women up to reduce the desire to have oral sex.

Then what are we left with?

Why? an extremist totalitarian religious society .

It's a simple principle which has been applied in the more enlightened countries for centuries.

Your rights stop when they infringe mine.

Everyone should be able to do what they want UNTIL it affects other people adversely. People are free to smoke in the privacy of their homes.I deserve the right not to be forced to inhale other people's smoke in a public place.

If someone is drinking that doesn't affect me directly unless they get violent. But then there are laws to deal with that. People are free to drink themselves to death in peace if they so wish.

If two people agree to oral sex, well that's up to them.
If someone forces oral sex on someone, that is called rape, there are laws to deal with that.

Simple concept really, except for hard-of-thinking Telegraph readers who clearly equate banning smoking with a serious infringement of civil liberties. Why set up this straw man debate, there are plenty of real rights which are vanishing under our noses: habeas corpus, innocent until proven guilty, the right to a quick trial for starters. Why don't you moan about those?

[DodgyAgent]

Cobblers!

Alchohol in and of itself is not dangerous and in moderation can be good for you. Even one cigarette is bad for you. Alchohol is not responsible because it is embibed by some idiot who shows he is incabable of deciding that he has had enough.

Speaking as a non-smoker even in a street when somethings thoughtless tw*t smoking blows his smoke in my direction it can set my asthma off so don't come around saying it causes no harm.

Nicotine is not dangerous until someone smokes it. Alcohol is not dangerous until someone has too much of it and becomes aggressive. The jury is still out as to whether or not passive smoking actually causes or contributes to lung cancer or illness (carbon monoxide from cars contributes to ill health, yet we do not ban cars do we?).

The point surely is that smoking has been banned apparently because of the danger to other people and because it is anti social. By the same argument alcohol should be banned because without it there would be far fewer people with liver problems and there would be fewer acts of violence; so if you ban smoking then you should also ban alcohol.

I know that a lot of you "ban supporters" are holier than thou guardian readers who think that banning smoking gives you some sort of moral integrity, but I am afraid this puts you in the same category as the likes of those super controllers such as Patricia hewitt, tessa Jowell, Dawn Primarlo .
(however you spell her name), the Health & Safety mafia et al.

The best the you can do to argue my point is either to sling insults or sidetrack the argument into a technical issue over whether passive smoking contributes to cancer (which I am afraid introduces new dynamics to the argument, apparently oral sex. causes cancer as do a number of other activities and diets...ban them!).

In much the same way that banning smoking will have a positive effect on my own life, banning oral sex will not make a jot of difference to most of you.
It is not unreasonable to presume that if you ban smoking then you should ban alcohol. If you ban alcohol then you should also ban oral sex. In order then to make it easier to cope without blowjobs then maybe we should cover our women up to reduce the desire to have oral sex.

Then what are we left with?

Why? an extremist totalitarian religious society .

[zathras]

My original point was that if you are going to ban smoking on the grounds of harm that it does to people that alcohol falls into much the same category (in my view worse). I believe that this banning culture is a hitleresque fad that is done for no other reason than to satisfy the personal problems/interests of those instigating and supporting the ban.

Cobblers!

Alchohol in and of itself is not dangerous and in moderation can be good for you. Even one cigarette is bad for you. Alchohol is not responsible because it is embibed by some idiot who shows he is incabable of deciding that he has had enough.

Speaking as a non-smoker even in a street when somethings thoughtless tw*t smoking blows his smoke in my direction it can set my asthma off so don't come around saying it causes no harm.

[wobbegong]

A point which the smoking apologists are loathe to concede.
On a BTW, why would you want to imbibe a poncy drink like Chardonnay. That's like so 80s, man!

Because, erm . . . I'm an 80's ponce?

[sasguru]

But smoking isn't banned per se, it's banned in "enclosed public spaces". Areas where person 'A' could, through no intent of their own, be subjected to breathe in person 'B's tobacco smoke. Now with drinking, If I walk past a table in a restaurant where 8 people are sipping their Chardonnay, I don't unwittingly (more's the pity) intake any of it.

A point which the smoking apologists are loathe to concede.
On a BTW, why would you want to imbibe a poncy drink like Chardonnay. That's like so 80s, man!

[zathras]

No one has yet to be killed by passive smoking

I beg to differ. Roy Castle if you want an example. His Cancer was put down to years working in smoke filled clubs, he never smoked his entire life.

As for Alchohol.

1 cigerette is bad for you

1 drink of alchohol can actually be good for you.

Drink in moderation and it will do you good. Smoke in moderation and it will still do you harm.