england ban on smoking

[morning-star]

who thinks the drinking age in England should be raised from 18?

 

[James the Persian]

who thinks the drinking age in England should be raised from 18?

No. Why? It wouldn't solve anything at all. There are plenty of countries with lower age limits for drinking that don't have the sorts of problems we have in the UK.

James

 

[morning-star]

No. Why? It wouldn't solve anything at all. There are plenty of countries with lower age limits for drinking that don't have the sorts of problems we have in the UK.

James

well I don't know about your area but around here we have an allful lot of young 'chavs' going around getting p*ssed then getting themselves killed in car crashes or getting into fights, and I'm sure to some extent it helps with the ever rising young mothers. people in England don't seem to drink responsibly. but in other countrys people seem to handle it better....

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

well I don't know about your area but around here we have an allful lot of young 'chavs' going around getting p*ssed then getting themselves killed in car crashes or getting into fights, and I'm sure to some extent it helps with the ever rising young mothers. people in England don't seem to drink responsibly. but in other countrys people seem to handle it better....

I think you are talking about the 15 to 25 age groups.
Older people are not the problem in most parts of the country.

Scotland has always been a special case... perhaps it was because they could not drink on Sundays and had to fit it all into six days... and it sort of stuck.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

You're kidding right? I don't know what it's like in the UK but here in the US alcohol is reponsible for almost as many deaths each year as tabacco. And the percentage of casulities among innocent bystanders is much, much higher.

That's to say nothing of the victims of alcohol related violent crimes.

Granted there are laws regulating alcohol use but in IMO, they're much too lax; you can get away with driving drunk 3 times here before your liscence is in jeapordy of being taken away. To me that's like being allowed to fire a gun in a crowd 3 times before they'll take your gun away.

I know alot more people who've been effected by someone else's drinking than those who've sufferred health consequences due to other people's smoking.

You cant compare them! A smoker CANT stop their smoke going near someone else, and stop them from breathing it in! A person who drinks is just irresponsible! They use the drink as an excuse but its actually them! They CAN chose if they effect someone and then blame it on the drink! I have been drunk many a time, but still have the sensibility to not get in a car with a drunk person driving, dont drive myself and most certainly have not been in fights! People who are like this when drunk are prob like it when soba!! The drink just helps them lose control of the car more quickly! They would still drive at x mile an hour!

I personally dont think that the drinking age should be highered, I dont think it helps! France has the best drinking lifestyle and theirs is 16! If anything highering it will make things worse!

 

[Moey]

who thinks the drinking age in England should be raised from 18?

I think America should adopt that age standard. The way I look at it is that If an 18 year old can die for their contry they should at least be able to by a drink first.

 

[morning-star]

I think you are talking about the 15 to 25 age groups.
Older people are not the problem in most parts of the county.

yep that is mainly what I am on about.

 

[michel]

*********************************************MOD POST********************************************

Could we all please remain on Topic ? The thread is about Smoking, not Drinking........if you want to start another thread, then please do so.​

 

[michel]

Every thing... they are citizens too They do not want to be forced to suffer second hand smoke.
And the companies do not want to face law suits from them, for damaging their health.
It has already been successfully done.

I agree; I go to a couple of Pubs (bars to you Americans); in both, the stench and heavy layer of cigarette smoke is like a low cloud.

Neither my wife nor I smoke (although I used to, for many years); when we went to the one just up the road, we took our dog with us (they are most always welcome in Pubs).

It was quite a nice day, so we thought we could sit at a table outside - but they were all taken; we asked if we could go into the room in which they serve food (they serve food in both bars but one is for that particular purpose); the landlord said "Sorry, no, because food is served in there":areyoucra

O.K, maybe understandable, but we ended up in the smoke zone. My wife (sometimes known for a touch of cynicism and "to the point" ways of talking) said to the barman "I'm surprised that you serve food in here, with all this smoke"......

he replied "Don't say anything, I am really looking forward to 1st july; I am fed up with putting my life at risk because customers insist on blowing smoke at me while I serve them"........

The same conversation (sort of) at the other place. The staff are just fed up with having to smoke second hand.

From:-http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2053840.stm

Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke increases the risk of developing lung cancer, international experts have said.

A working group from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, examined all of the major studies looking at smoking and cancer. After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they suggested non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and 30% more likely to develop lung cancer.

 

[Quagmire]

I agree; I go to a couple of Pubs (bars to you Americans); in both, the stench and heavy layer of cigarette smoke is like a low cloud.

Neither my wife nor I smoke (although I used to, for many years); when we went to the one just up the road, we took our dog with us (they are most always welcome in Pubs).

It was quite a nice day, so we thought we could sit at a table outside - but they were all taken; we asked if we could go into the room in which they serve food (they serve food in both bars but one is for that particular purpose); the landlord said "Sorry, no, because food is served in there":areyoucra

O.K, maybe understandable, but we ended up in the smoke zone. My wife (sometimes known for a touch of cynicism and "to the point" ways of talking) said to the barman "I'm surprised that you serve food in here, with all this smoke"......

he replied "Don't say anything, I am really looking forward to 1st july; I am fed up with putting my life at risk because customers insist on blowing smoke at me while I serve them"........

The same conversation (sort of) at the other place. The staff are just fed up with having to smoke second hand.

Thing is; if the bar owner had wanted to make his establishment non-smoking he could have at any time, ban or no. That's his right.

Of course no bar owner would do that because he'd lose business. He's not in favor of the ban because he believes it's just, he just knows it'll level the playing field in his favor.

The staff could have gone to work somewhere else (what is someone who's bothered by cigarrette smoke doing working in a bar anyway?). That's their right.

The customers could have refused to patronize any establishment that allows smoking. That's their right. They're not in favor of the ban because they think it's fair, they just know it'll make things more convienant for them.

In each case these people are chosing their own preference and convienance over other people's rights.

Noone's arguing against the fact that cigarrette smoke is bad for you, or that it's unpleasant for non-smokers.

The issue, as I see it, is "should the preferences and convience of one group supercede the rights of another group"?

(remember we're talking about private businesses here)

 

[Comet]

What you suggest is not the case in British law.
The law says what, why, when, who and where .... about smoking.
It makes no distinction about work places, public, Private or what ever. You can smoke in your own home ore in the open air... but not in enclosed property.
Some privately owned businesses and hospitals have banned smoking from their entire property already... both inside and out. this is their choice.

The Government has responded to pressure from people and health experts to introduce this ban... it has popular support.
They have not gone so far as to make smoking illegal... just where you can not do it.

It will eventually reduce the numbers of smokers, as people will find they do not care to prolong their suffering from withdrawal, for instance at work.

The government have not been able to find a legal way to ban the manufacture or use of tobacco. Though the EEC may find a way in the future.

The tax we will lose will in any even be countered by savings in the Health service.

The same would not apply in the USA as your health professionals make money from illness, and would lose out with a smoking ban.

A Catch-22.... the government doesn't want smoking, but it won't without the tax dollars from it...... go figure!

You have said numerous time "EVERYBODY" wants this.... not true. At least here you admit it is "popular demand". It will not cut down on smoking at all..... look at the US and its drug polocies. They just found a new drug to use or they go "underground" to use it.

So let me ask you this: "You can smoke in your home, but not in enclosed property."
:cover: ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I OWN a home. I OWN a business. So I have the right to choose what happens in my house but not my place of business? I have the right of a business owner to REFUSE service to anybody, but I can't allow a LEGAL activity in my property if I CHOOSE TO?????????

Please, explain how that is fair?

You have the RIGHT to not come to my house or business..... I DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHAT I OR OTHERS DO THERE?????? I DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO ALLOW A LEGAL ACTIVITY IN MY "ENCLOSED PROPERTY"????????? Please, explain how that is fair!

 

[Comet]

What you suggest is not the case in British law.
The law says what, why, when, who and where .... about smoking.
It makes no distinction about work places, public, Private or what ever. You can smoke in your own home ore in the open air... but not in enclosed property.
Some privately owned businesses and hospitals have banned smoking from their entire property already... both inside and out. this is their choice.

This said it all.... read what you posted!

You say it "makes no distinction about work places, public, Private or what ever. You can smoke in your own home ore in the open air.... but not in enclosed property."

Hello? My home is "enclosed property", so is my business..... If the law "makes no distinction" about PRIVATE vs PUBLIC, but I'm still allowed to smoke in my OWN PRIVATELY OWNED house...... where is the distinction with my PRIVATELY OWNED business????????????? Last time I was in England, PUBS (etc...) were PRIVATELY owned, not government operated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm glad some places have banned smoking! IT IS THEIR RIGHT TO CHOOSE TO DO SO!

By what you say of your ban..... I can SMOKE (if I choose to start again) at any park, zoo, or on the street and subject you to second hand smoke LEGALLY! Yet, I couldn't smoke in a PRIVATE business that would CHOOSE to allow smoking.

What a great law! (sarcasm) I'll "kill" you on PUBLIC propery, but don't come to my business where I can't.........

YES, it should be a CHOICE to PRIVATE PLACES.... PUBLIC PLACES should offer both and not subject the PUBLIC to the RIGHTS of others in those places.

 

[Comet]

Sorry, no smoking allowed in my PRIVATELY owned establishment per the government. Please go to your local park, zoo, street corner, or any other PUBLICALLY OWNED place to smoke. Thank you, this is for the good of the PUBLIC and not my PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER RIGHTS..... we hope you understand the irony of our new law.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

The distiction is privately homes are private. Unless you want to tell us something......... Pubs may be privately owned but they are public! hence they are referred to as public houses! for everyone, otherwise they wouldnt be a business!!!

You can smoke outside as it is not enclosed, so less concentrated and less likely for someone to breath it in! Its enclosed spaces where the smoke cant escape so builds up to the point you can see it and then it causes harm!

 

[Comet]

The distiction is privately homes are private. Unless you want to tell us something......... Pubs may be privately owned but they are public! hence they are referred to as public houses! for everyone, otherwise they wouldnt be a business!!!

You can smoke outside as it is not enclosed, so less concentrated and less likely for someone to breath it in! Its enclosed spaces where the smoke cant escape so builds up to the point you can see it and then it causes harm!

So let me get this straight.....

You can't see smoke outside and therefore it is not as harmful?
A business owned by a person is not PRIVATELY owned, it is PUBLICALLY owned????

Ahh, I get it. If I own something where I should dictate what happens in my establishment; it is PUBLIC. If I go to a place owned and taken care of by TAX dollars.... it is private like my house and I could smoke there. Is that right?

That must be the dumbest thing I have ever heard anybody say in any debate. If you can't see the "ill-logic" in that, then all is hopeless.....

A PRIVATLEY owned business is not PUBLIC PROPERTY! The PUBLIC has the right to go there or NOT! A business owner has the RIGHT to dictate what LEGAL activities happen in THEIR establishment or not!!!!!

If you are so concerned with the PUBLIC, then why dictate to PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENTS and forfeit your right to complain about PUBLIC areas!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!


Don't smoke at that Privetley owned pub, I have the right to go there! Please, feel free to smoke outside on the street, at the zoo, or in the park around my kids! That is great, just not a business I might like to go to!

 

[Truth_Faith13]

You are completely misreading what I have said!!!

I didnt say because you cant see smoke outside its not harmful! I said it was less likely as it is less concentrated and has a bigger area (lets say the WHOLE planet) to move in! I said in a building with Walls - you know the thing with bricks - tends to stop smoke getting out, therefore it builds up and is more concentrated and is therefore more harmful! Kind of like having one drink and you can still walk in a straight line - if you have lots you become paraletic!!!!!

I DID NOT say businesses are publicley OWNED, I said they were businesses for the public! Anyone can go in and out as they choose. It is PRIVATELY owned yes, but it is run for the PUBLIC!!!! Unless your house is a brothel, I am guessing, not everyone get enter it as they wish and without your permission by knocking on the door first! I am also guessing the public dont come to your house and pay you to keep your house up and running. So in a way you could say it was the public as without the public the business wouldnt be open!!!!!

I will say it one more time. PUBS ARE CALLED PUBLIC HOUSES!!!!

I think you need to be careful what you are saying!

"A business owner has the RIGHT to dictate what LEGAL activities happen in THEIR establishment or not!!!!!"

So you agree that the pub has to abide by government laws - ie LEGAL!!! well, smoking in public places is now ILLEGAL, so what are you complaining about!

Now who is being dumb?