People's Republic of Scotland Bans Smoking!

I got two packs of tobacco seeds this past month for free at the tobacco museum in Ohio. I will mail them to any forum member for free if they want to try and grow some tobacco.

I still agree with Gordon. There are better things the government can do for us besides telling people where and when to smoke. And I don't smoke either. Most smokers don't bother me except my Dad when he smoked his cigar in the car when the windows were up.

If they want to ban something then ban the people who dip snuff and spit in cups and cans in front of everybody.

 

So, you are saying that smoking isn't bad for you? Wow! End of discussion I guess.

 

Maybe so, but the point I was making is that this ban was not made because the act was bad for the person committing it, it was made because it is bad for others. Banning cigarettes because they are bad for smokers would be daft, it is their decision to make.

Sorry, didn't express myself particularly well.

 

So, you are saying that smoking isn't bad for you? Wow! End of discussion I guess. </font>[/QUOTE]You know I didn't say that! Smoking was banned due to the ALLEGED dangers of passive smoking...you remember that...that's the danger the "experts" can't actually find conclusive proof of. Depending on which "expert" you listen to, it either kills 100 people annually in Scotland or 3000. Still a hell of a lot less than road accidents, housefires etc.
Scotland seems to have reached the stage where the rights of every minority pressure group is deemed more important than the rights of society as a whole-hence this thread's title. All anyone has to do to get something banned these days is to turn on the waterworks, quote hysterical "statistics" few people are in a position to argue with, and bingo! "Justice" yet again for the people... Except it isn't, since the only people who cared in the first place are the professional whingers and control freaks who hate the idea of freedom of choice.
Taxpayers are adults, and it's high bloody time the Scottish Parliament started to realise that and stop interfering in things that don't concern them. Either that, or stop pretending we live in a democracy.

 

In NYC, smoking in public restaurants and public areas has been banned for some time. Don't think it wasn't fought - freedom hounds litigated the action vehemently, but it's not a fundamental right under the constitution. Fear that it would kill business, etc. Turns out, more people come out to DRINK and destroy their livers instead - and since they can't smoke, buy more booze!

It's not a "ban" on smoking for the smoker's health, it's a workplace restriction. People who work in bars, etc are exposed to high levels of second hand smoke - which, despite YEARS of denial - causes cancer. The issue is health costs - especially here in the welfare state NY. More people with cancer from smoke - more taxes have to be paid to care for their illness. Reduce smoking = reduced health costs, simple. I myself don't smoke - but I don't have a problem with people who like slow suicide - that's their freedom - just don't take anyone else out with your habits and so long as I don't have to pay for it. That's fair enough, right?

 

Just to be pedantic, Gordon… for the whole population to vote a general referendum was needed, and even with this I highly doubt all the population would have voted. Now, to prevent those problems there's a science called statistic, which if they asked 10.000 people at hazard then the results are not revertible. The percentage may vary a couple of points, but the general tendency will not.

 

Just to be pedantic, Gordon… for the whole population to vote a general referendum was needed, and even with this I highly doubt all the population would have voted. Now, to prevent those problems there's a science called statistic, which if they asked 10.000 people at hazard then the results are not revertible. The percentage may vary a couple of points, but the general tendency will not.

 

Drache, that is fair enough we followed suit in Ireland and it gets the thumbs up from us!

 

Drache,
I don't smoke either. I'm just sick of busybodies deciding what's best for the rest of us. I think it's amusing that Americans have a legal right to own guns and possibly use them on other people, but demand a ban on passive smoking because it (allegedly)kills.
Workplace restriction my arse. As I said, I went through all this crap ten years ago in local government. First it was smoking bans, then;
-Ban on eating fried food at lunchtime in the office. Apparently not fair to expect other people to smell of your lunch. Not that anyone would
-Drinking tea/coffee/canned drinks in the office. Unprofessional, apparently.
-Allowing people with kids emergency leave when their kids have accidents, illnesses etc. It seems those non-smoking, non-fried food eating "Beautiful people" carry the rest of us who actually live in the real world.
-Demanding staff are MADE to leave cars at home and use public transport. Helps save the planet, you see.
-Banning the staff canteen from selling more than a token amount of fried food. Never mind that they nearly bankrupted it and put people out of work; at least THEY could rest content.
Believe you me...if the Nicotine Nazis get away with this one, they'll do exactly the same as they did in my old workplace; pull out a long list of hates and work their way through it until EVERYTHING they disapprove of is banned. No exceptions.
If only life was as simple as you seem to think with regard to healthcare. Fewer smokers, cheaper healthcare? Let's take that to its logical conclusion and ban sport; No self-inflicted injuries, cheaper health care and fewer working days lost to the economy. Sound fair? After all, why should the rest of us carry an idiot at work because he fancies himself as Hercules, and see essential medical services sidetracked for avoidable injuries? Sound familiar?
I'm sick to the back teeth of unelected, unaccountable, unrepresentative, single-issue "pressure groups" being allowed to dictate to the rest of us.
They also tend to miss the point; the quickest way to create MORE smokers is to give it an air of rebelliousness by banning it. Heroin, Cocaine etc kill more people every year than smoking ever will, but people won't stop trying them because they're rebellious... dangerous...Mummy and Daddy don't approve.
Did Prohibition work? Did banning hard drugs work? NO. So someone explain how the hell banning smoking in the workplace is going to.

[ 12. November 2004, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: The_Historian ]

 

Freddy,
I know what you're saying, me old chum, but there's lies, damned lies and statistics.
Who ever tells the truth to an opinion poll? And even if they did, do you think the people who sponsor polls are going to print the result if it goes against the point they're trying to prove?
Democracy means rule by the many. Artificially creating "majorities" through statistics is not only inaccurate, it's downright dishonest.
Scotland is a prime example. People spent years complaining that the Conservative government was unrepresentative and had no mandate north of the border, because of how few seats they won up here. Now, a law has been passed on the opinions expressed by less than 10% of the population. How representative is that, and why is it different?
Maverik, by the same token, care to define how many Irish people actually voted for this?

 

What can I say? America's retarded.

I agree with you wholeheartedly - unfortunately, stupid people need to be told what to do - that's a basis of goverment. But smoking hasn't been 'banned' you can still smoke your guts out (in your own home, car, around your own children, pets and loved ones
Agreed, it's been conclusvily shown that by banning something - it mystifies the subject - causing more people to be curious and to experiement (ie/ drugs).
Legalizing drugs? two effects - reduction of crime (price controls set by government - you don't have to steal, mug for money for a fix) and increased tax revenue. (see Prohibition - 1920's America). The concern is the human cost - it's just too high - people are too stupid to understand moderation (herione is not alcohol and while nicotine is more addictive than cocaine - it's not as destructive). Again, I don't have any problem with personal freedom - but I think that if drugs went mainstream - things would get ugly really quick.

 

LooK: I sit on a table on a restaurant, eating my broccoli. Am I doing anything to affect anyone? No, I don't even chew loudly.

No a guy sits on the next table and decides to light up. Is he affecting anyone? Yes, my DNA in the long term, and in the immediate term my delicate nose mucosa and my sense of taste.

So if I don't harm anyone why should I suffer the effects of the irresponsability of the other guy? What about Fried's professional ability, which depends on good health and well being of his voice apparatus? Or anyone else, who have no reason to have their nose and throat offended by the smell at best?

Now even if it were a decent pipe tobacco, some of which can be quite aromatic... (says the pipe smoker in me) but no, it has to be the same rancid burnt straw stench! Why must I have to put up with that?

Sorry, but

 

Gordon, I'm afraid this is terribly wrong. Nicotine and tobacco are the #1 killer drug. Out of 100.000 adicted people, some 60.000 are killed by tobacco, some 35.000 by alcohol and the remaining 5.000 by the 'most' lethal drugs.

However, alcohol and tobacco kill a thousand more people than these other drugs…

 

Thanks for using me as an example, Miguel. I don't dislike the smell of tobacco (I actually love the smell of a good cigar or pipe) nor I'm anyone to forbid people or affect their right to smoke. But it has happened more than once, not in crazy all-night-long dancing parties, but in pubs, restaurants or even family meetings where there are no non-smoking and smoking divisions: a person or two or more light up their cigarette and smoke it in the middle of the chat. Result? My boyfriend simply can't sleep at night because asthema starts bothering him and I lose my voice for the rest of the entire bloody week. And here I have to add that my voice is not natural, it's falsetto and gets affected very easily and that I do not have a back-up singer.

I know that opera singers and asthematics are a minority, but other people who gets more less affected are affected as well.

 

Drache,
Don't know about people being too stupid to practise moderation. That's where freedom of choice comes in. Presuming to tell people what's good for them is an abuse of freedom of speech. Especially when the people doing the dictating are qualified in nothing more than shouting louder than anyone else.
Za, I agree with restaurants, but pubs are a different story. You go there to relax, not eat.

 

Freedom is an illusion. You're only "free" to do what other people tell you can do anyway! Or free to choose from the selection provided (the U.S. two party system) Government, by definition, governs - telling people what to do.

Yes, I think that most people need to be told what to do (and I believe people like it that way) - that's how we're socialized - authority figures have always dictated the scope of freedom (thanks mom!) Without it - we're just dumb kids in a candystore I know that's a very simplistic way to look at things - but things are usually that simple.

 

I love this thread you started Gordon !! Did you ever consider running for parliament ? The first post you made on page two would get my vote ! Good stuff.

 

Freddie,
Sorry but I just don't buy statistics. In recent months, we've had scare stories about embalming fluid in cigarettes being used for date rape; an anti-smoking group claimed to have "evidence" that people started off on Cannabis and THEN moved to tobacco and heroin etc(!). When was the last time you DIDN'T see something on tv where the bad guys smoked, just to emphasis how BAD they were?
Not so long ago, the WHO claimed the world's two biggest killers to be AIDS and TB, and I'm only talking within the last five years. Now they've decided it's alcohol and tobacco. Am I the only one who thinks that both suspicious and convenient?
I remember reading the Saturday edition of a British newspaper about seven years ago, and in the book page the journalist reviewed what looked like a fascinating book. It was the publication of 30 years of research by the WHO which claimed to find NO proven link between passive smoking and cancer. Now, I've spent the last six or so years trying to get my hands on a copy of this book, and keep getting told no such book was ever printed. Am I paranoid, was I dreaming, or is there something funny going on?
No British library has ever heard of it, and letters to the WHO don't get answered. So was the journo taking the piss in the first place?
I MUST get into the Mitchell Library in Glasgow, which has copies of every British paper since the year dot, and try and find/copy the article.
Anyone happen to have access to copies of the Scottish Saturday Express for the period 1996 onwards?-serious question btw. I know the edition was a post-Xmas one (just), but can't remember the exact year.
It just seems strange, given all the propaganda flying around.....

[ 12. November 2004, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: The_Historian ]

 

Freedom is an illusion. You're only "free" to do what other people tell you can do anyway! Or free to choose from the selection provided (the U.S. two party system) Government, by definition, governs - telling people what to do.

Yes, I think that most people need to be told what to do (and I believe people like it that way) - that's how we're socialized - authority figures have always dictated the scope of freedom (thanks mom!) Without it - we're just dumb kids in a candystore I know that's a very simplistic way to look at things - but things are usually that simple. </font>[/QUOTE]Dictating the scope of freedom is fine for adolescents, not adults. Mature enough to vote and pay taxes, mature enough to enjoy life within the law. If people "enjoy" being told what to do, why don't we just have one big Police state and have done with it? You tell me how much of an uproar there would be to that one.