The Lunatics have taken over the asylum

I defy anyone to explain the logic of this one to me.....
Hotels to sack staff smelling of smoke

 

I don't smoke but I find it amusing when I'm browsing for something in ebay totally unrelated and I see words like "made or whatever in smoke free premises".

I just love healthy model airplane engines, computer parts, old unmade kits, medals...

 

Old news to me Gordon, that sort of thing has been going on down here in England for some time now. I heard one case an employee got back from her lunch break smelling of cigarette smoke, and was sacked on the spot. Reason another employee complained that the smell of smoke was giving her cancer. That’s one of many stories I heard over the years.

 

This is what I and anyone else, smoker or not, am and should be terrified of. Give the folks that want to ban this and ban that any leeway and they will take everything they can get away with and make our lives a living freaking hell!

Example: Betty and Sandy are housekeepers at a hotel. Sandy has been known to have a social smoke with her pint in the evening. No harm no foul. Until Sandy does something petty like not pull her weight on the job or steal Betty's boyfriend or something. Then Betty starts complaining about Sandy smelling like a Marlboro, getting her friends to do the same. Before you know it Sandy gets fired and hasn't had one smoke while at work.

My point is that this is going way to far. Before you know it folks will be lobbying against fast foods because they are bad for you. It's coming. And people have the nerve to be worried about the Patriot Act in this country. The Patriot Act shouldn't bother anyone. Who cares if the govt. knows what porn sites you visit or whatever on the internet. As long as you don't visit and correspond with terrorist web sites or have Osoma's phone number, things like that shouldn't bother you.

I could go on and on with this but I won't. It just scares the crap out of me that people can get away with this.

Later

 

Here's a prime example of what I'm talking about. This stuff is really frightening.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=2006-03-22T230530Z_01_N22388344_RTRIDST_0_OUKOE-UK-BARS.XML

 

JP that is a prime example of going too far. What I want to know, is if smoking is so bad for you why not just outlaw it altogether?

 

Oh, it's already here, don't worry. Last year, the Holyrood Commissar for health lectured McDonald's for selling 'unhealthy' food, and demanded change. They complied, instead of telling him to go **** himself.
The amount of anti-alcohol, anti-'unhealthy' food ads getting rammed down our throats in the last few months has reached obscene levels. I'm not taking bets on drinkers being next to be demonised before a ban.
Ice,
With all due respect mate, Heroin and Cocaine have both illegal for decades, and all the health experts can do is whinge that the number of people addicted to both keeps rising every year. So why do the same cretins keep insisting that a smoking ban will kill off tobacco use? This isn't legislation for health reasons, it's tailoring policy around every middle-class obsession.
I'd be more impressed if the people gleefully celebrating this ban weren't usually the same arses who want drugs legalised.

 

Public smoking ban begins in Scotland

What made me laugh was at the end of the article.

What would happen if a guest smells of smoke is that guest being unfair to the staff?


Just for you Gordon

 

Richard,
That hotel has also stated that anyone lighting up in a room will be charged £200 for 'deep cleaning' it; despite the fact that hotel rooms are OFFICIALLY exempt from the smoking ban because they're considered 'temporary homes'. This 'law' is a control-freak's charter. And the usual whingers have already started demanding the ban be extended to public places as well. What a surprise.....
This link should tell you all you need to know about McConnell's mentality...
McConnell wants debate on new national anthem for Scotland
We've already got one...God Save The Queen. Any 'Scot' not happy with that can bloody emigrate, as far as I'm concerned.

[ 26. March 2006, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: The_Historian ]

 

That sounds like a waste of time and money if that went ahead, clearly McConnell is a bit cuckoo.

 

I'm detecting a trend in Historian's recent posts...

One point to throw out, mainly to play devil's advocate ('cause I've NEVER done that before on this site...)
Shouldn't the hotels be able to run their business however they want? While it seems extreme to sack employees for simply smelling of smoke- isn't it just as extreme to tell a private business they *can't*?

For some intersting points of view on the "drunks in Texas bars" thing-
http://beeradvocate.com/forum/read/692258/

Up to 14 pages now.

 

Crazy,
The point is that the law specifically says hotel rooms are exempt from the ban, yet these two hotel chains want more.
And why is it alright to smoke in a company car, but if you light up in a company van, you're breaking the law? Then there's the crazy situation where truck drivers coming north from England can smoke in their cabs until they reach the Scottish border. Then they have to put them out or break the law.
As an MP has already pointed out, bars are not 'public enclosed spaces', they're private property; I'm not aware of any council-owned pubs in Britain. So these particular businesses aren't being allowed to run the way they want, they're being dictated to.
Then there's this-
City tries to extend smoking ban to homes

I've been waiting on this one....
Now do you see why my blood pressure's sky-high?

[ 27. March 2006, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: The_Historian ]

 

I can see both sides of the smoking ban argument. Some want the right to do as they please, even if it is self destructive and others who have seen people die of lung cancer want to avoid this at all costs.

It is similar to gun control arguments in this country. Some say guns don't kill people, people kill people. The murder rate of Japan vs the USA tells a different story.

 

Heh- see, this goes exactly into why I'm torn on this one.

Gordon- EVERY one of those points you made are 100% meritable (is that a word?), and I can't argue with any of them.

But on the other hand, I DO like it when my pub isn't filled with smoke- and I have seen and even experienced first-hand the dangers of cigarette smoke.

So what's the solution?
Since I come down in the middle on the "theory" of the law- but personally dislike the smoke, I'm happy with the anti-smoking laws as they are.

But as far as finding a "happy medium"... ya got me.

And I *DO* see the issue with over-regulation... that can bring up some frightening ideas (censorship, etc.). So I really don't know where to fall in on this one.

 

Crazy,
The ideal solution would have been a return to old-fashioned 'snugs' for smokers. This hysteria about passive smoking only became an issue 20 years ago with the sudden craze for open-plan pubs. This was followed by open-plan offices, and next thing people are screaming about smoke.
Remember the old-fashioned pubs with a separate room where the smokers lived? Non-smokers knew to stay out of them, and the chances of anything more than an occasional wisp of smoke getting through the open door to the rest of the pub was minimal. But that was too 'non-inclusive'; let's have open-plan pubs where people can 'share the experience'..........

 

Crazy, imagine something you like to do, anything, being declared against the law all of a sudden. That's what this all leads to. Smoking is NOT the issue here.

To paraphrase Niemoller: "First they came for the smokers, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a smoker".

Later

 

>RANT ON<

I don’t give much of a damn either way whether people smoke or don’t smoke. What concerns me is the erosion of rights in the name of political bo**ocks. To quote Confucius; ”Dim I may be, stupid I’m not”, or, as more recently quoted in ‘The Outlaw Josie Wales’; Don’t pi** down my back and tell me its raining!”

If, in their infinite duplicity, government decides there can no longer be establishments which have both smoking and non smoking sections, then democratic rights surely dictate a private individual, who owns and runs their own establishment, has the absolute right to decide whether or not it is smoking or non smoking. By all means make it obligatory to display a huge banner on the front and above every door and window (if you must) making people aware of which it is, so, logically, if an establishment wasn’t to your liking you would go somewhere else that was. Level of custom will soon show if the owner’s go it right or needs to change. Same goes for anyone going for a job there doesn’t it? Do you go for a job as a steeplejack if you suffer from chronic vertigo – right, stupid isn’t it?

But, and here’s the overwhelming hypocrisy of it all, after the bleeding heart politicians and do-gooders have dispensed their self righteous rhetoric, they naff off to the nearest legal liquid drug dispensary!!!

Make no mistake, you will be extremely hard pushed to find any instance of anyone smoking a packet of cigarettes, and as a direct result of that, going out and causing actual bodily harm to another person – not so the case with a bottle of booze.

And it’s by no means an occasional social embarrassment, read on:

”Hospital Accident and Emergency Departments”
Institute of Alcohol Studies

”Dr Luke gave some stark figures on the relationship of alcohol with emergency medicine, pointing out that in the typical A&E departments of one major city, Manchester, around three quarters of patients attending after midnight are drunk.
In addition the following are alcohol related:
50-73 per cent of assault victims' injuries:
Around 50 per cent of all serious road crashes
Nearly 50 per cent of domestic violence against females
47 per cent of serious injuries
40 per cent of self-poisonings
30 per cent of injuries to pedestrian victims of road traffic accidents (and 53 per cent of serious injuries to drivers)
Just under 22 per cent of serious acute orthopaedic admissions (in his own hospital in Liverpool)
20 per cent of inappropriate ambulance calls”

Want to read more? Just Google up “A&E alcohol related UK” for over ¼ of a million hits.

IF THEY really give a damn about the well being of the nation, they know where to address their concerns don’t they.

<RANT OVER>

No.9

 

No9,
The bit that annoys me is the fact that several of the control freaks in the Scottish Parliament who voted for this legislation have publicly stated they have no intention of stopping smoking. How's that for hypocrisy?
As for booze, Comrade McConnell stated over a year ago it would be a good thing if the predicted slump in booze sales was true-so don't bet on some kind of prohibition NOT happening in the forseeable future.
I've never been closer to emigrating somewhere saner in my life...........

 

Actually, in this case smoking IS the issue. And if you think smoking/secondhand smoke is NOT unhealthy... that's just plain ignorant.

And to phrase correctly- "Imagine if something you like to do that was proven unhealthy to others was made illegal in some circumstances in some places." Much more correct phrasing there.

By the reverse logic, we should be able to drive any way we want regardless of safety, blow off machineguns in our backyards, and have sex with 12 year olds. Or wait, lemme guess- you'all agree with THOSE laws, so they are reasonable- right?

There is a flipside to this- if people are THIS agitated about government rules, go live on an island without any laws.

By yourself.
With no benefits of society.

Sorry to bark, but damn... it's smoking. It kills people. slowly and painfully.

Let's not make it out like the government is banning afternoon tea, mmmkay?





*waves to TA152*

 

How IS that hypocritical? I'm sure those legislators will simply abide by the law and not smoke in prohibited places.

Simple.