Rediknight
Can't get enough of FH
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 385
Today in Scotland a law has come into force that bans smoking in ALL public bars, restaraunts, pubs and clubs. I'm a smoker, and have often voiced my opinion on the subject - mainly my disdain as to the half pint way the government keeps it's corporate friends happy by banning smoking, but keeping ciggies legal. Leaving the fact that there is STILL no single recorded death due to passive smoking (Roy Castle! What about Roy Castle!! What? He got cancer - it was THOUGHT he may have got it from playin his trumpet in smokey clubs, but no-one ever proved that was the case. It was admitted it could've been general air quality where he lived and worked, or any number of a million other things) lets just concentrate on the actual banning of smoking from a rights point of view.
Something i have wondered though is why the government has never really explored the option of just giving landlords the choice? Some pubs have been non-smoking for years, some have smoking areas (usually downstairs from an open Non-smoking area, which is a bit whacky, but hey ho), some are just plain ol' smokin bars where you can chuff where you like.
The main arguments i've heard are "But the staff who work there should be able to work without fear of inhaling second hand smoke!" Yeah, but if landlords are allowed to chose whether their bar is smoking or not, then if you don't want to work in a smokey bar, get a job in a non-smoking one!!
If Dustman decided they wouldn't touch any nappies cos they were a risk to their health, would they ban the use of disposable nappies? No, even though they are destroying our planet and are a significant health risk. They have taken their choice - the "reward" outweighs the risk for them and they have free will. Mothers COULD use terry nappies, reusable washable ones, but for convenience they create acres upon acres of non-biodegradable material and human waste - this goes unnoticed but for a few concerned environmental protestors.
The reason smoking has been hit with such a "nanny-state" reaction is beyond me. For some reason, this government must think us unable to make decisions of our own as to our own safety as the common sense option would surely be to give the breweries and landlords the option, and to clearly signpost above their doors whether it is a smoking or non-smoking establishment.
Job done, surely?
The only reason i can see the answer to that being a "no" is because this country has gotten into a habit of bowing down to people who whine and moan, even though it's that persons choice to put themselves into a position of discomfort or dis-satisfaction.
The rules for smoking were fine - you didn't see anarchic smokers hunting down packs of non-smokers to ruin their night, did you? No, but non-smokers ability to walk 20 yards across a bar into a designated smoking area and gripe and bitch about the smoke they can smell (smell, not inhaling the smoke, it's very different) means that, for an easier life for the politicians, they get whatever they want. A very wonky society indeed.
Why was the option of self-policy not explored more? Why did the government go for an all out ban, without any visible consultation or discussion with the landlords or breweries? If there were meetings, then why have we not been privvy to the outcome of them, or the opinions aired in it, short of the odd piechart on newsnight about sales figures?
Personally, i consider myself a very respectful smoker - i don't smoke near food, anyone eating, children (not anyone eating children, theres a comma you wierdos
), in anyones house without being invited to, in anyones car without being invited to, or directly in someones face wether they're a smoker or non-smoker, but i am now going to feel like a leper because im an addict who is part of possibly the largest NHS contributing "section" of society...
ahhh, Sunday morning - what a day for a rant
righty, who wants a tea?
Something i have wondered though is why the government has never really explored the option of just giving landlords the choice? Some pubs have been non-smoking for years, some have smoking areas (usually downstairs from an open Non-smoking area, which is a bit whacky, but hey ho), some are just plain ol' smokin bars where you can chuff where you like.
The main arguments i've heard are "But the staff who work there should be able to work without fear of inhaling second hand smoke!" Yeah, but if landlords are allowed to chose whether their bar is smoking or not, then if you don't want to work in a smokey bar, get a job in a non-smoking one!!
If Dustman decided they wouldn't touch any nappies cos they were a risk to their health, would they ban the use of disposable nappies? No, even though they are destroying our planet and are a significant health risk. They have taken their choice - the "reward" outweighs the risk for them and they have free will. Mothers COULD use terry nappies, reusable washable ones, but for convenience they create acres upon acres of non-biodegradable material and human waste - this goes unnoticed but for a few concerned environmental protestors.
The reason smoking has been hit with such a "nanny-state" reaction is beyond me. For some reason, this government must think us unable to make decisions of our own as to our own safety as the common sense option would surely be to give the breweries and landlords the option, and to clearly signpost above their doors whether it is a smoking or non-smoking establishment.
Job done, surely?
The only reason i can see the answer to that being a "no" is because this country has gotten into a habit of bowing down to people who whine and moan, even though it's that persons choice to put themselves into a position of discomfort or dis-satisfaction.
The rules for smoking were fine - you didn't see anarchic smokers hunting down packs of non-smokers to ruin their night, did you? No, but non-smokers ability to walk 20 yards across a bar into a designated smoking area and gripe and bitch about the smoke they can smell (smell, not inhaling the smoke, it's very different) means that, for an easier life for the politicians, they get whatever they want. A very wonky society indeed.
Why was the option of self-policy not explored more? Why did the government go for an all out ban, without any visible consultation or discussion with the landlords or breweries? If there were meetings, then why have we not been privvy to the outcome of them, or the opinions aired in it, short of the odd piechart on newsnight about sales figures?
Personally, i consider myself a very respectful smoker - i don't smoke near food, anyone eating, children (not anyone eating children, theres a comma you wierdos
), in anyones house without being invited to, in anyones car without being invited to, or directly in someones face wether they're a smoker or non-smoker, but i am now going to feel like a leper because im an addict who is part of possibly the largest NHS contributing "section" of society...ahhh, Sunday morning - what a day for a rant
righty, who wants a tea?
