Legal disclaimer

The opinions expressed by the authors on this blog and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of the Freedom2Choose organisation or any member thereof. Freedom2Choose is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the blog Authors.

Monday, 9 August 2010

On Antis and Principles

A guest post by John Watson
nazi2a 
The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: a little known aspect of public health in Germany, 1933-45
Hitler was a smoker in his youth but at some stage he became aware of its health hazards and, when in power (perhaps with the zeal of a convert), appeared to detest tobacco, which he called "the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man, vengeance for having been given hard liquor." But the antismoking campaign reflected "a national political climate stressing the virtues of racial hygiene and bodily purity" as well as the Fuhrer's personal prejudices. The same could be said of Nazi efforts to discourage drinking and encourage a better diet.
:-

There seems to me to be some confusion over the term Anti in the context of the smoking debate.

To provide some background as to why this this article has come about we need to look at a comment posted in my blog post entitled Welcome to the Fourth Reich.
and also here:

(Courtesy of Pat Nurse and many thanks for the links to both Pat and Leg-iron btw,) where a gentleman posting under the name of Baz clearly objects to the terms Anti and Nazi as applied within that article. Of course it is his right to express his point of view and it is not for me to deny him that right but to rebut his point of view.

And so onto the business at hand. The following definitions are taken from Wikipedia and the Wikipedia dictionary.


Pro is a Latin preposition meaning for. It is the opposite of contra, which is very frequently abbreviated to con, another preposition.

As can be clearly seen, and no pro-choice advocate would disagree, the term pro-smoker is accurate, that smokers are for smoking and those who are in favour of freedom of choice are pro choice, Pro choice smokers are therefore in favour of smoking inside pubs and clubs, most are willing to accept smoking rooms or smoking pubs/clubs, allowing non-smokers venues where they may enjoy their leisure hours free of smoke, a choice that as a pro choice smoker I (or the law of the land) have never sought to deny them and as it is clearly shown on every forum the tolerant non-smoker does not seek to deny smokers rooms or pubs in which to spend their leisure hours as a social group.

Anti (plural antis)
  1. A person opposed to a concept or principle.
There is clearly no argument that can be made against that definition, if you are not pro then you can only be anti! This principle is as true in English as it is in its native Greek and Latin. It can be seen from my previous paragraph that there are degrees of being Anti, Tolerant non smokers by definition are also anti smoking but are also pro choice in regard to smoking venues for smokers.

Clearly then the fact that someone is anti smoking does not make them the devil incarnate or Nazi or anything other than the fact they are tolerant non smokers who believe that smokers should have the freedom to smoke inside a pub or club and accept that smokers lounges, tap rooms or what ever you wish to call them are a reasonable option, even that small pub landlords should be allowed to choose for themselves something that is meeting with great success on the European mainland.

The true hardcore Antis are the ones that say no, not inside pubs, not outside pubs in beer gardens when the weather is nice and I want to be outside without smokers, the ones that having got their law preventing smokers from smoking inside pubs now want them cleared from the streets, from the parks even from inside the car which the smoker paid for and owns!

Which leads on to principles:
Principle as scientific law
“Laws Physics. Laws Statistics. Laws Biological. Laws of nature are those that can not be proven explicitly, however we can measure and quantify them observing the results that they produce. (Vague or unclear statement).”

Vague or unclear statement sums it all up, the use of tobacco has been proven as far back as Ancient Egypt, its leaves have been found in pyramids, many cultures have been using tobacco in one form or another for millennia in its natural form, even today the tobacco produced by Native Americans is natural tobacco used in a natural way as it has been for generations. The laws of nature are such that many lethal biological species of Flora and Fauna are beneficial in small to moderate doses, Digitalis is a natural product highly poisonous but in trace doses can be used in heart medication, many snake venoms are now being used or researched, looking for anti coagulants and even Cancer treatments, get bitten by a Mamba death comes within hours if no treatment is available, Rattlesnakes kill less frequently but leave horrendous scarring and tissue wastage.

Natural tobacco has many benefits, not least of delaying or even preventing the onset of diseases like Alzheimer's, it may well be the case that the additives put into refined tobacco could cause damage but that is opinion not fact, just as scientific claims about harm are scientific opinion not fact, after all there are thousands of scientific documents already peer reviewed that say otherwise, and today it is almost impossible to get a smoker friendly scientific report peer reviewed!

Principle as a juridic law

“It represents a set of values that inspire the written norms that organize the life of a society submitting to the powers of an authority, generally the State. The law establishes a legal obligation, in a coercive way; it therefore acts as principle conditioning of the action that limits the liberty of the individuals.”

As is clearly shown here legislation is nothing but coercion, who among us believe it right judicially for a minority lobbying on behalf of one business to dictate a law that is destroying 40 other businesses a week, that legitimises threatening behaviour which the article that brought this piece about condemned, that places vulnerable groups in danger from predators contrary to Health and Safety Act.

Of course there should be laws to protect us but when those laws prove to be counter productive as the Health Acts clearly are, when they place the people in jeopardy, their livelihoods at risk, and allow bigotry free reign then that law is clearly wrong, immoral and unjust.
Principle as moral law
“It represents a set of values that orientate and rule the conduct of a concrete society. The law establishes an obligation in the individual's conscience that belongs to the cultural field in which such values are accepted. It supposes the liberty of the individual as cause, that acts without external coercion, through a process of socialization.”

I said that the Health Acts are immoral, above is the justification for that stand, those who have read some of my work know that I believe the Health Acts to be the equivalent of the Nuremberg Decrees, history tell us this legislation was designed specifically to target a minority group, so do the Health Acts. The Nuremberg decrees targeted the Jews, the Health acts targets smokers, that is a fair comparison.

The Nuremberg decrees forced Jews into ghetto housing in the most appalling sanitary conditions sometimes 20-30 people in a small room, over 100 people in a standard terraced house! The Health Act forces smokers outside in all weathers into shelters that it is illegal to keep a pig in, in some cases there is no shelter at all just poorly lit pavements where the smoker is tethered like a goat for a tiger, for any predator to assault rape or murder at will. That too is fair comparison.

smokefrankbaron460 _47228475_466_smoke

The Nuremberg decrees also encouraged publications like the Deutsche Beobachter  and Der Stuermer* ( whose editor Julius Streicher was hung at Nuremburg for war crimes after printing such articles) to print anything they liked so long as it vilified Jews, they were said to be criminal, dirty, smelly, it was said that they eat babies (to be fair baby eating Jews has been around since medieval times and is not confined to Nazi Germany!). It implied they would abscond with children for god alone knew what purposes, in short Jews were painted to be the very scum of the Earth, any Jew will tell you this has always been so, especially since Christ was crucified, and Christ was a Jew, brought up in the Jewish faith and definitely not a Christian!

So what do we see in today's media, smokers cause (almost) every disease known to mankind, they are likely to be the cause of some yet to be invented, they too are vilified as criminal, as dirty, smelly, French Advertisements liken smokers to Paedophiles, on some newspaper forums there already calls by anti smokers to incite violence against smokers, In fairness to the Newspaper concerned they removed the comment after objections were raised and to date it has not been reinstated, but then their moderators should not have allowed it to be posted in the first place, smokers have not yet been accused of eating babies but are accused of child abuse for indulging in a perfectly legal activity this too is a fair comparison to the Nuremberg decrees.

Today too we find that the smoking principle is being expanded to the drinkers and the obese, like Nazism was not restricted to Jews but enabled against Gypsies, the mentally ill, the disabled, homosexuals, even the churches and political opponents of the regime so this Healthism is expanding its territory into every facet of our lives.

There is I believe more than enough evidence provided to indict those who recommended this law, those who enacted (voted in favour of) this law and those who support this law as Nazis.

So Baz by definition you are an Anti, there is no way out of that fact, as for being a Nazi, well that is up to you, it depends solely on your response.

If you are one of those tolerant non smokers, if you are one of the majority of non smokers that although Anti by definition have proven themselves to be reasonable tolerant people who wish to see fairness, equality and free choice, you are indeed decent human beings, with whom I have no quarrel.

You will note that I have deliberately left the choice as to how Baz wishes to regarded in respect to Nazism to him, I will not judge him here, I would rather that he be judged by his own words not mine, let the people and posterity judge him.

:-

stuermer_2
*Streicher wanted Der Stuermer to appeal to the common man, to the worker with little time to read. Thus, Der Stuermer's articles used short sentences and a simple vocabulary. Ideas were repeated. Headlines grabbed a reader's attention. And the cartoons were easily understood.
julius Julius Streicher (Editor of Deutsche Beobachter) is a martyr to some.
John Watson

153 comments:

Baz said...

Thanks John for writing a great and interesting blog. It was very complex and diverse. Thanks for addressing the issue very thoroughly.

The problem I had John, was in the fact that you clearly attach a label to me, without even knowing anything about me - We've never met, never spoken, you don't know what I look like. aside from some vague ramblings on Pats blog, you don't know my musical tastes, my academic background, my social status, my ethnicity, my political leaning, nothing, and yet on one single issue you nail your flag to the post on who I am, what I believe in and who and what I support.. in two small words you condemn me.. "Anti" and "Nazi"

You, and most people who comment on the smoking blogs I read, seem to delight in relishing anyone who accepts the smoking ban as an "anti" or a "Nazi" or someone who hasn't read the facts, or someone who is blindly uneducated, or someone following the masses, or brainwashed by society, and when those elements have been discounted, then it's down to bad language, swearing and cursing to prove something. People are incredibly judgemental about someone they don't know, all because they happen to agree with the smoking ban.

When I read these "pro-smoking" smoking blogs I rarely read positive smoking stories, unless they are sarcastic! I rarely read uplifting stories. I read blogs about hatred, about imprisonment; you self-perpetuate a myth about smoking, that isn't true. Then attach some Nazi mythology to that.

The bottom line is that in calling me a Nazi you create an association that I act and behave in the same way, that I uphold Nazi values, that I persecute Jews for example, when clearly this isn't true.

When asked who my favourite musical band is.. I say the Beatles, I recommend listening to Abbey Road and Sgt Pepper to anyone who hasn't already... So does that mean I should be called a Hippy? or a Mop Top?? No. When one thinks about what a "Hippy" or a "Nazi" is one accesses a platonic form for that archetype and that form colours every further view. Am I a hippy? Do I believe in Free love? Do I take drugs, smoke dope, Do LSD? NO.. None of the above.. Do I wear black leather knee high-boots? Am I German? Do I take orders from a dictator? NO. I'm not a Nazi!

With these words you are pigeonholing and prejudicing me, in the exact same way that you accuse people of doing so to you! I don't like being judged, as I'm pretty sure you don't. This includes the term "Anti" because you don't use that phrase in neutral sense, mostly it is used in a derogatory sense, to put someone down, or to insinuate someone is of lower intellect. You refer to "them" as "anti's". You aren't interesting in creating harmony, or compromise. you only see your way as a compromise..

Baz said...

Can you explain to me why your choice to pollute the air overrides my will to breathe in clean air?

I'm not talking about diseases, or cancers or length of time people have smoked for, or the history of the smoking, or even effects from smoking, government involvement, lobbyists, tax, money, or SHS or anything like that.. I'm purely talking about choice and will

Why does your CHOICE to pollute air that we BOTH breathe in a contained space override my CHOICE to breathe in air that is clean!?

No it doesn't. I have no truck with you polluting air that is in your own house, or outside public buildings, however to impose your will and call it a choice, is misleading. Also to complain that I'm imposing my will to have clean air in a room is nonsense too.. Since the room started off with clean air in it! So I'm not adding or taking anything away by being in that room.. You are polluting it. You are adding to it, and you are creating an air condition for others to breathe. This is an imposition.

IF you want non-smokers to support your campaign, or even as you call them "anti" smokers.. then you need to educate them in the benefits of smoking, which you briefly touched on in this article, you need to break down the medical barriers to show there is no firm evidence for SHS, (if there is none!) you need to reengage the debate, without resorting to names like "anti" or "Nazi", you need to stop going on about Nazi's! Every time I read a blog recently it's comparing people who don't smoke to Nazi's! These are people, they are fellow human beings! Stop being so nasty! It's petty and it's childish! You are an educated and intelligent man.. isn't name calling beneath you!? (and of course I'm not referring to you directly John, I'm referring to all those who have directly insulted me by calling me a Nazi or an Anti!) I'm no more a Nazi or an Anti than I am a hippy.. I find them all equally offensive because I don't like being judged - and this is what is happening.

You know, I'm a vegan, (I'm sure you've not got a really great image of me now.. was Hitler a veggie too!!!) however, when I read vegan blogs I feel the same annoyance at them for believing meat eaters are evil, for not realising that most people don't want to see images of cows being slaughtered, and for not addressing the issues in a way that would encourage people to think about the debate instead of forcing people to choose. Many vegan websites, like pro-smoking ones, like to hit people over the head with "fact" after "fact" showing how clever they are, how each is a conspiracy, each has lobbyists, each has big business and science and corruption.. but ultimately all this is just fluff that gets in the way if it's not presented in a palatable form. Education is the key.. If you can get people interested, then you're there.. but believe me.. videos of Nazi's, videos of people being sarcastic while smoking a fag and slaggin off other people.. won't help one bit.. sure it might be funny to some smokers.. but all it does is open up the divide further that you are trying to close.

Carl Minns said...

"Tolerant non smokers by definition are also anti smoking but are also pro choice in regard to smoking venues for smokers."

Given the definitiopn of anti you use

Anti (plural antis)

1. A person opposed to a concept or principle.

As a 'tolerant non smoker' I am not opposed to the concept or principle of smoking. You can agree to a concept or priciple even if you don't personally want to take up the choice to do so. Although to sort of make your own argument for you I am neither pro or anti smoking just pro choice :-)

Pat Nurse said...

And Baz - you are worse - clearly trying to imply that bloggers like myself and F2C and DP are "pro-smoking". We are pro-choice and anti-prohibition. We do not promote smoking.

I defy you to find anywhere on my blog that promotes smoking or encourages others to start smoking. Can we also add "hypocrite" and "liar" to your "tag"

Baz said...

Pat.. If I'm an "anti-smoker" and that's viewed in a negative, then isn't pro-smoker a positive? If I'm always protrayed as someone attacking smoking and smokers then aren't you always shown as someone who supports it/them!? I'm only following the logical path of what John asserted. If it is all about choice then please answer the question I've posed many times.

Why does your CHOICE to pollute air that we BOTH breathe in a contained space override my CHOICE to breathe in air that is clean!?

Isn't it 'possible' that doctors don't promote smoking either, they provide education about smoking and leave people to make their own choices!? Sure they say, "in their opinion" you would be healthier to give up, however they never hold someone's hands behind their backs and make them. Just as people who maybe are advised to give up smoking are free to leave the hospital and light up. It is their own choice.

Pat I haven't lied or been a hypocrite. I'm sorry that you feel I have. As for if you are "pro-smoking" or "pro-choice" That's your judgement, not mine. I just find it all very sad that people can be so easily labelled - on both sides!

*waits to be called a hippy tree hugger nazi anti-choice degenerate arty farty type* or any other labels you (not you personally pat)want to pin on me.

Bottom line about these "pro-choice" blogs.. Most of their content is about smoking, how about other pro-choice issues, like wars, tax, digital download bill, etc etc.. sure some touch on these things.. but come on..

The side column on this "freedom to choose" blog lists..

.The smokers musis festival
.Images of 3 books to do with smoking and the state!
.A image of churchil smoking and a comment to anti-smokers!
.A skull and crossbone - smoking - the resistance.
.A poster about the repeal bill; amend the smoking ban, nick!
.An adverts for help n donations for the price of beer, with a lighted cigarette.
.A Funding smoking bans poster!
.A f-2-c traffic light code

This is a blog dedicated to smoking and the smoking ban.. to hide under the guise of Choice and try to say that no one here is pro-smoking is unbelievable..


Lets face it you smoke, you want to smoke inside. you don't agree with the current smoking ban, so you argue against it. You talk about freedom, choice, rights etc.. but you don't address the fundamental question of other people (non-smokers) rights to breath in clean air. When this is mentioned, you speak about evidence that SHS causes no harm, you talk about YOUR right and how you've been stopped from smoking where you want, you talk about how there is no evidence that smoking does ANY harm at all. All this is just distraction from the main problem of you wanting to smoke inside.

Can you explain why you have a right to pollute the air in a contained room, over others who don't? why is your choice more important that anyone elses? This isn't about smoke, smell or disease, this isn't about health.. this is purely philosophical.. why have you got a right to do something that alters the internal environment over someone who isn't. And what gives you (the smoker) the right to impose their ability to change the air content over anyone else?

Now if we were talking about littering, and I said.. well 25% of the population where allowed to throw away their unwanted lunch on the floor in the office during work hours, without thinking about other people having to walk through the remains of that food.. then people might say that was selfish, people might ask what gives them the right to do that? we all work in this imaginary office, so why can't we all respect it's condition.. why do some people have to impose their choices on it to the detriment of the condition of the room!?

Anonymous said...

"The bottom line is that in calling me a Nazi you create an association that I act and behave in the same way, that I uphold Nazi values, that I persecute Jews for example, when clearly this isn't true."

Baz

I expressly made the point that I was not being judgemental, that I was not calling you a Nazi, that your reply would define whether or not you could be considered a Nazi, that others not I would would judge for themselves, You have spoken of my twisting words, is this not what you have done here?

Can you explain to me why your choice to pollute the air overrides my will to breathe in clean air?

Do you drive Baz? I do not, so if you do, by what right do you then pollute the air that I as a pedestrian breathes, it is a parallel argument is it not? Answer that then you have the answer to your own question!

I have long advocated seperate smoking rooms, or even smoking pubs so that those like yourself may enjoy smoke free premises, I consider it to be a fair and equal solution for both sides.

You have made no effort to deny historical fact, neither do you deny the comparisons made between these two laws, you seem more preoccupied with your good name than the circumstances behind the article which was to demonstrate that those comparisons exist, that people may be judged on those those comparisons whichever side they find themselves on.

Neither do you dispute any definition of the terms Pro and anti, they are, I am sure you agree both accurate and relevent.

Carl,

I agree it is possible to be neutral, to hold no view one way or the other regarding smoking yet still support free choice for smokers.

In many respects such a position is I believe better than either the 'pure' pro smoking or anti smoking camps, it shows a balance that is not easy for either camp to achieve, it will at the end of the day I think, be the neutral pro choice faction people like yourself who will decide how this all ends.

John Watson

Baz said...

John, people don't drive inside public buildings! Now can you answer my question again?

I didn't deny your historical facts because by and large I already knew a lot of the stuff you outlined, it was fair in it's assessment of history.. although I disagreed with

"Today too we find that the smoking principle is being expanded to the drinkers and the obese, like Nazism was not restricted to Jews but enabled against Gypsies, the mentally ill, the disabled, homosexuals, even the churches and political opponents of the regime so this Healthism is expanding its territory into every facet of our lives"

I think there are a few major differences between the 1940 and now.. medical research, statistical analysis, computer technology, overal technological development, and the appearance of true mass communication via the net. I don't think it's anywhere near as easy now for a government to use propaganda to foster those beliefs that the Nazi's did. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. It does. However, are you really going to tell me that obesity isn't an issue? or that we shouldn't be tackling it? and that we should be encouraging healthy eating and foods..

John...did you watch that Jamie Oliver program where he was trying to get healthy food into school canteens, and outside at lunch times young mum's were pushing bags of greasy chips through the school railings!!!.. is that what it's come to? Those who are trying to help and those that push the chips through the railings (under the guise of choice!)

John I haven't twisted anything you've said. If you believe I have, then please quote me and I'll correct myself or offer an apology if I'm wrong.

Not mentioning something you've stated John, does not mean I agree or disagree.

Baz said...

If someone is pro-choice, then they should be able to accept everyones outlook in the debate. Instead of demanding they are right. This obviously applies to non-smokers as much as smokers, which leads me back to my original point.. non-smokers don't change the nature of the surrounding air in enclosed spaces.

When I read these Pro-choice blogs I don't see a diverse debate about the nature of choice for smokers. I see one line of debate - the smoking ban is wrong, end of, or the idea that smoking rooms could work.

I've never read one blog on one of these forums that actually is positive about the smoking ban. Even if that positive is about pubs not having to be redecorated because of smoke damage, or that bar staff feel more healthier, or that heart attack admissions are down.. instead any positive story that is reported in these blogs is instantly dismissed as fiction, or some lobbyists spin, or some health official trying to justify the ban.. couldn't just a tiny bit of it be true? is that so hard to believe? Now a real pro-choice forum would have articles about both sides.. This isn't pro-choice, it's pro-smoking, and that's ok.. I don't have a problem with that.. as long as it's clear.. Freedom-to-smoke.. not freedom-to-choose would be more apt.

b manning said...

John, but why are you wasting your time pandering to a pretentious, egotistical, fussy eating, anti choice bore (whose avatar, incidently, appears to be sporting a nazi helmet)?

TheBigYin said...

@B manning: Funnily enough, when I pull back my foreskin, which I do frequently by the way, (well, I am married after all,) I see a German helmet everytime. And while doing so I think of Jewish, black, Muslim smoking women (did I leave anyone out?)...in fact, anything faintly female I stroke my helmet admiringly to. Am I a fetishist?

Ever heard of 'different strokes?' your probably too young. :)

Rollo Tommasi said...

Well done Baz for maintaining patience and dignity in the face of some bizarre digs at you from the pro-smoking crowd.

Let’s see if the pro-smokers actually produce some meaningful responses to your cogent arguments. Unfortunately, I suspect most responses will be like b manning’s……

TheBigYin said...

Welcome to the fray Rollo, glad we could prise you out from your hole in the newspaper comments section.

I see also that you have lost none of your anti smoking verve...bring it on my friend, and I use the word 'friend' loosly"

Anonymous said...

"John I haven't twisted anything you've said. If you believe I have, then please quote me and I'll correct myself or offer an apology if I'm wrong."

Did I not quote directly a paragraph from your reply regarding calling you specifically a Nazi on this very thread Baz? Something you claim I have not done! It opens my reply to your first comment.
Nowhere in this article or in my replies have I accused you of being a Nazi, in fact the very opposite, I presented my case, I invited the people to read what you say and make up their own minds.

Did I not say that the question I posed Paralleled your question, you maintain smokers pollute indoors is it not a fact drivers pollute the open air creating the same problem outside? Should we Have a level playing field and ban Cars as well? There are other modes of transport available so they are not absolutely essential and of course if more people walked then it would certainly help reduce the numbers of heart attacks as people would be generally fitter! Of course we both know that will never happen.

It is not tackling health problems I take issue with it is the methods used, yes by all means advise, but never should anyone be coerced into changing their lifestyles, this is what the Nazis attempted before they finally instigated their 'final solution' Iam sure that you would join me in not wanting to see a repeat of that scenario. One thing never changes, that is human nature.

With regard to the quote you have used of course you are entitled to disagree, with both both sides of the case presented, people, I am sure will make up their own minds which I am sure you would also agree is why debate is so vital.

"John...did you watch that Jamie Oliver program where he was trying to get healthy food into school canteens, and outside at lunch times young mum's were pushing bags of greasy chips through the school railings!!!.. is that what it's come to? Those who are trying to help and those that push the chips through the railings (under the guise of choice!)"

No , Baz I did not, I understand Jamie Oliver's reasons even his concerns, I would even agree that his efforts to educate people about healthy eating choices are a worthy goal, but only if it remains advice and not a mandated lifestyle as we are getting with smoking.
It is advice Baz, not brought down from the Mount of Olives on stone tablets and meant to be a guide to life! Advice as you well know may accepted or rejected by the recipient, it is free choice Baz and certainly not under the guise of anything.

John.

Dick Puddlecote said...

"John, people don't drive inside public buildings!"

Yes they do, as you ignored once before. There are two multi-storey car parks near me, more than 50% enclosed, where exhaust fumes are allowed.

"is that what it's come to? Those who are trying to help and those that push the chips through the railings (under the guise of choice!)"

Yes, that is what it has come to when measures are imposed without personal choice. You need to question who, exactly, asked for this help from Oliver. (Clue: It wasn't the parents)

Baz said...

John Firstly, You are quite right you haven't directly called me a Nazi. I do apologise.

Although obviously we wouldn't be having this entire debate without it being having been said, but you are right, you didn't say it.

Did I not say that the question I posed Paralleled your question, you maintain smokers pollute indoors is it not a fact drivers pollute the open air creating the same problem outside? Should we Have a level playing field and ban Cars as well? There are other modes of transport available so they are not absolutely essential and of course if more people walked then it would certainly help reduce the numbers of heart attacks as people would be generally fitter! Of course we both know that will never happen.

Ok.. suggesting that just because cars pollute therefor it's ok for you to pollute inside in the same fashion is terrible logic..

That's like me saying.. well someone's having a bonfire in the park, so i'm going to have one in my hospital or my place of work!?

Again John, you are trying to distract instead of answering the question. I won't get drawn into a pointless debate. I will say however again, as I said before that we don't drive cars inside. and since we are talking about pollution of air in a contained space (which is why we have a smoking ban) and not air outside (even though if you want to get picky I could outline car exhaust emissions regulations that limit fumes of cars, trucks, trains, airplanes etc etc because of their effect on the environment outside!), can you address the question I poses please instead of avoiding it.

Baz said...

Of course I wouldn't want to see a return to the final solution John, Er... who in their right mind would.. however it doesn't necessarily follow suit that will happen! for all the reasons that I pointed out earlier, also but the fact we have a representative democracy not a dictatorship.

I agree people shouldn't be co-erced into changing their lifestyle, I do not consider the smoking ban coersion, I consider it as something that's helping me and other non-smokers enjoy the internal public spaces by not being subjected to the will of the smoker. If you feel that you are being co-erced into giving up smoking then, I don't see that. I'm sorry. Clearly this blog is the wrong place to say that, having so many pro-smokers on here saying they feel persecuted, however I do know smokers who don't feel like the readers here.

I actually disagreed earlier with your media interpretation of the smoker. "smokers cause (almost) ever disease known to mankind" I don't believe that. "they too are vilified as criminals" I don't agree with that.. infact smokers are often seen as the cool anti-hero (I love the irony of the word anti in that sentence) I'm not living in france so I've not seen reference to them as peadophiles!.. as for violence against smokers, I've only seen ONE comment which was mentioned on this blog (I believe) and removed from the Daily Mail... (just like to add that daily mail readers incite violence against gordon brown, vegans, peadophiles, smokers, jamie oliver, anyone who's had botox, david cameron, nick clegg, tony blair, pretty much anyone really.. So maybe smokers shouldn't take it too personally.. we've all been victim of such nonsense in the pages of the daily mail.

Dick I didn't ignore your comment, I answered it. It's you who have ignored my comment, please go back to that thread and read!

As for Who asked Jamie Oliver.. no one did.. I think that was the point, he realised that if no one did anything, then there would be millions of adults soon with diabetes, or obesity problems.. Remember he's a chef, he's also a father.. like any father he wants the best for his kids.. but strangely.. (and god help me I don't know why) but he also wants the best for everyones elses kids.. maybe we need more people like that.. or would you rather we have more peodophiles, or more people that simply don't give a toss.. Wouldn't the world be a better place if we had more people that cared.. can you imagine that dick?

Imagine all the people.. living life in peace!

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your apology Baz, and indeed for the opening words in your first post.

"Ok.. suggesting that just because cars pollute therefor it's ok for you to pollute inside in the same fashion is terrible logic..

That's like me saying.. well someone's having a bonfire in the park, so i'm going to have one in my hospital or my place of work!?"

Terrible logic? Its a parallel argument Baz, polluting the air inside with tobacco smoke can be cotrolled via air management systems, indeed they have been for over 50 years, Systems that currently remove 99.97% of all contaminants including Nuclear, Chemical and Biological, systems that would keep the politicians and men like me alive long after you and my children and their children died from the effects of radiation, chemical or biological attack as far back as the late 1950's! There is no such means of control outside.

As an aviation engineer I am only too familiar with fuels and pollutants connected with engines whether they be piston, gas turbine or pure jet, I am also familier what the additives in fuels can do with the environment and they are far worse than anything cigarette smoke can achieve.

Indoor air then can easily be brought up to a quality far better than the air outside in the street even with free standing air conditioning units which negate the installation costs and to a degree the maintenence costs as the filters are user replacable.

Anonymous said...

You mention that as Veggie you are subjected to ridicule, I'm sorry to hear that, as you point out Hitler too was a Veggie, but being a Veggie did not make him the evil tyrant he became, it may have accounted for his virilent flatulence but it did not make him evil, His belief system did that, the way he treated minorities, the way he conducted his war, although in all honesty the bombing of Cologne and Dresden are as repugnant to me as the bombing of London or Coventry, and I would remind you that the usage of WMD's was first carried out by the Allies at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The fact that those decisions were tactically and strategically correct does not make them right.

The point is there is and there will be wrong on both sides, that only way forward is through compromise. Compromise is something the hardcore anti smoker is not interested in, for them it is all or nothing a kind of Liebesraum which Hitler so longed for in his war against the Soviet Union!

The provision of smokers pubs operated by smokers for smokers will solve the problem, as would smoking rooms which allows non smokers to enjoy their leisure time while allowing the smoker to enjoy theirs in warmth and comfort away from their homes as all people are entitled to do.

Countries on mainland Europe have proven that this works their pub closure rates are a fraction of ours yet they have had the same recession, their alcohol is also cheaper in supermarkets so the only factor that is different is smoking.

Best of all though is the fact that you as an non smoker do not have to patronise smoking pubs, you do not have to enter the smoking rooms, therein lies the the free choice, you could choose to patronise smoke free pubs with impunity, the staff who working smoking pubs would be smokers anyway and even if they were not the barstaff have free choice as to whether to work there or not, and I am sure that landlords would be happy to swap staff by preference helping to prevent unemployment, a small number may become unemployed for any number of reasons but a lot less than are currently being made unemployed now.

You made a free choice to come to this blogsite, you chose to put your point of view across, You knew this is a pro choice blogsite yet you complain that you meet resistance! I personally welcome your point of view, some may not be so welcoming, I have no control over that nor would I wish to control it, free speech is as I am sure you will agree is the cornerstone of any democracy, then of course freedom to pursue a legitimate pastime in comfort and warmth, free of intimidation official or otherwise is also part of democracy and that Baz is what is sought here. Then truly we could have "Imagine all the people.. living life in peace!" a worthwhile aim would you not agree?

John.

Anonymous said...

You mention that as Veggie you are subjected to ridicule, I'm sorry to hear that, as you point out Hitler too was a Veggie, but being a Veggie did not make him the evil tyrant he became, it may have accounted for his virilent flatulence but it did not make him evil, His belief system did that, the way he treated minorities, the way he conducted his war, although in all honesty the bombing of Cologne and Dresden are as repugnant to me as the bombing of London or Coventry, and I would remind you that the usage of WMD's was first carried out by the Allies at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The fact that those decisions were tactically and strategically correct does not make them right.

The point is there is and there will be wrong on both sides, that only way forward is through compromise. Compromise is something the hardcore anti smoker is not interested in, for them it is all or nothing a kind of Liebesraum which Hitler so longed for in his war against the Soviet Union!

The provision of smokers pubs operated by smokers for smokers will solve the problem, as would smoking rooms which allows non smokers to enjoy their leisure time while allowing the smoker to enjoy theirs in warmth and comfort away from their homes as all people are entitled to do.

Countries on mainland Europe have proven that this works their pub closure rates are a fraction of ours yet they have had the same recession, their alcohol is also cheaper in supermarkets so the only factor that is different is smoking.

Best of all though is the fact that you as an non smoker do not have to patronise smoking pubs, you do not have to enter the smoking rooms, therein lies the the free choice, you could choose to patronise smoke free pubs with impunity, the staff who working smoking pubs would be smokers anyway and even if they were not the barstaff have free choice as to whether to work there or not, and I am sure that landlords would be happy to swap staff by preference helping to prevent unemployment, a small number may become unemployed for any number of reasons but a lot less than are currently being made unemployed now.

You made a free choice to come to this blogsite, you chose to put your point of view across, You knew this is a pro choice blogsite yet you complain that you meet resistance! I personally welcome your point of view, some may not be so welcoming, I have no control over that nor would I wish to control it, free speech is as I am sure you will agree is the cornerstone of any democracy, then of course freedom to pursue a legitimate pastime in comfort and warmth, free of intimidation official or otherwise is also part of democracy and that Baz is what is sought here. Then truly we could have "Imagine all the people.. living life in peace!" a worthwhile aim would you not agree?

John.

Baz said...

Hi John.

Good to see we agree that smoking does contaminate the air.

Parallel.

As an aviation engineer, and no doubt as a car driver, you will be aware of the emission limits that have been placed on exhaust fumes from all of these vehicles. These limits are imposed on vehicles that are used in external spaces.

These vehicles are in many cases essential to daily living, delivering food, medical supplies, people to work, people to meetings, etc etc etc.. (and yes, the car is also used in a recreational sense too)

The cigarette on the other hand is a luxury item, it isn't essential, the country’s economy doesn't depend on you smoking (although to read blogs on pro-smoking websites you could be forgiven for thinking so) Food isn't going to be stopped from being delivered if you don't have a fag, the medical supplies and doctors are still going turn up to work if you light up a fag! Smoking isn't anywhere near the level of importance that transport is..

To compare the two is just madness, but I do hope I've sufficiently broken down your parellel argument..

Now can you answer my question (you've skilfully avoided it)

Why does your CHOICE to pollute air that we BOTH breathe in a contained space override my CHOICE to breathe in air that is clean!?

See I could easily answer that question in relation to travel by saying that the choice of everyone has to be overridden in order for public/private services to be maintained. For the country’s economy to be maintained, for medical/electrical/financial security..

Can you answer in it relation to smoking John.. (I feel like I'm really doing all the footwork here... I thought we were "all in this together".)

Can you tell me one imposition before the smoking ban on the fumes from cigarette smoke? was the chemical structure of the cigarette changed? Were smokers given a bag to breath into or a device to convert their fumes into non-toxic gases? That was independent of the building they were in? No (because they move around, like cars! sorry, carrying on your analogy)

You may believe that free standing air conditioning units will adequately filter smokers fumes, but this simply isn't the case. As a freelance Interior Designer I know that the cost to purchase, install and run extraction systems is many thousands of pounds. You have to remember John, that air filtration or IAQ (Indoor Air Quality) is also a building regulation, there has to be a certain number of air changes per minute, per person, in order to satisfy the regulations. These air changes relate to building use and more importantly size. Due to all new builds having to be air tight, designers have to look at ways to ventilate, this isn't because of smokers, this is due to growth from condensation (moulds and other allergens), Radon, volatile organic compounds, Legionella, even Ozone (which I'm sure you're aware of in your field of expertise) All this and Carbon Monoxide. The small stand along unit you are referring to do not allow for the amount of room air changes needed every hour for public spaces. Typically a school class room will need 3 air changes every hour. This is without children smoking, imagine then a busy pub with many people smoking (cause of carbon monoxide) How many of these systems will you need? And what is their impact on the building? Operating air filtration units such as this creates issues for moisture management and humidity control. All of these items need to be identified within building regulations for public buildings. It is not as simple as shoving an air con in the corner of the room and saying "There you go. Job done." Indoor Air Quality is a massive area that impacts on every aspect of our lives.

Baz said...

Ok.. Smokers pubs..

Wow! Another complicated issue.

Operated by smokers for smokers, with dedicated smoking rooms that non-smokers don't have to go into.

Let me just say that as someone who had a spell of unemployment a few years ago, there is a certain vulnerability that the unemployed feel to take any job that is offered. To not feel a burden on society, this even includes doing jobs that might go against their beliefs and/or ethics. The last thing a vulnerable person wants is someone who is going to put them at risk. Now, you might say that everyone knows the risks, and therefore a person has a choice, let me say that someone who is hungry, has a mortgage and a family doesn't have a choice, they need work so take a job. This job might be prostitution for example. I know a couple people who did factory work and now have reduced hearing for example. They put their trust into their employer that all possible safe guards have been put in place. If an employer says that the audible levels meet standard then someone who needs the money will readily accept an authority figure telling them, unknowingly putting them at risk. This could be said about bar staff, who are among the lowest paid workers in the UK. I used to work in a pub, like many students do, (before the smoking ban) and I have to say that I spent a long time coughing after my shift from inhaling smoke, my clothes had to be washed, everyday, the fumes from smoke was everywhere. I didn't go deaf or blind, I didn't contract any diseases that I know of.. However I didn't feel I was performing at my best. "By depriving the brain of oxygen, high levels of carbon monoxide can lead to nausea, unconsciousness and death. " I have to say I did feel sick a lot of the time. However, I needed the money, and so carried on. Obviously I thought, if this was dangerous then there would be a Law.. At the time (in the 90's) there wasn't a law.. so I assumed it was safe. People will work in that or any environment if they need the money. It is not fair to assume that you have no responsibility over your staff, nor is it fair to assume that they are making a choice to work somewhere, especially in a recession. I have worked in many places that go against my ethical views - because I needed the cash.

Smoking Landlords and smoking customers. What about smoking cleaners, or smoking cooks, chefs, waiters, glass collectors?

Amsterdam has allows smoking of dope should we import that over here too? Not everything that the Europeans should be copied here.

Pub closure rates in this country and the smoking ban is a whole separate issue.. Pubs are closing in this country because of a series of reasons, not just the smoking ban. The smoking ban is a nail in the coffin, However there were a lot of other nails in there already. It is unfair of you to suggest that the smoking ban is the only or even main reason the pub trade is dying. Europeans have a different relationship with alcohol than we do. For a start they don't just go out and get drunk. They tend to appreciate wine/beers more. So they will go out and drink rather than shop for it.

I currently have a choice and it's the same choice you have John, I can or cannot go to the Pub. Once in that pub, I am governed by the same laws as you. If I get drunk I will be refused a pint, the same as you, If I start a fight, I will be barred, or taken away just like you, if I go outside the pub and litter in the street, I will be given a fine, like you, and if i decide to light up inside the pub, I will be asked to smoked outside - like you.

Baz said...

I did come to this pro-smoking website of my own choice John, I wasn't complaining about my choice of website or resistance. I was making an observation about it. I agree with you people are perfectly entitled to put their view across.

You are perfectly entitled to pursue a legal pastime John, in your own home or outside of public buildings.

You can only smoke drugs in certain places in amsterdam, of a certain quantity and a certain type of drug. There are restrictions on that.. yet drug takers aren't up in arms (no pun intended) saying.. "why, oh why can't we do more than the legal limit!" there is a legal limit for a reason.

No one is stopping you from smoking in private spaces.

If you feel intimidated I don't understand why.

As a vegan I sometimes felt intimidated by meat eaters, but then I realised that I'm not one of them, and what I do in the privacy of my own home, is my business as long as it doesn't affect anyone else, who cares..

But that's just it, I think, John, what you do - by smoking in public DOES affect other people. It's just that you make excuses for it, because you enjoy it, because you are addicted to it.. And don't get me wrong, I can understand that. I used to love eating meat, still do love the taste.. but I recognised that it was wrong for me to eat meat (I'm not saying it's wrong to smoke, or wrong for anyone else to eat meat) and it was selfish of me to eat meat, so I stopped. Not only that I stopped drinking milk, eating cheese or and all other dairy products too. I recognised the only reason that I was eating that meat/dairy was because I liked it. I justified eating it because I liked the taste, I justified killing animals or being party to their death because I liked the taste on my tongue, I justified killing 47 animals a year for about 40 minutes of pleasure a day! Just didn’t seem worth it in the end.. When you look at how selfish I was. I don't feel like that now of course.

I respect other people who admit that actually they like smoking they don't want to sit outside in the cold, because they like smoking, I respect people that say they are addicted to smoking, so yes, but they find it really difficult to give up, I respect people who say, "you know I realise I'm being selfish in smoking in front of other people - I’m fully aware of the health issues it causes to myself and others - but I'm addicted and I like it.." THAT I can understand.. THAT makes sense.. but telling me about car pollution, about the history of 1940's Germany, about European cafe culture, about the demonisation of the smoker.. isn't gaining any respect.. because that's all a sidetrack - a diversion.. what is relevant is that;

A. you are addicted,
B. you like it and enjoy it,
C. You know you're being selfish
D. You know all the health risks (they're written on the packet! to yourself and to others)
E. you don't want to give up smoking in a pub.

Those are the facts.. and when smokers start admitting them.. then I'll have a lot more respect for them. Trying to convince me that smoking is good, or that you're not addicted or there are alternatives is all fluff.. You like it.. you enjoy it.. you don't want to stop, and you'll say anything in order to not.

Dick Puddlecote said...

"but he also wants the best for everyones elses kids"

None of his business. And, no, the world would most certainly NOT be better with more self-appointed prodnoses inflicting their morals on the rest of society.

Err, what on earth has this to do with paedophiles? Don't try to put words in the mouths of others, Baz, it's a line of argument long since accredited to fools.

Anonymous said...

All this Nazi stuff does annoy the anti tobacco industry: so much so that in 2008, three of them felt the need to write a paper about it. See link below. One of the authors, Anna Gilmour, was an author of the recent paper which claimed to show that the the smoking ban had resulted in fewer heart attacks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2441844/

Baz said...

Dick. I said peadophiles as an example of the opposite of someone who cared about children, being that Jamie Oliver does care! That is all!!

"None of his business. And, no, the world would most certainly NOT be better with more self-appointed prodnoses inflicting their morals on the rest of society."

If that's how you feel maybe all the of the medical advancements society has made should not be used by you, or maybe all of the artistic creations should not be appreciated by you, or maybe all of the technological advancement (including the computer you use) should not be used by you... since all of those started with a need to make one persons life better. Infact the internet was created for better communication between a few people.. and now it is used freely.. if it wasn't for someone saying maybe I can invent/discover/recreate/offer an alternative to.. you wouldn't have all the great advancements you so readily rely on.

I would rather live in a society were people do care, where people are interested, where people help each other. Than one where people say "none of his business" to someone trying to help. Maybe Dick you could educate yourself on Jamie Olvier who has helped hundreds of people, influenced thousands and given direct employment to dozens of young people who wouldn't have had a chance to make a difference in their community.

Anon. That report was very interesting and does show that many of the "facts" presented are indeed "myth".. along with showing that the issues of smoking in the Nazi Germany were incredibly complex and not as plain as many have painted it.

The clear difference is we don't live in a totalitarian state.

Dick Puddlecote said...

"since all of those started with a need to make one persons life better"

OK, carry on arguing like a fool then, Baz.

All of those were motivated mostly by the financial - or other - benefit to the developer, not by altruism. Oliver is ALSO not motivated by altruism, his personal wealth has been boosted with books and two TV series, as well as the same in the US. Meanwhile, take up of school meals has reduced, and the treasury has been raided to the tune of £1bn to fund something which no-one asked for.

But above all, none of those you mention were FORCED on people whether they like it or not. If you don't want a computer, you don't have to have one. Nor the internet, nor art or medical care.

Which is why parents are shoving food through school gates. There is no opt out and it's none of Oliver's business to MAKE children eat what HE decides. In short, there is no 'choice', see?

Still nothing to do with paedophiles. Good grief, why do fools always think a good way of arguing is to resort to irrelevant scaremongery and extremes?

Anonymous said...

I find it very strange or should i say stupid that for all the anti smoking propaganda and campaigns the taxpayer has paid for (without knowing)the fact still remains that not one person has ever died as a result of secondhand smoke and "claims" of SHS danger cannot be proven,so why do anti smokers still make these claims, when talking about Antis and Nazis the word "Propaganda" does come to mind and it does seem to link the two.

Anonymous said...

"As an aviation engineer, and no doubt as a car driver, you will be aware of the emission limits that have been placed on exhaust fumes from all of these vehicles. These limits are imposed on vehicles that are used in external spaces."

I dimly recall writing that I do not drive, so why do you assume that I do?

Regarding ventilation are saying then it is better to deny the government £millions revenue through pub closures and tobacco purchases than pay out a few £thousand for ventilation, revenue that is badly needed, revenue that pays for three non smokers per smoker on the NHS?

Would you not agree that is really poor economics especially when the numbers of pensioners is growing faster than taxpayers can keep up, who also in their twilight years and through no fault of their own create a massive drain on a finite revenue which they have paid into all of their lives.

You keep trying to deflect the issue of pollution, is not pollution just as dangerous outside as it is inside? At least inside it is controllable!

You talk of the Dutch and their policy on Marijuana, the smoking of Marijuana is controlled in Holland and illegal within the UK, until recently when the Dutch ammended their smoking laws it became illegal to use tobacco with Marijuana, people were smoking pure Marijuana a drug. Here in UK is considered dangerous and illegal. Fortunately the Dutch government saw sense and ammended such laws now people may smoke in pubs under a certain size at the landlords discretion or a smoke room may be provided more importantly Marijuana is once again diluted with tobacco. I do not propose the legalisation of Marijuana but I do maintain the continental system of smoking regulations are both fairer to smokers /non smokers and less injurious to their pub trade and culture from which millions of Guilders/Euros are made as revenue from tourists in Amsterdam alone!

Of course if you believe the UK does not need the revenue the pubs bring from tourism then fine, just continue the folly that is the pub tie and the smoking ban, ask foriegn tourists what they associate with England and most will include the traditional English Pub, the same pub that this ban is helping to kill off.

The Government desperately needs revenue, by reducing the tobacco tax so that fewer legitamately buy tobacco from abroad or buy from the Black market both of which deny revenue from tobacco products, that by allowing smoking pubs or smoking rooms there would be an increase in patronage as smokers return to the smoking pubs leaving the non smoking pubs for family entertainment and non smokers to enjoy, this too would increase revenue.
Non smokers would not be at any alleged risk as they would have their own facilities, whether a pub is smoking or not staff whether they smoke or not can still choose whether to work there or not, no one forces non smokers to work in smoking pubs no matter what the circumstances that choice is always open unlike companies that operate a no smokers policy!

The removal of free choice is the tool of dictatorships, and as I recall Hitler was democratically elected to the Bundesrat, he legitimately succeeded Von Hindenburg as Chancellor, legitamately declared a state of emergency (albeit he set up the conditions but his declaration was constitutionally legal) before installing himself as Fuhrer!

Such mechanisms exist under UK law too, once a state of emergency is declared then almost unlimited powers are available especially as elections are suspended during a state of emergency and there is no public accountability.

It is of course unlikely to happen but certainly not impossible.

Baz said...

"Good grief, why do fools always think a good way of arguing is to resort to irrelevant scaremongery and extremes?"

I thought that when I read your reply, Dick.

Dick, I find it hard to debate with you, because you clearly aren't going to engage in a rationale debate. I could argue that parents are FORCING a bad diet on their children, and as parents are in a position of responsibility. children don't question their parents motives in feeding them certain food stuff which are bad for them. (Food stuff which co-incidentally are not chosen for goodness but in many cases out of necessity from a choice made my mostly limited financial resources!!) I wonder if you will disagree?..

Rollo Tommasi said...

Never mind Baz. Exasperating though he may be on this aspect, I see Dick P hasn't tried to take issue with the many other points you raise.

He obviously accepts the validity of your arguments on these.

Baz said...

Sorry John.. I don't dimily recall you writing either way, but if don't drive then fair enough.

Re: Ventilation.

Is it better to do X,Y or Z? how far from the topic of smoking and choice shall we diverge John? You'll be trying to tell me next that the music industry exists because of smokers. I've given you my views, just as you gave me your views. Mine are somewhat more pointed since I actually work in that area.

I would agree that it's the governments duty to make sure that proper building regulations are met. That said, it is not the governments duty to carry out the building work in buildings that are not owned by the state. I wouldn't expect the government to fit ventilation systems in retail outlets for example, as even though they are a public space, they are privately leased. It is the lease holder or the owner who is responsible for making sure that regulations are met. Just as if you want to convert your loft, it not the government who do the conversion, however it is the government via planning/building regulations that you have to meet in order to do the work.

The number of growing pensioners, doesn't mean we should reverse the smoking ban, denying the government £millions in revenue doesn't mean we should reverse the smoking ban either. The government isn't in the business of financially supporting private enterprises like pubs. Whatever the number of smokers on the NHS, none of that means we should reverse the smoking ban.

"You keep trying to deflect the issue of pollution, is not pollution just as dangerous outside as it is inside? At least inside it is controllable!!"

I haven't deflected this issue at all.. I have clearly said that we have laws for the amount of emissions that cars, planes, trains can emit into the atmosphere!.. As a layperson I know that my car is tested for emissions during it's MOT. These tests are to make sure that my car isn't polluting the air! I am even give a discount on my road tax if my emissions are very low.

Baz said...

Actually it is you that hasn't answered my question.

I raised the issue about marijuaua in order to point out that we have different laws in this country than abroad, because you said that we should follow mainland europe in it's laws. I asked you if you would like those drug laws here.. as I way of getting you to consider your line of logic in trying to tell me that we should take our laws from Europe!? Clearly we need to be selective with what laws work and why they work in other countries, and then analyse if they would work over here. Not automatically adopt them because they suit a small minority of people.

I have also outlined my thoughts on smoking pubs.. I'm not going to do that again, as I was perfectly clear the first time.

Do I believe that the government needs revenue from pubs!? I believe that we need to start to look at other areas of industry in the UK other than that of the finance and tourist, which are the two largest. We have a very small manufacturing base in this country compared to how it used to be, we also have a growing creative sector which needs to be promoted and given time to prosper. The arts and creative industries are where the new money will be. Not from pubs, persay, however the entertainment industry is vital.

John there will always be the country pub, because people will always want a pint. Are you seriously telling that the smoking ban will kill off every single pub? There will be less pubs in the UK. The UK is changing John.

Of course foriegn tourists are going to think about the English boozer! They are probably going to think about 221b Baker street too, and foggy London streets, and Top Hats and Queens English being spoken before "afternoon tea". They are going to have a vision of those incredibles by Grimshaw of dark dock sides.. but English/London/ the UK isn't like that anymore.

People buying their cigs on the blackmarket isn't a reason to reverse the smoking ban, in the same way that people buying illegal drugs on the blackmarket doesn't mean we should legalise them, or people buying bootlegged CDs on the blackmarket doesn't mean that original CD should be lowered in price..

Baz said...

They are going to have a vision of those incredibles 8paintings by Grimshaw of dark dock sides.. but English/London/ the UK isn't like that anymore.

Sorry.. fingers too slow

b manning said...

Good old Jamie Oliver. Bit lardy... if any of those schools had weighed and measured him, according to their benchmark they'd been required to send him home with a letter of dietary advice.

Baz said...

Hey Rollo

I see you're still following the debate.. are you enjoying it? lol

Baz said...

haha B. Manning. His mum gave him a note so it's all good :)

Anonymous said...

I see Baz and Rollo still cannot grasp the idea of Choice, but time will tell,it is the only way forward.
Smoke-Free Campaigns
The end justify the means
Just what Hitler thought
Smoking Bans
Prohibition
No Choice
Paints a picture of what this Country has become, yes Hitler would be very Proud.

Dick Puddlecote said...

"Dick, I find it hard to debate with you, because you clearly aren't going to engage in a rationale debate."

Says the guy who introduced paedophilia into the discussion. Do you read the Sun, perchance? :)

Dick Puddlecote said...

"He obviously accepts the validity of your arguments on these."

I see you went to the same school of juvenile debate as Baz.

Yeah, course I do, Rollo, keep scraping that barrel.

Good grief.

Anonymous said...

Hi Baz (and Rollo)
I dont usually enter into tiresome
webgeek debates with honeybuns and
phoneys,but in your case I am prepared to make a rare exception.
I assume, you accept ,as one of
life's losers trying to dictate what others should do to suit you is a tall order. You see, in very simple terms,you wanting a non smoking venue get my wholehearted support,but when you want ALL
58000+ venues to be FORCED to do likewise, that is what nice people
call NAZI. So,I dont know what your
personal hang up is,but may I,
with your permission of course ,
suggest you get it sorted rather than blight the rest of our species
with it.

Subnote to all others wasting time with blitherers like Baz &Co
move on ,forget them,not worth the mither.


Sweet Child in Time

Baz said...

Anon. I do grasp the idea of choice. That is why I asked the same question several times that NOT one person here has attempted to answer..

We don't live in a totalitarian state, we don't have a authoritarian dictator as leader, this is a democratic country. I am not a Nazi for thinking that all public indoor places should be smoke free. I suggest that we all have a duty to not alter the air quality of indoor spaces. If you feel your choice to pollute is greater than my choice to breathe in clean air in the same room, can you explain why your choice wins out?

why is your choice more important than mine!?

Insulting me, only weakens your arguement and shows you have an inability do debate.

I didn't "introduce" peadophilia anymore than I introduced veganism or piracy of music, software or Art, or The Beatles. All of which I mentioned frequently and often in this debate. I have only said peodophile ONCE.

You asked me initially why I said the word, and I gave you a straight answer. I feel no shame or guilt for saying it.

Anonymous said...

Baz, would you be happy with this scenario? two pubs, 100 yds apart. One smoking the other none smoking. Would you be happy in your clean air pub, probably on your own while 30-40 smokers held court in the other pub where happiness and frivolity was rife!
Or would you want BOTH pubs to be non smoking just incase you might pop into the other one, one day?

Anonymous said...

Baz, once is enough you sicko. If you think its good to use pedophilia to help you there is something wrong with you. Nobody thinks pedophilia is right and you are out of order for saying anyone would think that.

Baz said...

Anon. Did I say peadophilia was right? No! Go and read what I actually said, instead of just reading Dicks, misleading headlines.

Also I've already stated what I think about smoking pubs.

As for "Sicko!"

Name calling isn't productive, it doesn't help you, and it only shows that you are unable to debate, because you have to resort to name calling.

Rollo Tommasi said...

Dick P: No juvenile debate from me.

There is nothing stopping you from criticising Baz’s other comments. And you don’t usually have a problem about saying something when you have something to say. If you choose to ignore most of his comments, and instead focus only on one narrow point, then the rest of us are entitled to ask questions about why you do so.

So often when I engage in this kind of debate, I find the pro-smoking brigade deploying zombie arguments. Your behaviour here mirrors theirs. They make arguments which are shot down. So they retreat from that debate. Yet miraculously they then reappear on another thread and resurrect those same arguments, as if nothing had ever happened.

So are your arguments alive and worth defending? Are they dead? Or are they undead, so you simply try to reuse the same tarnished lines some other time where, you hope, they won’t be shot down again?

Anonymous said...

Baz said...
Baz said...
Baz said...
Baz said...
Baz said...
Baz said...
Baz said...
Baz said...
Baz said...
Baz said...
Baz said...
Baz said...
Baz said...
Baz said...
Baz said...
Baz said...
Baz said...
Baz said...
Baz said...
Baz said...


Someone is suffering a serious obsession problem, a little too much ego and a persecution complex.

Someone should see a shrink - and soon!

Dick Puddlecote said...

I see they taught you how to construct straw men at juvenile debating school, Rollo. Nice try, no cigar. ;)

Baz said...

Anon, very mature.

budgie said...

I can't speak for the rest of you, but Baz-Rollo's lectures merely serve to reinforce my earnest desire to see this law (supported by stupid, ignorant brainwashed twerps)confined to the history books. In fact, the tide is starting to turn - the antis are losing the resources to enforce it. It's ironic that the things they largely blame for pub closures - the recession & credit crunch - are now threatening this totally uncompromising law.

budgie said...

Baz posts at 12:27am, Rollo at 12:40am.

Coincidence?

Baz said...

Only as co-incidental as these times

b manning. 8/09/2010 07:47:00 PM
TheBigYin. 8/09/2010 08:12:00 PM

Rollo Tommasi. 8/09/2010 08:22:00 PM
TheBigYin.8/09/2010 08:43:00 PM

DickPuddlecote 8/10/2010 12:34:00 PM
Anon 8/10/2010 01:17:00 PM

DickPuddlecote 8/10/2010 02:45:00 PM
Anon 8/10/2010 03:43:00 PM

JohnWatson 8/10/2010 05:18:00 PM
Baz 8/10/2010 05:38:00 PM

Baz 8/10/2010 06:50:00 PM
B.manning 8/10/2010 07:05:00 PM

WoW Budgie.. is it so unbelievable that someone else doesn't support the smoking ban?

I wasn't lecturing, I was invited to contribute, The blog mentioned me directly.

budgie said...

Sorry Baz, I must have mistaken this for lecturing....

'A. you are addicted,
B. you like it and enjoy it,
C. You know you're being selfish
D. You know all the health risks (they're written on the packet! to yourself and to others)
E. you don't want to give up smoking in a pub.

Those are the facts.. and when smokers start admitting them.. then I'll have a lot more respect for them. Trying to convince me that smoking is good, or that you're not
Are you a teacheaddicted or there are alternatives is all fluff.. You like it.. you enjoy it.. you don't want to stop, and you'll say anything in order to not.'

8/10/2010 12:31:00 PM

Anonymous said...

Myself I want liberty and freedom for some, in particular myself, not for all, because I am selfish.

I want to be smoke free with nobody around me permitted to smoke under threat of law but do not want anyone who smokes to have the same freedom, a public place where they can gather and smoke safely amongst their friends, in a non-hateful environment lacking proper police enforcement and substantial propaganda to coerce their lowly position.

I want private business property, such as pubs, to have that decision made by government, which is on my side. Private property rights are of no concern when it comes to my personal discomfort.

Pubs have that property right removed, but it is for my own personal satisfaction and delight, so I squeal my support endlessly, repetitiously, for the smoking ban, calling it freedom.

Just because public restrooms give me a special room to go and piss, instead of pissing in a pool of water, or to fart, instead of farting around others, smokers should not have a smoker's room where they can go to smoke. I apply a different standard as I cannot control my pissing and farting. But smokers can control their smoking, if they cave in to the guilt trip, enroll in NHS services and give up their family, friends and social lives.

It matters not if by doing so someone would be forever unhappy. Nor do I care about the smokers already murdered as a result of the smoking ban forcing them into unsafe areas because ashtrays are illegal.

I care not about individual situations nor disrupting the way people have interacted on a personal level for their entire private lives. It is a matter of my will being met over that of other individuals, in particular the smokers. That is my focus in life, narrow and intolerant as it might seem, but I am free to choose that path. The smoker is not free to choose theirs. They are marked and labeled. I will make sure of supporting that effort.

I do not like the smokers gathering and talking together either. That could lead to words said out of favor, against me and my type, which is the majority, who are good. Anyone who disagrees with me is persecuting me but I do not persecute others when I demand my lifestyle conformity be enforced on everyone, with zero tolerance for difference of opinion, including smoking.

Those who follow the majority are good. Those who do not are bad. That is God's law for governments here on earth operating under God's moral principles, including fair play and equality of treatment.

Antismokers are good. Smokers are filth. That is a fact, as I believe it.

That is only fair in my eyes. And I have the right to say it. Smokers have none.

I can never overstate my belief strong enough so I have to repeat it over and over and over again, multiple times.

I have to shriek and distort words, so as not to cast any self-doubt on myself or have to do any introspection.

I must be right, always, as I am supporting the big-moneyed position as popularized by the unfree press controlled by quangos and pharmaceutical advertisers and unquestionably reprinted PR releases substituting for non-biased investigative journalism.

It matters not if I am talking out of my arse - I just repeat, as I have been indoctrinated, my belief.

I believe whatever my betters tell me, especially if found in the Guardian or if from Labour, unquestionably, agree and am ready to obey and do my bit, always and repetitiously.

I also do not eat meat, the same as Hitler, nor do I smoke.

I am not a Nazi by my own self-recognition. I simply repeat much of their same behavioural patterns and believe the same propaganda as was common then.

Thus I am innocent, simply doing and saying as I was told to do and say, by the mainstream.

I am the spirit of the antichrist, reborn from the last go around, when smoking bans were effective in helping to establish fascist dictates.

It is the will of the collective over that of the individual that matters.

Baz said...

I'd actually call that my view.. since lecturing is presenting information and teaching people about a particular subject, I'm not teaching or presenting any information here. I'm giving you my view as I see it. Lecturing you maybe me saying how you can give up smoking, or the illnesses you can get from smoking or providing some hard evidence, I didn't in that quote I simple said that I think, I believe, I respect.. etc.. that wasn't a lecture.. it was my views, call it a bit of a rant if you like.

If you'd read around that quote you'd have also seen that I made similar demands of myself before I became a vegan.. As in why was I eating meat? etc etc.. until I came to the conclusion that I liked it.. that is the base fact.. Smokers Like smoking.. Meat eaters like eating meat.. are you going to deny that? Isn't it more honest to just say "baz I actually like smoking and I don't want to sit outside in the rain" than "lecture" me about germany and the Nazi's... (no offence John I enjoyed reading your comments, genuinely)

You don't have to like my view.. That's fine.. I don't have to like yours but I'm perfectly entitled to it.

Baz said...

"It is the will of the collective over that of the individual that matters"

That's democracy!.. welcome to the UK..

Anonymous said...

Ok Baz I am confused! What are you talking about in your posts 8/11/2010 04:06 and 04:10?

Given that I have not posted anything since: http://freedom-2-choose.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-antis-and-principles.html?showComment=1281457092795#c3290141457753510103

I am at a complete loss as to what you mean or are alluding to!

I am of pleased that you enjoy reading my presentation of the definitions of pro, anti, principles and the comparisons of two distinct laws.

I also think that you have confused someone elses post with mine especially when I have been quite supportive in respect of vegans or do you contest my view that being vegan does not create monsters like Adolf Hitler?

Of course I enjoy smoking, I would not do it if I did not, it is my free choice, of course I resent being forced outside in the rain and if you are honest so would you resent being treated as a second class citizen! I have and you know very well I have made a point of saying that you are entitled to your opinion so what is the point of your echoing my words when we are agreed on that point?

John.

(see it says John which means John wrote this, while the post cited may not say john at the end it is by John, I know this because I was there when I wrote it!) For the record that is called sarcasm a form of humour that unfortunately does not translate too well in written form as such it really does not merit any form of reply and you may call that a bit of a rant too!

Anonymous said...

Dim recollection apparently serves me better than it does you, I said:
Do you drive Baz? I do not, so if you do, by what right do you then pollute the air that I as a pedestrian breathes, it is a parallel argument is it not?
Diverge Baz? Since you are in the trade you cannot dispute that the technology is there, that it is more than capable of providing a safe environment given that they are capable of filtering out Sarin and Anthrax cigarette smoke being larger particulates present no problem at all and are far less deadly! Your objections to ventilated smoke rooms are financially based and have no regard to health which the law is allegedly based on.
No one suggested that the Government pay for or install such systems, in reality it is a moot point!
The Government does however have a legal and moral obligation to pensioners, the government has taken NI and Tax from them all of their working lives, this money for their pensions is theirs to not pay it amounts to these people being defrauded their entire working lives, less revenue means less money for pensions and more people on the poverty line, if smoking pUbs increase revenue then more money is available to commit to them, if the smoking ban is amended and taxation reduced then more revenue is generated through pubs, reduced taxation makes smuggling unprofitable reduces costs within HMRC increases tobacco taxation as more return to buying legal tobacco which increases the revenue to the NHS enabling them to treat more pensioners and non smokers after all three non smokers are treated on the NHS for every smoker with money supplied by smokers via tobacco taxation. Financially it makes more sense than robbing the treasury of over £10Billion!

Anonymous said...

We do indeed Baz but as I said we have the technology to provide air that 99.97% clean inside buildings we have no way of recycling the air on our streets, and no matter how good emissions get they will not come up to the levels or quality of indoor air.


Where did I say that I would support the legalisation of Marijuana? My point was that the laws in Europe are fairer than in the UK, that they do not have the pub closure rate like we do in the UK , Far fewer pubs are closing despite Alcohol being cheaper in the supermarkets there. Again in relation to revenue the advantages work for everyone not just smokers.
You were indeed Baz, you clearly do not support free choice either for landlords, staff or patrons.
Pubs are major players in both the finance and tourism sectors, loose the pubs then those sectors will be badly crippled definitely not good for the country as a whole is it?
Now if the money wasted on coercing smokers to quit, on peddling propaganda from the likes of ASH and the NHS then some money would be available to begin setting up the industrial base this country needs, as a nation we cannot survive on creativity and art, no nation can.
The UK is indeed changing but not for the better, where is the community spirit? Where is the tolerance? The sense of justice? The things this country gave the world? We may not be the empire we were, but we are basically the same people, I think we have just lost our way.
The lost revenue is a very good reason, this country cannot afford to lose a single penny. Drugs are irrelevant they produce no revenue; they are of no benefit to the country. Cd’s are not overtaxed, CD buyers do not suffer the same abuse from official sources, the threats from a small minority of mindless morons, they are simply bargain hunters and are not driven to find alternate sources as smokers are.
So the facts of the article are not in dispute which is why we are really here, the comparisons are legitimate, the definitions of pro and anti are factual, As Carl pointed out it is possible to neutral about smoking yet still be pro choice, likewise it is also possible to be neutral about smoking yet anti choice or indeed any other variation from anti smoking and anti choice through to pro smoking and pro choice.


John Watson

TheBigYin said...

That's democracy!.. welcome to the UK..

No my friend, that's communism, Welcome to Stalag UK.

Baz said...

John in posts 4.06 and 4.08 I was addressing someone called "Anon". not you, because I know you sign off with "John"..

However I mentioned the background to Nazi's/German history (which was in your opening) as an example of a lecture. I wasn't assigning a negative to the word "lecture" and I didn't want you to think I was being sarcastic!

Anonymous said...

Thank you Baz for clarifying the posts for me, and indeed the comment on Lectures.

Actually I have no objection to sarcasm, in my former line of work a sense of humour was absolutely essential given the sometimes horric sights and deeds servicemen and women endure in the line of duty. Neither was it my intent to imply that you were being sarcastic by your comment but merely advisory that it was in fact sarcasm and not meant to be taken literally, after all these discussions can get more heated than they need to be.

I think as far as you and I are concerned we have pretty much exausted the issue, so I thank you for your time and participation.

John.

Baz said...

Actually John, regarding your last couple of posts..

Baz said...

"Dim recollection apparently serves me better than it does you, I said:
Do you drive Baz? I do not, so if you do, by what right do you then pollute the air that I as a pedestrian breathes, it is a parallel argument is it not?
"


I have already answered this very clearly.

"Diverge Baz? Since you are in the trade you cannot dispute that the technology is there, that it is more than capable of providing a safe environment given that they are capable of filtering out Sarin and Anthrax cigarette smoke being larger particulates present no problem at all and are far less deadly!"

I did not deny that.

"Your objections to ventilated smoke rooms are financially based and have no regard to health which the law is allegedly based on."

That wasn't my objection, nor was it the only objection I outlined.

"No one suggested that the Government pay for or install such systems, in reality it is a moot point!"

Except that moments ago you said that the one objection was financial!?

"The Government does however have a legal and moral obligation to pensioners, the government has taken NI and Tax from them all of their working lives"

Yes. The Government does have a legal and moral obligation to pensioners.


"this money for their pensions is theirs to not pay it amounts to these people being defrauded their entire working lives"

Who said anyting about not paying pensioners their money? I certainly didn't.

"less revenue means less money for pensions and more people on the poverty line, if smoking pUbs increase revenue then more money is available to commit to them, if the smoking ban is amended and taxation reduced then more revenue is generated through pubs, reduced taxation makes smuggling unprofitable reduces costs within HMRC increases tobacco taxation as more return to buying legal tobacco which increases the revenue to the NHS enabling them to treat more pensioners and non smokers after all three non smokers are treated on the NHS for every smoker with money supplied by smokers via tobacco taxation. Financially it makes more sense than robbing the treasury of over £10Billion!!"

Ahhh so your entire arguement isn't about Nazi's or germany or exhaust fumes from cars or planes or even about your own addiction.. it's actually about helping pensioners out!!!! Ahh..

Not sure where you get your figures from.. or how you work out that it's robbed, since what someone never had they can't claim to be robbed of, and since they won't be having that revenue from these areas, they're hardly being robbed of it.

Isn't it just possible that we'd be able to raise £10billion without the smoking ban being reversed!?

Baz said...

"We do indeed Baz but as I said we have the technology to provide air that 99.97% clean inside buildings we have no way of recycling the air on our streets, and no matter how good emissions get they will not come up to the levels or quality of indoor air."

no way of recycling the air on our streets? I wasn't aware we needed to do that? I thought trees and plants did that naturally; London Plane Trees, for example, were planted expressly because they soaked up the London smog in victorian times.

However I have already debated this and clearly you have ignored all the reasons I gave.

"Where did I say that I would support the legalisation of Marijuana? "

Did I say you did? No.. please read what I actually said.

"My point was that the laws in Europe are fairer than in the UK, that they do not have the pub closure rate like we do in the UK , Far fewer pubs are closing despite Alcohol being cheaper in the supermarkets there.
"


And aside from cheaper booze in supermarkets and a smoking ban.. did you give any other reasons why pubs might be doing well in Europe? No? and did I? Yes.. please go and read.

"Again in relation to revenue the advantages work for everyone not just smokers. "

The advantages that you've outlined, however you haven't outlined the disadvantages. Which I have.. many times.

"You were indeed Baz, you clearly do not support free choice either for landlords, staff or patrons. "

Landlords are employees and are governed by employment Law, Staff are employees and therefor are vulnerable to an employer who they trust to be running his business lawfully. I support all employers who follow the law!.. or would you rather I suggest builders not wear saftey hats, or police gun trainers to not wear ear protectors, or lifeguards to wear their normal clothes instead of swimming costumes. There are certain laws we all have to follow. The concept of a "Free Choice" is limited by those Laws.

"Pubs are major players in both the finance and tourism sectors"

Tourist trade is definately valuable to the economy, there is no getting away from that.. and when the final quarterly beer sales (from Pubs) figures were released for 2009, they were down 3.6% which seems like a negative, but that decline was actually the smallest decline since 2006 (before the smoking Ban) Ms Simmonds from the British Beer & Pub Association said “These figures show a sector starting to claw its way out of a recessionary slump,” Ms Simmonds said. “They also signal the most significant driver of problems in the pub sector over the last 12 to 18 months has been the downturn in the economy and the slide into recession, along with duty increases.”

However, Ms Simmonds warned that the VAT increase, poor winter weather or government intervention could throw recovery off course.

“Any move by Government to increase beer tax further this year would be very damaging and place pubs and jobs at greater risk,” she said.

Hmmm.. So BBPA don't say it's because of the smoking ban that pubs are going out of business. They put the decline down to bad management, a downturn in the economy and duty increases.. And now we are coming up to a 20% VAT moment.. where no doubt loads more pubs will go under and people will be shouting about the smoking ban even louder.

Baz said...

"loose the pubs then those sectors will be badly crippled definitely not good for the country as a whole is it?"

Currenly pubs are closing at 28 per week.. but even in the boom of 2003-4 pubs were closing 12/13 a week! The worst year recently was 2008 when 38 pubs a week were closing, is it no co-incidence then that the recession was at it's peak in 2008? In 2009 the number of pubs closing dropped to 26!. This isn't a smoking ban effect.. this is economic downturn. And these statistics were taken from BBPA figures. Also I'd like to point out that there has only ever been 3 years were there were no pub closures since 1980 these were 1995, 1998 and 1999. Pubs have been closing consistently year on year otherwise since 1980.


"Now if the money wasted on coercing smokers to quit, on peddling propaganda from the likes of ASH and the NHS then some money would be available to begin setting up the industrial base this country needs"

The government isn't about to fund an industrial base, that is for private enterprise to do, in the right economic climate. As for taking money away from encouraging/coercing people to stop smoking.. (hmm.. I thought most smokers could think for themselves and were all about choice.. funny how they are so easily lead by some government adverts and a few leaflets!) Do you also think that money should be taken away from advertising safe sex? sex is perfectly legal, however just like smoking you can get ill from it.. and in the words of Leonard Cohen (who likes a good cigar) "there aint no cure for love"

Shouldn't everyone be aware of the dangers in life, from smoking, drugs, sex, cream buns, crossing the road. etc etc.. or should all public information be stopped because some people are easily swayed and others think they are being co-erced. Stop-Look-Listen.. I wonder how much was spent on that campaign.. or on Keep Brit Tidy.. how much on that?

"as a nation we cannot survive on creativity and art, no nation can."

I agree and I didn't say we could either..

"The UK is indeed changing but not for the better,"

That's debatable.

"where is the community spirit? "

In community centres, volunteer centres, day care centres, care homes, schools, hospitals, down my street.

"Where is the tolerance? "

You mean why can't people accept you as wanting to smoke inside a public building? How come you aren't tolerant of them wanting to breathe in clean air!?

"The sense of justice?"

I'd say in courts of law..

"The things this country gave the world? "

yep we sure did.. What were we thinking?

"We may not be the empire we were, but we are basically the same people,"

Yep we are :)

"I think we have just lost our way.
"


Very sad that you feel that way John.

"The lost revenue is a very good reason, this country cannot afford to lose a single penny. "

Been through this already.

"Drugs are irrelevant they produce no revenue; "

because they aren't legal.. but I'm not going to debate that either since I don't want drugs on the street be they legal or illegal.

"they are of no benefit to the country. "

It is interesting though.. if drugs were legal.. then the government would take a big cut (no pun) and then there would be a big benefit to the countrys finances... There is actually more of a reason to legalise drugs that reverse the smoking ban if we're just talking about cash.

Baz said...

"Cd’s are not overtaxed, "

I agree.

CD buyers do not suffer the same abuse from official sources,

CD buyers selling bootleg CD's do.. They get fined for it.. and since this part of the convo was about blackmarket cigarettes it was very relevant.

"the threats from a small minority of mindless morons, they are simply bargain hunters and are not driven to find alternate sources as smokers are."

Driven by addiction.

"So the facts of the article are not in dispute which is why we are really here, the comparisons are legitimate, the definitions of pro and anti are factual, As Carl pointed out it is possible to neutral about smoking yet still be pro choice, likewise it is also possible to be neutral about smoking yet anti choice or indeed any other variation from anti smoking and anti choice through to pro smoking and pro choice.
"

I'd say there is actually a lot of dispute.. which is why this thread is so long.. and why my replies have been so indepth :)
But Carl is correct is it possible to be neutral and NOT be an ANTI.. just like me :)


Baz

Anonymous said...

"Dim recollection apparently serves me better than it does you, I said:
Do you drive Baz? I do not, so if you do, by what right do you then pollute the air that I as a pedestrian breathes, it is a parallel argument is it not?
"
The meaning behind that comment is simple, you are not reading what is written before you it is clear because you make reference to not knowing if I drive when I had specifically stated that I did not drive. So much for clarity.

So we agree air management is the answer to air quality inside pubs.
You claim finance was not your objection but that it was not the only objection that you outlined. If you did not outline that objection how can it be part of a package of objections that you outlined?
Was it not you who said that air management systems were too expensive for pubs; is that not a financial objection?
The fact still remains no one suggested that the Government pay for or install such systems, in reality it is a moot point!

Anonymous said...

Yes. The Government does have a legal and moral obligation to pensioners. Well we agree on that at least, the government has taken NI and Tax from them all of their working lives part of the NI contribution goes to the NHS part is invested for pensions, some the money diverted to the NHS pays for ASH to as they state stamp out smoking, wasted on projects they claim are supported by 80% of the population, clearly in most newspaper forums and on a large number of blogs there is nowhere near that amount of support! The money wasted here could better used to finance pensions for the ever growing army of pensioners and help to relieve the strain on an ever dwindling taxpaying workforce.


"this money for their pensions is theirs to not pay it amounts to these people being defrauded their entire working lives"

Who said that you anything about not paying pensioners their money? I certainly didn't.

Ahhh so your entire arguement isn't about Nazi's or germany or exhaust fumes from cars or planes or even about your own addiction.. it's actually about helping pensioners out!!!! Ahh..
No but the article is and you have been allowed ample leeway to not only stray off topic but stay that way! I would say that I have shown you a great deal of tolerance and courtesy by allowing you to do so.
Its simple, NI is paid to contribute toward state pensions and the NHS the more money wasted on this failed initiative the less there is for pensions, as pointed out the numbers of pensioners are growing while the taxpaying workforce is diminishing sooner or later the government cannot afford to pay pensions to pensioners so the money paid in is going where it is meant to, the pensioners, that is theft of their contributions after all they’ve paid all their lives for a pension and a pension they are entitled to!

Tell me if the £10bn revenue from smokers stopped who would pay it? Would you believe the non smokers would have to pay it, have you asked your fellow non smokers if they want a £10bn tax bill on top of what they are paying now? I’ll bet they’d be very unhappy bunnies particularly with you.

Traffic was horse drawn in Victorian times Baz! Do horses give off the amount of pollution as cars, trucks and buses? Still at least you concede the point regarding indoor air quality if only by omission.

You raised the marijuana point Baz, perhaps you hoped to imply I support legalising marijuana, perhaps not, but that is how it came across my point was that Dutch law at one point the Dutch made it illegal to mix tobacco and Marijuana

The fact is pubs are doing better on the continent where smoking is allowed on a limited basis inside pubs, despite cheaper supermarket beer and they have no tied beer pubs all of which contributes to the better position their pubs are in.

Anonymous said...

Those laws are not necessary where all workers share the same risks, if soldiers said this war could get me killed I’m going home then they would be shot for cowardice (yes under the Articles of War the death penalty applies even for falling asleep!) but they don’t they know the risks and get on with the job likewise where a group of people who share the same alleged hazards are working or not they too know the risks and no outsider is at risk, so it is with smoking pubs, everyone in there knows the alleged risks, if a non smoker enters they too know the risks I believe that most non smokers are adult enough to weigh up the alleged risks and (shock and Horror) make a sound decision as to whether they want to be in there or not I would hope that you too are capable of that decision, if so why do you need legislation to force that decision on you?
I’m glad we agree on the value of tourism, Ms Simmons of course is paid a handsome sum to validate policies so her response is not surprising. As for government intervention well they already have, the smoking ban is Government intervention which she claims may have a detrimental effect on economical recovery. (Not the smoking ban per se but Government intervention!)

Shouting about the smoking ban eh? Newsflash we already are and they are saying that support for repeal or amendment will be increased, that is the first accurate statement made here!


The fact remains that if we loose the pubs then those sectors will be badly crippled definitely not good for the country as a whole is it?

Government has consistently failed to produce the right economic climate! Are you saying that closing all these pubs is helping tot do that Baz? That money could be better used creating that right economic climate not denormalising a fifth of the population!

Anyone who is not by now aware of the risks of unprotected sex, the alleged risks of salt, bacon, junk food, alcohol, obesity, vitamin deficiencies, exercise, and smoking must have living on the moon for the last 40 years, its taught in schools, in all the papers in every surgery, everyone knows about it yet the overwhelming majority ignore it, could it be that they do not want it rammed down their throats 24/7?


So you agree then we also need an industrial base , yes it is debatable isn’t why we are here?
In community centres, volunteer centres, day care centres, care homes, schools, hospitals, down my street. Which explains hordes of Ghengis Kahn wannabes roaming around our streets some drunk or drugged some armed for a minor war, some community spirit!

You mean why can't people accept you as wanting to smoke inside a public building? How come you aren't tolerant of them wanting to breathe in clean air!? I am that’s why I recommend separate pubs and clubs for smokers I Suggest your steadfast refusal to accept that idea says more about your lack of tolerence than mine!

"The sense of justice?" I'd say in courts of law.. forgive me if it takes a while to write this its hard to laugh and type simultaneously, take a truck driver with a cab and a 40’ tanker trailer, an enforcement officer sitting in a car 15-20’ behind it both parked, the driver is using an e-cig this enforcement office rtell the court that he can see him smoking a cigarette 70’ ahead and 3-4’ above him, that he can see him flicking ash from out of the cab, he has no pictures, no cigarette end or DNA evidence, even the magistrates questioned it yet he was still convicted, still lost his job! I have many years watch keeping experience as a lookout and as security guard I could not honestly say that from where the enforcement officer was I could see someone smoking inside the cab of an articulated tanker with a 40’ trailer between him and me from inside a car. Well Baz that may be your idea of justice it certainly is not mine!

Anonymous said...

"The things this country gave the world? "Yep we sure did.. What were we thinking? Do you men like constitutional monarchies? A democratic parliament that half of the world emulates? How about the Magna Carta The United States constitution is based on the Magna Carta. Without this country all of Europe would be under a dictatorship, Just over two years this country and its commonwealth fought alone against that dictatorship, yes we had supplies from America but we did the hard work, yes they were the Nazis, here we are today enabling laws that parallel Nazi laws, and this to you is change for the better?

We may not be the empire we were, but we are basically the same people, the people then would never have permitted such legislation, there are however some of them left, those who refuse to support such legislation and a few who are willing to stand against it

"I think we have just lost our way.” Very sad that you feel that way John. It’s even sadder that I should have to Baz!

"The lost revenue is a very good reason, this country cannot afford to lose a single penny. " Been through this already and you could not care less!

Of course you don’t want to debate Drugs Baz, because you know that drugs are smuggled in colossal amounts , that some are making fortunes out of it, that already cigarettes are joining drugs as the profitable smuggling item, like drugs more shipments get through than are intercepted but the press wont tell you that! They daren’t, it says the government have failed yet again!
"Cd’s are not overtaxed, "I agree. CD buyers do not suffer the same abuse from official sources, Getting fined is hardly abuse, nor are they subject to "the threats from a small minority of mindless morons, they are simply bargain hunters and are not driven to find alternate sources as smokers are."

They are driven by ever increasing taxation, and also as an act of defiance against their persecutors!

"So the facts of the article are not in dispute which is why we are really here, the comparisons are legitimate, the definitions of pro and anti are factual, As Carl pointed out it is possible to neutral about smoking yet still be pro choice, likewise it is also possible to be neutral about smoking yet anti choice or indeed any other variation from anti smoking and anti choice through to pro smoking and pro choice.
"

I'd say there is actually a lot of dispute,
So what facts from the article have you actually disputed, in you long and detailed post?
But Carl is correct is it possible to be neutral and NOT be an ANTI.. just like me :)
I’ll agree to what Carl says, in fact I did, both after he posted and at the end of the post you quote from. I’d like the name of your scriptwriter; he/she has comedy down to a fine art, “just like you!” It does not get any funnier than that!

John.

Baz said...

Galton and Simpson..

All that sidetrack and you still managed to avoid my main question.

John I do believe you've missed your calling, you should have been an MP.. I feel like Jeremy Paxman asking over and over the same question only to get Micheal Howard saying answers like "oh it's a parellel arguement" or "the parellel nature of the arguement" or "i'm said very clearly Jeremy it's a parellel arguement and that's all there is to say.. " *yawn..* John you invited me over here to engage in a debate and the only question I have you avoid.. because actually it's the most important question..

Taxes, money, smoking, disease blah blah.. bottom line,

Your choice to change the nature of the air in a CONTAINED public space does not outweigh the choice of mine to breathe in clean air.

We all have a right to breathe in clean air in a public space..

You want to pollute that air in those spaces and then install extractors!.. here is an idea. don't pollute the air.

You can argue about cars and parellel parking and what the prime minister had for dinner if you like.. but you cannot change the fact that you have no right to change the air quality in a contained room out weighting my right to breathe in clean air.

For the record I didn't want to debate drugs, because I think this 70post thread was too long and since I first started asking my one question (still not answered) you have sidetracked, and dodgied and given nonsense answers and every step of the way I have challenged you.. and you still have not presented one single answer.

And when I ask it.. I get the response of it is me who is being selfish in asking you to not smoke, it is me that is imposing my will! (apparently) when in actual fact YOU are the one who smokes YOU are the one who is imposing his will, YOU are the one who has an addiction, YOU are the one who wants to override my choice to breathe in clean air in public spaces.

As I've said many times, IN private spaces you can do whatever you want.. I don't care.. but in public spaces you obey the law. LIKE I DO!!!!

Baz said...

I'm not above the law, and the law is there to ensure that EVERYONE when using public spaces enjoys the same clean air quality.

Anonymous said...

Oh dear Baz, you seem to be losing it! Sop here is a vitual Gypsy violin player playing Hearts and Flowers! (apologies to any Aryan
types reading.)

"Your choice to change the nature of the air in a CONTAINED public space does not outweigh the choice of mine to breathe in clean air."

The air inside cpmes from outside does it not? when open the door all that lovely traffic pollution comes in as well! So While the Air management system filters that out it can also filter out cigarette smoke then you can breathe in 99.97% clean air instead of the stuff that came in through the doors!

We all have a right to breathe in clean air in a public space..

No we don't, because no one has property rights over air, it is free to all, besides if the law determined that air had to clean it would enforce the running of Air maintenenance systems, the pubs would still hav eto pay for that and since they remove tobacco smoke as well leaving air 99.97% clean ther would be no requirement for a smoking ban would there?

I'm not above the law, and the law is there to ensure that EVERYONE when using public spaces enjoys the same clean air quality.

Are you saying then smokers are all criminals, that they are all lighting up in places where it is prohibited that non smokers are all saints and smokers sinners?

Know this Baz, I like millions of fellow smokers obey the law we smoke outside where the law says it is legal to do so, yes there are some who break the law but then there are some non smokers who break the law too, Peter Paine and his incitement to violence for a start which is worse Baz smoking or the incitement to cause immediate possibly lethal force?

Which of those two acts breaks the law?

I suggest you leave your greenhouse before the big bad smoker breaks all of the glass!

I said at the beginning of all this, and in the article I would allow your words to judge you, go back through these posts the verdict seems to be overwhelmingly clear.

I have no need to judge you Baz, I never did, you are condemning yourself, now you have made your point, you have had far more leeway than you would get elsewhere, compared to what smokers get you have still been treated well by most of the posters.

In fact I have been criticised for even debating with you, but thats fine, those who criticised me are also entitled to their opinion and I personally thank them for taking the time to express it.

John.

Rollo Tommasi said...

John - You've talked about your air management system and "99.97% clean air" a few times now.

Are you guaranteeing that, if smoking were allowed under your proposal, 99.97% of tobacco smoke would not be inhaled by people in the pub?

Rollo Tommasi said...

And John - Are you guaranteeing that people in the pub would inhale 99.97% clean air as you claim?

budgie said...

What a lot of fuss about nothing. It can be no more proven SHS is harmful than is beneficial.

It rather depends on who you ask, of course, but it does seem that the (official) case for the former is predominately made by those who have interests, either in reducing smoking rates or those who stand to profit. In either instance, such people are PAID to push the anti tobacco agenda - it is their livelihoods. Don't anticipate, for example, that ASH will give up the crusade whilst it pays their wages or makes profits for Big Pharma. It is a business decision as much as anything that drives the passive smoking agenda along. If they were doing their jobs properly and sincerely, they would be vigorously lobbying for total prohibition NOW. I mean, they keep telling us that tobacco is responsible for c.25% of all deaths. Come on, if cars caused 25% of deaths, cars would be banned. We may as well legalise and tax all drugs whilst tobacco consumption remains lawful.

The same criteria could be applied to alcohol. More so, even with regard to 'passive drinking' solely, there is unequivocal evidence that alcohol users have the potential to harm and kill those not under the influence. There's the rub, you're either a smoker or non smoker - quite easy to pass judgement either way. Not so easy with alcohol, given that most adults use it to a lesser or greater extent. Just one small glass of wine might affect one's judgement or mood. Sufficient to spark off a potential dangerous scenario - a catalyst if you like. 99.99+% not so perhaps, but the risk (however small) exists. And who decides what is a safe level? Unlike TC, which claims that there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke largely because these people don't smoke, when it comes to alcohol it probably depends on how much they like a tipple. Try justifying the that to an abstainer who has suffered, directly or indirectly, at the hands of a non abstainer.

Baz said...

John, do yourself a favour and look up the building regulations of indoor air quality.. before talking to me about this subject.

"No we don't, because no one has property rights over air, it is free to all,"

I never said otherwise

"besides if the law determined that air had to clean it would enforce the running of Air maintenenance systems"

I think you'll find these laws are in the building regulations, Indoor Air Quality, set number of air changes per person, per hour/per minute, dependant on the size and use of the building..

" the pubs would still hav eto pay for that and since they remove tobacco smoke as well leaving air 99.97% clean ther would be no requirement for a smoking ban would there?"

Pubs would have to pay, exactly. and since we have pubs in this country which are listed buildings or which are unable to cater for the type of air conditioning units needed, it would be impossible to install them everywhere without infringing on building regulations, listed building status, and also structural maintainance of the building itself. OH yeah.. and the landlord would pay.

Might I add I've already said all this before..

"Are you saying then smokers are all criminals"

Did I say that? NO.. Did I imply that NO.. please read more carefully.

"that they are all lighting up in places where it is prohibited that non smokers are all saints and smokers sinners?"

Did I say that? NO? clearly people break the law be they smokers or non-smokers in all kinds of way. I'm not making any distinctions.

"Know this Baz, I like millions of fellow smokers obey the law we smoke outside where the law says it is legal to do so, yes there are some who break the law but then there are some non smokers who break the law too,"

Know this John, I wasn't disagreeing with this point.

"Peter Paine and his incitement to violence for a start which is worse Baz smoking or the incitement to cause immediate possibly lethal force? "

I'm not a judge John, it is not for me to decide which is worse someone smoking inside or someone inciting violence.

"I have no need to judge you Baz, I never did,"

I never asked you to John!

"you are condemning yourself,"

So you are judging me after all!

"now you have made your point, you have had far more leeway than you would get elsewhere,"

Hmmm.. more leeway? on a "pro-choice" website, where I'm sharing my choice! or is this a pro-smoking website! moreover a pro-smoking website were people aren't welcome if they have any other view other than that of yours.

Baz said...

"compared to what smokers get you have still been treated well by most of the posters."

I would hope that everyone treats everyone well, with respect and good manners, I would hope no one in inciting violence against other members, because that would go against the rules of Google and Blogger.

"In fact I have been criticised for even debating with you, but thats fine, those who criticised me are also entitled to their opinion and I personally thank them for taking the time to express it."

John... if this website, and it's posters were truly advocating "freedom to choose" then you wouldn't need to justify your postion in regards to debating with me at all! That statement alone shows exactly how narrow-minded some people are who post here.

If other people aren't strong enough to voice their opinions themselves or debate maturely with me, so much so that they have to criticise you for debating, then that is there issue. Not mine. I have no interest in gossip or what other people tell you.


Baz


Budgie.. I haven't mentioned SHS in this debate. (I may have used the term "SHS" once.. but I haven't gone into the facts and figures about SHS, I haven't quoted evidence about it, nor have I given a reason to uphold the smoking ban on the grounds of SHS)

I have asked one question and nearly 80 posts NO ONE has answered it. John came really close, but didn't actually answer the question..

"We all have a right to breathe in clean air in a public space.."

He seems to have answered another question. not the one I posed.. I never asked "Do we all have a right to breathe clean air?"

My question was

"Why does your CHOICE (as a smoker) to pollute air that we BOTH breathe in a contained space override my CHOICE (as a non-smoker) to breathe in air that is clean!?"

budgie said...

I didn't address my post to you baz - this isn't your blog. It was a general statement. My God, you're self centred. And why do you presume I'm a smoker?

Nevertheless, you are a member of the 'what about my right to breathe clean air' blatherers club.

But re THE BIG QUESTION....

Bloody hell, is all air not infected with tobacco smoke clean? YOU answer that one. Can you point me in the direction of 100% clean air? Not just the stuff that doesn't smell too bad. Air that hasn't got the SLIGHTEST trace of agrochemicals, carbon monoxide, plutonium, cow farts (methane)etc etc etc, you know - including things that in extremely low doses have been linked with illness.

You are naive in the extreme. Vegan principles applied to other things don't really work Baz, it's not a perfect world. Your veganism relies on the almost 100% of the rest of us, including vegetarians, not being vegan. If we were, billions would starve to death.

You could, of course, start a 'clean air' topic on your own blog if it means that much to you? Or even wax lyrical.

Like your poem 'Castrate' btw. Could apply to both sides of this debate....

http://indooruse.blogspot.com/2008/10/castrate.html#comments

budgie said...

You did specify clean air in an enclosed space, so I suppose you could argue that I didn't really address the question in that respect.

Ok, why don't you demand that all spaces should have clean air?

How can you be sure all indoor tobacco smoke free places have clean air? What about the stuff that comes through the door from the street?

How, exactly, do you define clean air ?

Baz said...

Budgie, I didn't presume you to be a smoker or otherwise. I apologise for wrongly addressing you. I am fully aware this isn't my blog.

Budgie.. asking me a question about the quality of existing air, isn't answernig the question, nor does it give any more validity to polluting the air that everyone breathes.

Just because our drinking water isn't 100% germ free doesn't mean some people can pollute it.

I never said the air quality was 100% clean, I'm not debating that. I'm debating your choice to pollute it further and why you feel that choice overrides my choice to breathe in that air.

Clearly there is a problem in understanding this very simple point. My language skills must be ambushing the debate and taking it off into a debate about "what is clean air?" however I think the layman on the street, knows exactly what I'm talking about. I think every pub cleaner who's had to clean up the pub the next day and walks into a room full of stale smokey air.. knows exactly what i'm talking about..(I know because I used to be a pub cleaner) so why everyone here seems oblivious to the fact that there is a difference between air without smoke and with smoke is beyond me.. Clearly the air without smoke is cleaner than with.. If it wasn't then why would John be mentioning air conditioning units for use in building where there are smokers!.. if there were no pollution..

I'll ask again

Why does your CHOICE (as a smoker) to pollute air that we BOTH breathe in a contained space OVERRIDE my CHOICE (as a non-smoker) to breathe in air that is clean!?

To make it easier and avoid further sidetracks, I've capitalised the words of importance!

Fredrik Eich said...

"Why does your CHOICE (as a smoker) to pollute air that we BOTH breathe in a contained space OVERRIDE my CHOICE (as a non-smoker) to breathe in air that is clean!?"

Baz,
I can not speak for others but I would never support a law that resticted or abolished the right of any public or private place going smokefree against the wishes of the persons that owned that place. I also repected your right to clean air prior to the ban by walking past smokefree restaurants, smokefree pubs and only using ones that wanted to take my money off me. I expect the number of public places to smoke in to be limited but I do not expect them to be limited to 0% by law. My rights do not and should not override your rights and your rights should not over ride mine. If I could walk past smokefree places prior to the ban, then you can walk past smokey ones after the ban is repealed.

budgie said...

Baz asks: 'Why does your CHOICE (as a smoker) to pollute air that we BOTH breathe in a contained space OVERRIDE my CHOICE (as a non-smoker) to breathe in air that is clean!?'

Silly question Baz - you can’t even define the word ‘clean’. You really are struggling not to come across as an out and out anti.

But, if it makes you any happier, it doesn’t. Speaking from a non smoking perspective of course...

But hey, lets be fair about this: 'Why does your CHOICE (as a non smoker) to avoid smoking areas OVERRIDE my CHOICE (also as a non smoker) to socialise with my smoking friends in a properly ventilated and/or separate room inside the same premises (or indeed a separate place completely)!?'

Choice for all. What could be simpler, or fairer?

Baz said...

Fredrik, Thank you for answering the question.

And your answer makes a lot of sense. However, I do have a few questions,

Which of your rights am I overriding when I don't pollute or alter the condition of the air in public spaces and smokers do?

Are you saying that your rights to smoke and pollute are EQUAL to my right to breath in unpolluted air?

Surely the primary condition (regardless of before and after any smoking ban) is air that is relatively free from contaminates. (in contained spaces)

Since it is humans that are adding the pollution to that air quality (in contained spaces) aren't smokers imposing their will on others by altering the air quality for all regardless of whether they smoke or not?

For example, imagine a water cooler in an office has an open top. In the office there are 50 workers and 13 worker in the office like Orange. Should those 13 people be able to add a dilute of Orange to the watercooler supply therefor changing the entire nature of the water supply for everyone, purely because they like orange? or should they respect other people and if they feels the need to drink orange they can take some water and add to it privately?

In your example of walking past a smokefree place you are not being exposed to contaminates in the air condition (contaminates from cigarettes I mean).

If I walk past a smokey place then I am exposed to contaminates.

Surely that is a big difference?

I think the crux of your point was this

My rights do not and should not override your rights and your rights should not over ride mine.

Which I completely agree with.. However by smoking in a contained public space, smokers do override my rights.

Since I'm not adding anything to the condition of the air then why should my rights me overridden?

Everyone should have a right to clean water not contaminated with orange.

Those rights naturally don't extend into private-domestic spaces, or external spaces and nor should they. I completely support smokers enjoying a cigarette in private.

Budgie - Thanks for clearly addressing me, I have already given my views on everything you've said.

Fredrik Eich said...

Baz,
I would think in the case of orange juice and water coolers it would be up to the owner of the place to decide whether the water should remain free of orange juice. But because water coolers can be in many different places just like smokefree and smokey places, everyone can be satisfied. If I were the owner of the place and there was demand for both I would supply both. In the case
of people smoking outside of places, then a repeal of the smoking ban will mean that people will be able to smoke inside, where they belong. This way everyones rights are respected. Any place should be allowed to go smokefree public or private, with out interference from the state. I support your right to clean air places such as smokefree pubs and smokefree restaurants, will you support my right to go to smokey places, such as non-smokefree pubs and non-smokefree restaurants?

budgie said...

Baz: 'I completely support smokers enjoying a cigarette in private.'

Please define private. Would this include private homes shared with non smokers? If so, why do you offer your complete support to something that contradicts your beliefs. Could be grounds for accusations of hypocrisy...

Your either in or out over this. Remember - compromise is verboten.

Anonymous said...

If it was up to private property owners to decide whether to allow smoking or not, some would, some would not.

Smokers and non-smokers alike would all have the choice then to pick and choose which establishments to attend - everyone wins.

Ditto with smoking rooms, some have the choice to go in, some have the choice to go out.

But as it stands, there is currently no such choice. Freedom of choice has been abolished.

Baz said...

Hi Fredrik

You seem to have missed the point of my watercooler example. I was addressing the issue of "respect" and "will" and using the water cooler as an example to show how it isn't fair to change the nature of something we all use. IE, changing the water into orange. The water has a natural state which shouldn't be interferred with at the expense of other people.

You are only saying that "people will be smoking inside, where they belong" because that's the way it's always been, but that doesn't mean it's always going to be that way.

Everyones rights aren't respected in your smokey places there will be people who don't smoke and those people won't be there from their own choice to be, i.e. the glass collecting student who needs some money over summer so takes the only thing he can get, or the chef who's just qualified and needs the work to support his family.. people when they need work accept anything, they aren't in a position to turn work down because of smoke. So they don't have a choice.. This is where government comes in.. to protect workers. Everyone has a basic human right to be healthy, which includes the right to breathe in healthy indoor air. This human right covers non-smokers AND smokers. You might not agree with the smoking ban, but it is there to help everyone, not just non-smokers.

You supporting my right to clean air pubs is easy because non-smokers don't contaminate the air. There is northing for you to support, because the norm is a place without smoke - not with.

Budgie.

private dwellings and private residential spaces are available to smoke in as well as outside areas. Private cars which are not used for business can also be smoked in.

budgie said...

So far so good, you sort of responded to the first sentence but then dried up...

So, I'll try again....

Please define private. Would this include private homes shared with non smokers? If so, why do you offer your complete support to something that contradicts your beliefs:

'I completely support smokers enjoying a cigarette in private.)

Your question (below) must surely apply to all (shared) enclosed spaces...

'Why does your CHOICE (as a smoker) to pollute air that we BOTH breathe in a contained space OVERRIDE my CHOICE (as a non-smoker) to breathe in air that is clean!?"

Fredrik Eich said...

Baz,
Your water cooler analogy could apply to pubs and inside places. Smoking has gone on inside public places and inside pubs for ~500 years in this country. It's is a natural state and shouldn't be interferred with at the expense of other people. Smokey places do respect the rights of people, they also provide employment for cooks,students and so can smokefree places. Before the smoking ban 87% of businesses were entirley smokefree (not even smoking rooms) which gave a somewhat restricted choice for the smoking workforce but businesses have a right to go smokefree if they want to. Everyone has the right to be healthy and happy and when I worked in a smokey pub for nine years it was a very happy and healthy experience (despite bieng assalted every couple of years). Funnily enough, I got fired from that job for smoking at work by a new supervisor who wouldn't allow his bar staff to smoke, I got reinstated the next day and he was moved back to his old bar. Anyway, when the smoking ban is repealed and I go back to my old habit of walking past smokefree restaurants/pubs and if you want to work in them or use them Baz - go for it. I prefer the smokey ones
and will be delighted to use them again when the smoking ban is repealed in full. Bad laws don't last forever. I don't need or want a smokey monopoly of inside space and no one needs a smokefree monopoly on inside space. There is plenty of roof space for everyone , everyones' wishes can and will be respected.

Anonymous said...

Rollo Tommasi said...
John - You've talked about your air management system and "99.97% clean air" a few times now.

Are you guaranteeing that, if smoking were allowed under your proposal, 99.97% of tobacco smoke would not be inhaled by people in the pub?
8/12/2010 08:30:00 AM
Rollo Tommasi said...
And John - Are you guaranteeing that people in the pub would inhale 99.97% clean air as you claim?
8/12/2010 08:42:00 AM

Don't be silly Rollo! Would you guarentee every word the tobacco control organisations say is the gospel truth, that they do not lie or mislead, that the scientific opinion is 100% accurate?

No you would not, neither would I expect you to, so why do expect expect me to guarentee work that I have not done or inspected?

Rollo Tommasi said...

John - Re the 99.97% figure. You have peppered previous postings with claims that systems leave air 99.97% clean. For instance "since they remove tobacco smoke as well leaving air 99.97% clean ther would be no requirement for a smoking ban would there?".

Yet you do not know how well these systems work in practice, and you do not know how much tobacco smoke people would still inhale if these systems were installed.

So why are you so quick to argue that this option would definitely solve the problem of subjecting punters and staff to secondhand smoke?

Anonymous said...

Building regulations? Did they have building regulations when they built the pyramids? They’re still standing a and sound enough to allow tourists in some of them, but then you mean in regard to clean air of course! So the regulations are already in place then aren’t they if followed smoking pubs will be as safe as any other building!

I never said otherwise..
Oh but you did! “We all have a right to breathe in clean air in a public space..” your words are they not? Hence the issue over air property rights!

"besides if the law determined that air had to clean it would enforce the running of Air maintenenance systems"

I think you'll find these laws are in the building regulations, Indoor Air Quality, set number of air changes per person, per hour/per minute, dependant on the size and use of the building.. Designed to ensure air quality yes I know is it your opinion these laws are inadequate then? If not then smoking pubs by your own admission would be safe!

" the pubs would still hav eto pay for that and since they remove tobacco smoke as well leaving air 99.97% clean ther would be no requirement for a smoking ban would there?"

Pubs would have to pay, exactly. and since we have pubs in this country which are listed buildings or which are unable to cater for the type of air conditioning units needed, it would be impossible to install them everywhere without infringing on building regulations, listed building status, and also structural maintainance of the building itself. OH yeah.. and the landlord would pay and not the government as you implied, Would listed buildings not be better off as Museums in that case then, less risk of damage ect?

Might I add I've already said all this before..
If you feel the point is moot why are you prolonging it?

Anonymous said...

Did I say that? NO? clearly people break the law be they smokers or non-smokers in all kinds of way. I'm not making any distinctions.
Yes you are Baz! “I'm not a judge John, it is not for me to decide which is worse someone smoking inside or someone inciting violence.” Your words I believe?

"Peter Paine and his incitement to violence for a start which is worse Baz smoking or the incitement to cause immediate possibly lethal force? "

I'm not a judge John, it is not for me to decide which is worse someone smoking inside or someone inciting violence.
Yet you judge smokers, you’ve judged that they are not worth space inside pubs but cannot judge a clear breach of the law like incitement to violence, I hope you never serve on a jury, a rather hypocritical standpoint is it not?

Who does ask for judgement Baz, but your comments are wide open for criticism.

So you are judging me after all!
No you are doing that, you provide the words that others judge you on!

Would you care to provide an example where I have said you are not welcome, that your views are not welcome, the Leeway regards the fact that you have continuously posted off the topic of the article and that you have been permitted to do so.
8/12/2010 12:40:00 PM

Baz said...
I would share that hope Baz, Inciting violence is also poor journalism yet a national newspaper permitted it, worse still it is illegal which is why the comments were removed!
"In fact I have been criticised for even debating with you, but thats fine, those who criticised me are also entitled to their opinion and I personally thank them for taking the time to express it."

John... if this website, and it's posters were truly advocating "freedom to choose" then you wouldn't need to justify your postion in regards to debating with me at all! That statement alone shows exactly how narrow-minded some people are who post here.
Yes but then you have Peter Payne, Duncan Bannatyne and a whole host of government paid mouthpieces to victimise smokers with the governments blessings, Justifying my position? No just acknowledging they exist and that their opinions like yours is accepted. No Justification there at all!

I have no interest in gossip or what other people tell you.
Oh but you do other people ASH et al tell me I can’t smoke in a pub you seem pretty interested in that!

John.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

seems I posted the last post 3 times my apologies.

budgie said...

Baz, could you respond to my question please?....

'Please define private. Would this include private homes shared with non smokers? If so, why do you offer your complete support to something that contradicts your beliefs'

Asked as a response to your statement:

'I completely support smokers enjoying a cigarette in private.'

which seems to contradict your original query:

'Why does your CHOICE (as a smoker) to pollute air that we BOTH breathe in a contained space OVERRIDE my CHOICE (as a non-smoker) to breathe in air that is clean!?"

Why is it that the so called reasonable ban supporters demand smoke free air in pubs yet see no reason for legal protection for non smokers that share homes with smokers? I can only assume that SHS is deemed not to pose any danger in private places.

In a nutshell, if you accept the justification for the smoking ban in public enclosed spaces (100% to protect workers don't forget, not customers...) how can you not support a ban in any space where people have no choice to live elsewhere? Not just children, but everyone that might be exposed to tobacco smoke - young, old, fit or infirm?

Baz said...

Sorry Budgie for not responding earlier. I have a life and other things to do.

To be clear I never once said I accept the smoking ban in public spaces. In the privacy of your own home, which is not a business or has any commercial need and is fully compliant with current smokefree law, then I'm perfectly happy for someone to smoke there.


If you happen to have a non-smoking friend who pop by and you smoke in his/her presence then that is fine, because they are not a customer, there aren't making use of a service, or providing you with a public service. you do not run a business. etc etc. I think the regulations laid out are pretty clear and I happen to think they are good one. I have to read the regulations for my job and I think when you read the evidence and the actual reports the smoking ban is extremely fair.

I think sadly, there is a lot of myth about it and a lot of misinterpretation. It is only fair that smokers are going to feel saddened/upset/disgrunted even that they can not longer smoke inside public buildings, however the smoke free policy is there to protect them as much as the non-smoker.

As for my question. I'm not a dictator, nor am I a Nazi, and I would never advocate someone's home to be smoke free, it is completely upto you what you do in your own home. My question only applies to public shared spaces, clearly your home is not a public space! There is no hypocrisy here.

Baz said...

Fredrik

It is irrelevant how long something has been happening for, we don't build mud huts but that went on for hundreds of years too.

The natural state of the air, is not one filled with smoke.

I appreciate that 87% of places where smoke-free. That doesn't mean that more couldn't be, that doesn't mean we didn't need smoke-free regulation? how many people work in the hospitality industry? don't you believe that they have a right to breathe in clean air?

I also worked in a pub Fredrik and I had a good time too, however that doesn't mean I was happy with not being able to breathe in clean air.. nor does it mean we shouldn't respect other peoples right to do the same thing.

Fredrick, when the smoking ban is repealed I will abide by the law. Like I am currently doing.

--

Anon/John.. sorry not sure if you are John or not (8/13/2010 08:40:00 AM)

Did they have building regulations when they built the pyramids!.. are we not to base our buildings (did the egyptians have double glazing, or loft insulation.. maybe we shouldn't either) on what Egptians did 5000 years ago!? I think things have moved on a little since then.

"I never said otherwise..
Oh but you did! “We all have a right to breathe in clean air in a public space..” your words are they not? Hence the issue over air property rights!"
John if you are going to quote me, please quote the full paragraph so I can see what you are talking about!



John Regarding Indoor Air Quality.. go and read the regulations. I have already outlined by thoughts and experience quite extensively.
I agreed that the technology is there however I also presented several reasons why it's not been impliemented. If you choose not to accept those reasons, I can't do anything about that.. and I have no reason to debate it down to a split hair..

John, you furthered the debate by continually questioning my points. I have said several times that I have already clearly expressed my view but you come back and question it.. hence I have to come back and answer.

pubs as museums... pfft!.. there are many stately homes and even private homes which are lived in and listed John, which are not museums!



-- John I have said it is not for me to decide which CRIME is worse, that is because you asked me which was worse!!!

"Yet you judge smokers, you’ve judged that they are not worth space inside pubs but cannot judge a clear breach of the law like incitement to violence, I hope you never serve on a jury, a rather hypocritical standpoint is it not?"

I have not said that. I never said anything about a smokers worth. I also never said that a smoker wasn't allowed in a pub. clearly smokers are allowed in pubs - as long as they don't smoke!

John, the majority of these posts have not answered my initial philosophic question on rights/choice and will. I'm sorry that you think we've remained on track but we have not..

If you have no interest in gossip then why tell me about people contacting you to criticise your debate with me!! that is gossip, I don't care if the Queen contacts you, it's nothing to do with me.

budgie said...

Apologies Baz, I didn't realise that it was ONLY your right to clean air that the question referred to. It's just that I assumed you demanded this because you didn't want to be physically assaulted by SHS based on the belief that it is indeed harmful. I further assumed that you would wish to see all other non smokers in enclosed spaces protected regardless of ownership status. Clearly you do not care about others who inhale involuntarily inhale SHS provided it isn't in a public area one or, indeed, anywhere that you yourself might be put at risk.

Basically, you have no idea what the smoking ban is, represents, or forebodes....

You should read this:

http://www.who.int/fctc/cop/art%208%20guidelines_english.pdf

A chilling edict by the unelected. No references, no compromise..

Note how they completely hedge their bets: p3 #16 (inc footnote 1).

Baz said...

Apologies Baz,

No need Budgie, I didn't ask for one.

I didn't realise that it was ONLY your right to clean air that the question referred to.

Well it was pretty obvious budgie.

It's just that I assumed you demanded this because you didn't want to be physically assaulted by SHS based on the belief that it is indeed harmful.

I have only used the term SHS once, in passing, and in this debate I haven't mentioned the effects of it at all.

I further assumed that you would wish to see all other non smokers in enclosed spaces protected regardless of ownership status.

The smoke free law is there to benefit everyone, not just non-smokers. Ownership of property needs to be respected. Where property is private but also a commercial business property with workers, staff and customers different rules must apply. These rules aren't any different to other health and safety laws which apply to public and private property.

Clearly you do not care about others who inhale involuntarily inhale SHS provided it isn't in a public area one or,

I never said I didn't care! I said that I agree with the current laws. Am I to assume you feel that there should be a complete ban on smoking everywhere? I also never said anything about SHS.

..indeed, anywhere that you yourself might be put at risk.

I'm not mentioned directly in the smoke free bill.. Sadly Budgie I'm not that important, however much you think of me :)

Basically, you have no idea what the smoking ban is, represents, or forebodes.... I'm not here to make suggestions about what the smoking ban "represents" and I don't have a crystal ball, so no.. I can't look into the future and predict what might happen.

You should read this:

http://www.who.int/fctc/cop/art%208%20guidelines_english.pdf

A chilling edict by the unelected. No references, no compromise..Note how they completely hedge their bets: p3 #16 (inc footnote 1).


Actually 192 WHO members voted, and 168 states worldwide (all of who were elected) Voted and agreed. There are plenty of references in their documentation, and also many countries haven't implemented a smoking ban, and those that have - have compromised since smokers are allowed to smoke in their own homes, cigarettes themselves are still a legal drug, and smokers are legally allowed to smoke them outside. Also this isn't an Edict, it's a guideline. Since WHO isn't able to make any laws, that is down to each individual country.

As for "chilling" that's your view.

budgie said...

What exactly are we talking about if its not second hand smoke???

Baz said...

Go read my posts budgie. You will find out.

budgie said...

I'll have to pass on that. Once was more than enough.

Baz said...

haha.. clearly not.

Fredrik Eich said...

Baz,
If you want to live in a mud hut be my guest. I shall respect your space and abide by your smoking rules when I visit on my way to a non-smokefree restaurant or pub. I do respect your right to clean air, it's why I did not sit on
the smokefree carriages on trains and used the smokey ones. That is why I walked past smokefree restaurants and many other smokefree places before the ban. That is why I sought out employment where I could smoke and avoided work places where I could not smoke and if I could not avoid them respect that fact that they were smokefree. As you did when you worked in a non-smokefree environment. I also would never
support a law that abolished the right to go smokefree. I do not seek or want a non-smokefee monoploy on inside public space. You seek and want a smokefree monopoly on inside public space. Your positon is unsustainable over time. My position is sustainable over time.
If I can walk past smokfree restaurants before the ban you can walk past non-smokefree ones when the ban is repealed in full.

budgie said...

Baz, I seem to be locked out of your blogsite.

Was Ok a couple of days ago, can you check it out?

Baz said...

Budgie, I'll look into it.

Fredrik, The natural state of air in a contained space, isn't air contaminated with smoke.

So you supporting a non-smoking pub is a given, and you are not making any concession. As you A) control when the air is clean by choosing when to smoke B) don't object to breathing contaminated air.

This is hardly the same as a non-smoker who A/ doesn't have a choice to breathe in clean air in public spaces because smokers randomly pollute the air and B/ does object to it.

Do you see the difference?

Are you saying that your choice to pollute is more important than other peoples choice to breathe in clean air - because it doesn't effect you?

Actually I've worked in several jobs before the smoking ban, where smoking was allowed, and it wasn't a choice for me, I needed the money. Which is a place many people find themselves in. Having to choose between their right to breathe in clean air and earn a living.

Fredrik Eich said...

Baz,
Smoke is a natural part of the biosphere.
It's as natural as a cool mountain stream.
As natural as fresh sea air.
I have never "randomly" poluted clean air with my tobacco smoke.
I walked past smokefree restaurants out of respect of the clean air and space of others.
I walked past smokefree pubs and sought out non-smokfree pubs out of respect of the clean air and space of others.
I walked past smokefree carriages on trains and used non-smokfree carriages out of respect of the clean air and space of others.
I did not smoke in smokfree work places out of respect of the clean air and space of others.
What was I doing wrong?
I take a reponsibilty to help make you happier by respecting your right to smokefree,clean air in public spaces.
You shirk the reponsibilty to help make me happier by giving me zero percent of inside public space to smoke in.
Not 20%.
Not 5%.
Not 1%.
0% thats what you give me.
Baz,
If smokefree public space was abolished by law, what would be your arguments against someone who said
"It's a compromise, you are free to have clean air in the privacy of your own home. But in public places there can be no smokefree places - by law. If any public place wants to go smokefree - tough, it's the law."

Would you call them a NAZI or would
you try to reason with them?

What would you do?

Baz said...

Fredrik

Smoke is a natural part of the biosphere.

Cigarette smoke isn't a natural part of the biosphere, cigarettes are man made! Besides which we are not talking about the outside world, we are talking about INTERNAL spaces.

I'm a nonsmoker, are you telling me, in my office, where no one smokes. There is cigarette smoke!? There isn't.. There maybe the odd trace elements that's blown in from when I have the window open and someone walks by outside, but there isn't any cigarette smoke delibrately put there by a smoker, in the contained space of my office. That is the environment that the smoke free law affects. NOT the outside world, hence your ability to smoke outside!

It's as natural as a cool mountain stream.

a mountain stream isn't man made! a cigette is. They don't come naturally rolled up with filters growing from trees!

As natural as fresh sea air.

I live near the sea, and if sea air smelt like cigarette smoke I'd be worried.

I have never "randomly" poluted clean air with my tobacco smoke.
I walked past smokefree restaurants out of respect of the clean air and space of others.
I walked past smokefree pubs and sought out non-smokfree pubs out of respect of the clean air and space of others.
I walked past smokefree carriages on trains and used non-smokfree carriages out of respect of the clean air and space of others.
I did not smoke in smokfree work places out of respect of the clean air and space of others.


I never said you did Fredrik.

What was I doing wrong?

Before the smoking ban you were free to smoke anywhere that didn't have a no-smoking sign, and even then it wasn't enforced... so whether you were right or wrong is a choice for you.. not me.

I take a reponsibilty to help make you happier by respecting your right to smokefree,clean air in public spaces.

I take my responsibilty seriously to help you have the same access to smoke free air!

You shirk the reponsibilty to help make me happier by giving me zero percent of inside public space to smoke in.
Not 20%.
Not 5%.
Not 1%.
0% thats what you give me.


By smoking in those places you deny everyone to right to clean air, be they smoker or non-smoker.

Your right to smoke in public places may have been reduced, however your right to breathe in clean air in those same spaces has been increased, as has everyone elses :)

Are you saying you'd rather breathe in smokey air and also pollute it for everyone else? (be they smoker or not)

Baz,
If smokefree public space was abolished by law, what would be your arguments against someone who said
"It's a compromise, you are free to have clean air in the privacy of your own home. But in public places there can be no smokefree places - by law. If any public place wants to go smokefree - tough, it's the law."


Fredrik. This was exactly the case before the smoking ban!. So for the majority of my life I've only had the choice to have smokefree places in my home, and few other selected places.

Would you call them a NAZI or would
you try to reason with them?

What would you do?


I never called anyone who smoked a Nazi and I still don't. Smokers had a legal right to smoke where they wanted before the smoking ban. I might not have agreed with it. However, I have to say I never complained, and never I called anyone names, I never insulted others.

To name call might make someone feel better for a few minutes. all it does in reality is show how limited and narrow minded the name caller is. The name caller obviously can't engage in reasonably debate. If someone has to resort to name calling then their cause is lost.

As for reasoning.. I have explained over and over the issues but people on this thread have either not recognised it, delibrately avoided it or debated something unrelated to it.

budgie said...

Why should I not have the CHOICE, as a non smoker, to breathe smokey air in a public, privately owned, enclosed space?

budgie said...

A part of the price of people's right to breathe clean air Baz..

http://www.budapestreport.com/2010/08/13/the-price-of-freedom/

Fredrik Eich said...

Baz,
Plant matter has been burned inside mud huts and buildings for thousands of years. I don't know wether one would call that natural or not. I only wrote "cool as a mountain stream" because that is what is written on my packet of "Consulate", they are menthol. Actually they taste nothing like a mountain stream but they are cool.

But tobbacco smoke is natural to me. I never complained about smokefree public places before the ban because I knew I could avoid them and had smokey ones to go to.

Ok, Baz, So you would not call them a NAZI. I only put that in because I wanted you to give me an indication as to wether you thought NAZIs could be reasoned with.
Do you think NAZIs can be reasoned with, that they are likely
to seek compromise or unlikley to seek compromise?

So would you reason with them and how?

You did not answer my question as to "what you would do?"

For example, say 87% of workplaces were non-smokefree and only 13% of workplaces were smokefree and the law abolished the last of the smokfree work places. Not good IMO. It would be nasty IMO.

We now now have 0% of public space that is smokefree - by law. Universal access to smoking space is guarenteed to smokers and non-smokers alike.

Not 20%
Not 10%
Not 1%
but 0% of public space is now smokefree.
100% of space is non-smokefree - by law.

If the law said that carriages on trains could not go smokefree even if a train company wanted some smokefree carriages, and so did passangers; Would you say, for example, that it is perfectly reasonable for some or most carriages to be smokefree/cleanair or would you give up and accept the law forever? I would say that it is reasonable because it gives non-smokers clean air on trains while still giving smokers space to smoke it and the law should not interfere with that.

Would you accept the argument that the law now guarentees everyone universal access to smokey places or would you say that these spaces can be easily divided so that everyone has universal access to smokey and smokefree regardless
of their smoking status?

Would you just accept this law or would you use reason to repeal that law?

Would you reason in a way other than the examples I have given?

Can you please indicate as to how you would approach this problem?

Baz said...

Budgie - My view is this..

The normal condition of air in a contained public space is unpolluted, so is it okay for a smoker then to pollute that space and override everyone elses choice to breathe in clean air?

In a public enclosed space air quality should not be contaminated. Everyone (smoker and non-smoker) has the right to breathe in clean air.

Which brings me back to my question

Why does your CHOICE (as a smoker) to pollute air that we BOTH breathe in a contained space OVERRIDE my CHOICE (as a non-smoker) to breathe in air that is clean!?

As for privately owned spaces; I have already addressed that point.

As for your link.. It is not for me to judge how other countries run their affairs. Yes. It is interesting that a democratically elected council voted 34 to 33 to ban smoking in underpass areas and issue a fine of £87 to those caught.. Do I think it's right? I have no view! I don't live in that country.

Fredrik --

I've never smoked so I can't comment on Menthol tasting like a mountain stream.. It's good to know you enjoy them either way.

But tobbacco smoke is natural to me. I never complained about smokefree public places before the ban because I knew I could avoid them and had smokey ones to go to.

haha.. why would you complain? no one in their right mind goes into a room and says "hey.. what this room needs is some tabacco smoke!" or stands outside with a banner "This room hasn't any smoke!! OUTRAGE", if they did.. It would make headline news or a good comedy sketch..

It's very admirable that you avoided ALL non-smoking places. I couldn't avoid them smoky places. I didn't have a choice to.

Tabbacco smoke isn't natural to you, you can live without it. You have become accustomed to it. It maybe "second nature" to you, but it's not natural. Your lungs haven't adapted over your lifespan to filter out the toxic chemicals, you haven't got filters in your throat to break down the chemical you inhale, you haven't got a built in ashtray in your leg with which you can stub out a cigarette. Cigarettes aren't natural. You weren't born with a cig in your mouth.

Do you think NAZIs can be reasoned with, that they are likely
to seek compromise or unlikley to seek compromise?"


How is this relevant?

You did not answer my question as to "what you would do?"

I'm confused as to your question.. what are you trying to get at? Is your question - If things where the reversed how would I feel?

Things have been reversed and I lived for the majority of my life going into, working in, even living in a smokey atmosphere.

How did I feel? At that time I didn't realise there was a choice. So I never questioned it.

Fredrik Eich said...

Baz,
All references to NAZIs is because of the blog thread. I am not really sure as to what a
NAZI really is but I wondered if you would characterise them as unwilling to seek compromises.


I was asking you how you would approach the situation where smokfree places were abolished
by law.

So we start at 0% of public inside space bieng set aside for clean air/ smokefree by law.

What would your arguments be against such a law?

Are you saying that you would just accept the law?

Would your arguments be similar to mine or would you use different arguments against such a law?

budgie said...

What's your opinion on the presence of chemicals contained in air fresheners, fly spray, perfume, wood smoke etc on air in enclosed public spaces? What makes these things any different to tobacco smoke regarding the cleanliness of air? I think fly spray in particular could be justifiably described as a pollutant.

Baz said...

All references to NAZIs is because of the blog thread. I am not really sure as to what a NAZI really is but I wondered if you would characterise them as unwilling to seek compromises.

"In popular American culture, the terms Nazi, Führer, fascist, Gestapo, and Hitler, are terms of abuse used in describing authoritarian people;" - Wikipedia

I've never met any Nazi's Fredrik so I don't know the answer to that. Are you asking me for factual evidence that Nazi's were unwilling to compromise or my opinion of if I thought they would. My opinion is irrelevant and may only further a myth.

I will say this however, in 1989 Mike Godwin, American attorney and author, stated an internet Law. Known as Godwin's Law. Godwin put forth the observation that, given enough time, all discussions—regardless of topic or scope—inevitably wind up being about Hitler and the Nazis. Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust," Godwin has written.

I was asking you how you would approach the situation where smokfree places were abolished by law.

So we start at 0% of public inside space bieng set aside for clean air/ smokefree by law.

What would your arguments be against such a law?


Well this is the situation I've had all my life, I remember growing up and going to the doctors waiting room, everyone smoked, in hospitals people smoked, in sports halls, at school the staffroom was always filled with smoke, first job we were told we had cigarette breaks every couple of hours if we wanted them, working in pubs/restaurants/shops I've been exposed to polluted air for many years. Living with parents who smoke and a sister who smoked. I eventually dated women who smoked. so I've pretty much gone from a smokey world to the opposite. I didn't have to campaign for it. 


Are you saying that you would just accept the law?

Would your arguments be similar to mine or would you use different arguments against such a law?


I wouldn't be able to use my argument to support smoking, because smoking does pollute the air (it matters not the results of that pollution) and the natural state of air (in a contained space) is one without contaminates. So I couldn't possibly argue for a smokey room, because that would go against the choice/will question I've been asking all this time. It would make no sense for me to say, we should overrule everyone’s right to breathe in clean air, when clean air is its natural state, and we all should have access to it.

'Why does your CHOICE (as a smoker) to pollute air that we BOTH breathe in a contained space OVERRIDE my CHOICE (as a non-smoker) to breathe in air that is clean!?"

Baz said...

What's your opinion on the presence of chemicals contained in air fresheners, fly spray, perfume, wood smoke etc on air in enclosed public spaces? What makes these things any different to tobacco smoke regarding the cleanliness of air? I think fly spray in particular could be justifiably described as a pollutant.

I personally don't use any of these products and I agree that fly spray is particularly bad. You are right, they also contaminate the air. I've got to say though. I can't remember the last time I went into a public building and could smell fly spray, or even see someone putting hair spray on or using air freshner. I think more and more people are becoming aware of the dangers of aerosol use. many indoor places already ban aerosol use, like kitchens/bars.. anywhere where food/drink is being served.. etc.. even spray cleaning products aren't welcome in kitchen environments. So it is probably moving in the ban direction.

budgie said...

Doesn't matter if you can or can't smell it (I believe carbon monoxide, a by product of any form of carbon combustion is odourless, as is natural gas), smell is not a good benchmark for measuring pollution. They have special instruments for accurate measurement.

As far as I am aware, these things are not on any 'to be banned' list, nor, I suspect, ever will be. People are not becoming more and more aware of the dangers of aerosols, I haven't seen anything that that suggests they may be worried since CFCs were an issue (and that was over the hole in the ozone layer, not potential physiological harm. They do nevertheless contain substances that some would consider to be pollutants. Also, it doesn't matter if you haven't seen these being sprayed, someone somewhere at some time will be breathing in unclean air involuntarily. It's not only aerosols, it's anything that might pollute the air including perfume. It may not bother particularly, but there might be another Baz in a parallel universe (or even on another blog) who is demanding that his choice to clean air should not be overridden by someone polluting the air with pyrethrin, or air fresheners or smoke from a log fire.

I can see your having trouble with this. By your standards, all of the things I mentioned could be defined as pollutants (not just fly spray). It seems pretty clear that your question was borne out of prejudice towards smokers.

Baz said...

Budgie go back and read what I posted please..

I can see your having trouble with this. By your standards, all of the things I mentioned could be defined as pollutants (not just fly spray). It seems pretty clear that your question was borne out of prejudice towards smokers.

I said quite clearly and I'll quote myself!

"they also contaminate the air."

Just to make it absolutely clear.. These things DO contaminate. Not only the air and our right to breathe clean air, but also the atmosphere.

In order to make the assumption that I'm prejudice towards smokers you need some evidence and I haven't provided any.

You asked me my opinion of the presense of chemicals contained in those items I have told you.

You asked what makes these things different to cigarettes, I clearly said there were chemicals and there was no difference then pointed to examples of those products that are currently banned in certain contained environments. eg a commercial kitchen has strict health and saftey rules about aerosol use.

You asked me if fly spray could be justified as a pollutant. In my opinion yes.

I really don't see where you think I have a problem. You are putting words in my mouth, I have not exhibited prejudice
against smokers or non-smokers. From the answers I gave you cannot come to those conclusions.

The reasons you cannot come to those conclusions is that you never asked me if these items should be banned! You just assume that I think it's okay to use these items in a contained space, or you accept that I think it's correct that they are okay to use. Both of which I never said. I only gave examples of places I haven't seen them being used, I never suggested either way if they were okay to use. This is were your incorrect idea that I'm discriminating against smokers comes from.

I fully support a ban on these products.

In the US the enviromental protection agency did restrict the use of indoor pesticides (including those used in fly killers) in 2000, they said it was because of the risk of human toxicity, especially in children, they phased them out completely by 2004. In the UK there have been several calls to the government to ban aerosol use since the CFC exposure (no pun) of the late 80's, including because of VOCs - Volatile Organic Compounds, which have been linked to adverse health effects and also further depletion of the ozone!. Aerosols are also labelled with the SACKI warning "Solvent Abuse Can Kill Instantly" as recommended by the British Aerosol Manufacturers' Association.

Baz said...

love the idea of me in another universe.. there's probably a chain-smoking, meat eating baz out there.. haha.. great stuff..

Baz said...

Budgie,

Imagine you're driving along a road, you start speeding, the cars infront of you are also speeding. Suddenly you get pulled over by the police. They give you a ticket for speeding, you defend yourself by saying.. "he was speeding too" and pointing to a car infront of you which is speeding off into the distance. The policeman still gives you the ticket because you were still speeding. It doesn't matter what the other car driver was doing.

Take from that situations what you will :)

budgie said...

'Aerosols are also labelled with the SACKI warning "Solvent Abuse Can Kill Instantly" as recommended by the British Aerosol Manufacturers' Association.'

What, and people can legally spray this stuff around in public enclosed spaces?

What I take from your last post is that you appear to have finally scraped the barrel clean. Besides, I'd never argue with a policeman:

http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DIMaMYL_shxc%26feature%3Dplayer_embedded#at=178

Baz said...

'Aerosols are also labelled with the SACKI warning "Solvent Abuse Can Kill Instantly" as recommended by the British Aerosol Manufacturers' Association.'

What, and people can legally spray this stuff around in public enclosed spaces?


yep.. do I agree with that? no..

What I take from your last post is that you appear to have finally scraped the barrel clean. Besides, I'd never argue with a policeman:

You can take from my last post whatever you want Budgie.. that's fine by me :)

I did say "Imagine..." I didn't ask if you would or would not argue with a policeman.

Fredrik Eich said...

Baz,
I am aware of godwins law but in this
instance the blog started off talking
about the nature of anti-smokers and the aspects of the history of NAZIS and their relationship with anti-smoking take Reine Luft (similar to Clean Air) magazine for example. Godwins law does not apply.

I am not going to bore you with all my experiences of non-smoking girlfriends, non-smoking relations and all the boring smokefree jobs,
and dull smokefree carriages on trians etc,etc.

I was more interested in what your arguments would be against a law that said 0% of public space should
be smokefree by law. I am not aware that such a law has ever existed in this country and as I remember going to smokefree pubs and smokefree restaurants before the smoking ban I can say from personal experience that this is a law has not been enforce in my life time. I could not even smoke when at was at school!!
So, Baz,
If the law were to ban any public place from going smokefree, so for example trains could not have clean air carriages on them even if the train company wanted to do this, what would your arguments be against such a law?

Would you seek compromise or would you just accept the law?

How would you argue against such a law?

Baz said...

Fredrik, when I was at school (which isn't that long ago) I remember going to knock on the staffroom door, it opened and plume of smoke engulfed me (bit like in that film backdraft) of course students couldn't smoke in school, because there was/is a legal age limit on cigarettes.

Smoke free pubs prior to the smoke free laws did exist, but there was no real law to say that you couldn't light up in them. So technically the country prior to the smoking ban wasn't a smoke free country. Yes, there were non-smoking areas of pubs, trains etc.. but there was never anyone to enforce those rules, and often those rules were flouted. I remember sitting on a non-smoking part of a train when someone lit up a cigarette. Everyone sat on the train and looked at the man who was smoking. No one spoke out, or told him, not to smoke. The reasons why no one said anything I'm not to know. I know I didn't say anything because I felt awkward about it after all.. who would back me up!? In fact, thinking about it, this situation happened to me several times on buses. People who smoked would often sit near the opened window on a non-smoking bus thinking that it was okay to smoke there. Again no one complained and no-one enforced it.

As for your question, I've already answered it.

As for compromise. Fredrik, you already have a compromise.

You are entitled to smoke. Cigarettes and Tobacco are not illegal.

You can smoke outside.

You can smoke in your own home or in private, non-commercial/business property

In business property if you are the only person who works there and you employ no staff and you have no visits from anyone who is a customer/member of the public you are free to smoke.

In football stadiums, as long as there is no roof.

In prison, as long as it is in their cell and not in communal areas.

Care homes - where it is your place of residence.

Hotels - in special smoking rooms, not in any other areas.

Private Vehicles - Yes

Vehicles used for work - yes, unless other people regularly use it.

Tobacco shops - yes but only for sampling tobacco

Bus stops - yes if it has no sides.

--- So you have got a compromise.

Fredrik Eich said...

Baz,

I agree that it is selfish of people to smoke in smokefree carriages on trains when they can simply use the smoking carriages. I remember it bieng rare, and I would not condone it when there are smoking carriges to use. I would never support law that said no carriages on trains can be smokefree, I belive there should be choice on trains in order to give you smokefree carriages and to give me non-smokefree carriages.

I don't remember you answering my question, you instead chose to give your experiences of smokey places and I gave you a list of the my experiences non-smokey places before the ban.

I am more interested in non-smokefree pubs and non-smokefree restaurants than the other places you have mentioned. Until there is choice retored in this country it can not be technically called a pro-choice country in the context of smokfree and non-smokefree pubs and restaurants. This is where I seek compromise, in that I walk past smokefree ones as I did before that ban and you walk past non-smokefree ones after the law is repealed in full. Do you seek compromise with me?

I shall ask you again, in a different context.

Say, there was a law that forbid restaurants and pubs from going smokefree. Would you agree
with me that this would be wrong because it deny's the owners and customers access to coice of smokefree/cleanair restaurants?

Would you agree that such a law would deny access clean air restaurants and clean air pubs and therefore is wrong because it prevents compromise?


Do you agree with me or do you not agree with me?

Baz said...

Hi fredrik,

Do you think that everyone has a right to breathe clean air?

yes or no?

Baz said...

if so.. then what about the people who work in pubs / clubs / restaurants / trains / buses etc etc where you want to have a smoking room/carriage/area.

Are those people not entitled to breathe in clean air? (by the way.. I'm not just talking about non-smokers)

I would agree that smokey pubs deny access to clean air for everyone (staff and customer) by their very nature.

I would agree that smokefree pubs give access to clean air for everyone (staff and customers)

I agree with the current smoking ban. I think it's correct to ban smoking in pubs/restuarants etc, because everyone is entitled to breathe in clean air. The compromise is that in your own home or in any of the places I've already listed, the smoker is free to smoke, however in public enclosed spaces s/he must respect EVERYONE elses rights to breathe in clean air..

must respect everyone elses rights, not to pollute the water with orange...

That is.. unless of course you believe that people don't have the right to breathe in clean air? in which case, whatever next, don't people have the right to clean water? or the right to sunlight?

Fredrik Eich said...

Baz,
Yes I think everyone has a right to clean air and I belive everyone has a right to smokey air and to work in smoking environments. Compromise.
I used to go to a pub called The Snowdrop in Lewes. To get to that pub I walked pass a pub called The Dorset.
The Dorset was entirley smokefree and The Snowdrop had smoking and non-smoking sections.
So the problem with a law that prevents public places from going smokefree is that The Dorset would become non-smokefree.
This would violate everyones right to clean air not only as customers but also as a place to work in a smokefree environment. I would argue that my right to
smoke in that place should not be protected and does not trump your right to clean air. The problem with a law that forces all public places to go smokefree is that it violates everyones right to work in and enjoy non-smokefree environments, such as The Snowdrop. In The Snowdrop everyones right to a non-smokefree environment was catered for and their rights are protected. So if the law prohibits one or the other it prohibits compromise and is inconsistant with a pro-choice country and pro-choice smoking policy. I expect the number of public spaces to smoke in to be limited due to that fact that smoke is offensive but I will never tolerate it bieng set at zero percent as it violates my right to go to and to work in non-smokefree environments. The position where the law prohibits neither smokefree or smokey evironments is the fairest one and the one that is most sustainble.
Everyone has the right to be happy and there is plenty of roof space to go around.
I fully support you right to clean air,my rights do not trump your rights, you can count on my support, Will you support my right to non-smokefree air in places such as pubs and restaurants?
Can I count on your support?

Baz said...

Yes I think everyone has a right to clean air and I belive everyone has a right to smokey air and to work in smoking environments. Compromise.

Er! everyone has a right to smokey air!...?

---


lets just go through the logic of this again..

1. Did we agree the natural state of air (in a contained space) is without smoke?

2. Did we agree that it's a human right to breathe in clean air?

3. Did we agree to respect everyone who has the right to breathe in clean air - by not polluting that air?

--

If you agreed with all of the above.. you cannot advocate a smoking bar.. because you are not giving a choice to everyone in that bar to breathe in clean air.. because the air in that bar isn't clean it's filled with smoke!.. and as we've discussed there will be people who HAVE NO CHOICE but to work in that bar who have a right to breathe in smoke free air.. and there are customers, who may be smokers who also have that right.


---

My rights to breathe (which i need to do to survive) in clean air (which is the best possible thing to breathe!) is not a choice, it is an essential..

Your "right" to smoke is not essential to your life, you wouldn't die if you stopped smoking. Your choice to light up a fag is just that.. a choice. I don't have a choice to breathe in clean air AFTER you've made your choice to pollute it.

When I'm dispensing the orange from the cooler, I can't change it back into water!.. I am stuck with orange.

I fail to see how everyone's rights are protected. If I happened to visit The Snowdrop my rights wouldn't be protected, and the workers rights most definately aren't protected because the health and saftey laws state that they shouldn't be exposed to contaminated air! and they are!! It doesn't matter whether they've agreed to work there or not, it doesn't matter if they are smokers or not.

The law offers a compromise.. as I've already outlined. The smoking ban does not give a 100% ban. There are places you are allowed to smoke.

I'm glad you fully support my rights to clean air.. however I will just add they are also YOUR rights to clean air too!...

I think you need to look again at the logic of a smokers right to pollute outweighing that of a non-smokers right to breathe in clean air.

I'm confused as to why I would support your right to pollute yours and other peoples air? Why would I do that? Shall I support your right to contaminate all drinking water too?

Fredrik Eich said...

Baz,
I don't think people should pollute the water supply but once that water enters a pub or a business, the water can be polluted with mixers etc,etc. This is ok.

I think you missed the point about The Dorset. This was a smokefree pub prior to the ban that I would walk past to get to The Snowdrop which allowed smoking. So If I had worked in The Dorset and smoked I would have polluted everybodies air because it was a smokefree pub and it would be selfish. This is why I went to the pub that allowed smoking, where smoke is not considered a pollutant and was welcome. So you see I support your right to clean air and clean air you got. If you came into The Snowdrop and complained about my smoking I could direct you to The Dorest. But if I were to visit you, where you live now and went
to a smokefee pub and complained about not bieng able to smoke, you would not be able to direct me to a pub where I can smoke inside.
So if the law forbids smokefree places. I can not direct you to a pub that is smokefree.
If the law forbids non-smokefree places. You can not direct me to a pub that has tobacco smoke and smoking in it.
If the law neither forbids smokefree and non-smokefree then you are free to enjoy a smokfree pubs and I am free to enjoy non-smokefree pubs. This is why I would ask you to support me. It's much better to think of ways to help people be happier than it is to think of ways to make people unhappier. So for example, I agree with you that banning smokefree places is wrong because it eliminates the choice to have clean air. So if you agree with me that banning smokey places
is wrong because it eliminates the choice to smokey air, then we are trying to make each other happier and we can not accuse each other
of putting our rights first. So when the ban is repealed, I walk past smokefree places and you walk past the smokey ones. That way we are trying to make each other happy.
Do you see how it works now?

Anonymous said...

"My rights to breathe (which i need to do to survive) in clean air (which is the best possible thing to breathe!) is not a choice, it is an essential."
You do not have a right to breathe, there is no statute in law that says you do, even if there was what will you do if you stopped breathing, file a law suit against Death perhaps?

Your "right" to smoke is not essential to your life, you wouldn't die if you stopped smoking. Your choice to light up a fag is just that.. a choice. I don't have a choice to breathe in clean air AFTER you've made your choice to pollute it.
If smoking pubs were allowed you would exercise your choice not enter would you not? The issue of you having to breathe in smokers air would not exist unless you entered a smokers pub would it?

"When I'm dispensing the orange from the cooler, I can't change it back into water!.. I am stuck with orange."
Bu that is your fault, you selected orange the orange did not select you!

"I fail to see how everyone's rights are protected. If I happened to visit The Snowdrop my rights wouldn't be protected, and the workers rights most definately aren't protected because the health and saftey laws state that they shouldn't be exposed to contaminated air! and they are!! It doesn't matter whether they've agreed to work there or not, it doesn't matter if they are smokers or not."
The air would be cleaner in the snowdrop than it is outside if a modern air management system was in use irrespective of whether there are smokers in there or not!

"The law offers a compromise.. as I've already outlined. The smoking ban does not give a 100% ban. There are places you are allowed to smoke."
Not where smokers can socialise away from home warm, comfortable and safe inside there isn't, the Health and Safety Act also guarantees safety for smokers as well, murder, rape and assault are hardly considered safe and those who believe that smokers should placed in positions of vulnerability wilfully place them in danger, a breach of the Health and Safety Act irrespective of whether the victim works there or not as long as they are a visitor or customer under pain of fine and or imprisonment.


"I'm glad you fully support my rights to clean air.. however I will just add they are also YOUR rights to clean air too!..."

"I think you need to look again at the logic of a smokers right to pollute outweighing that of a non-smokers right to breathe in clean air."
Show us the Act of Parliament that says you have a right to clean air any where, if such an Act existed every driver in the land would be a criminal! There is no right to clean air that is enshrined in law. There are guidelines as to air quality but no rights to clean air.

"I'm confused as to why I would support your right to pollute yours and other peoples air? Why would I do that? Shall I support your right to contaminate all drinking water too? "
I could make exactly the same argument against anyone who drives, should I perhaps make an issue of vehicular pollution and my non existent right to clean air? the two issues are identical, you don't want tobacco smoke pollution, I don't want traffic pollution the argument is no different, you cannot allow one and ban the other, either ban both or allow both.

John

budie said...

Our water is contaminated with poison - fluoride. I have a friend who is so allergic to it that she cannot eat food cooked in it, cannot dine out in her own region. What happened to her right to consume clean water (if indeed she, or anyone else, is automatically entitled to that right)? This is mass, involuntary and unnecessary, medication. The public were not consulted, btw.

Baz said...

Budgie.. I agree with you, and so do many people, it's been heavily protested against in the US and in the UK that fluoride should never be added to water. Infact I was going to use that as an example. Glad you brought it up :)

Baz said...

Fredrik I understood perfectly well what you meant about the dorset pub.

Maybe I forgot to add that if a smoker had gone into the snowdrop and lit up a fag, there would be no law to stop him/her doing that! It is only the supposed good will of the smoker that does that.. and this is why i gave my examples of the good will of smokers on buses and trains who even in non-smoking areas decided it was okay to light up!.. you might have been respectful of some peoples rights in that pub Fredrik, good for you, however in the smokey pub you were not. In the smokey pub EVERYONE regardless of whether they are smokers or not should be entitled to breathe clean air! (in that place!) which is why i gave the example of workers who don't have a choice to work in that pub.. and are then FORCED to breathe in polluted air!.. (btw that is an example!.. everyone else also has no choice, the smoker who is trying to give up has no choice, the non-smoker who goes in with his smoking friend has no choice, oh and the smoker himself has no choice!)

btw I like your sense of humour about the water that's then added with a mixer! haha.. great stuff.

Baz said...

You do not have a right to breathe, there is no statute in law that says you do, even if there was what will you do if you stopped breathing, file a law suit against Death perhaps?

Hmm so how do I excute my right to life, without breathing or being medically assisted to breathe.... John!?

If smoking pubs were allowed you would exercise your choice not enter would you not? The issue of you having to breathe in smokers air would not exist unless you entered a smokers pub would it?

John, Choosing to go to another pub isn't the answer - for all of the reasons I've given throughout this thread and even in my last post! (feel like a scratched record)

You've missed the point on my orange dispenser analogy. Go back and read it again!

and we've already discussed how the modern air management systems aren't viable to be fitted to every pub in the UK.. again.. broken record..

Not where smokers can socialise away from home warm, comfortable and safe inside there isn't, the Health and Safety Act also guarantees safety for smokers as well, murder, rape and assault are hardly considered safe and those who believe that smokers should placed in positions of vulnerability wilfully place them in danger, a breach of the Health and Safety Act irrespective of whether the victim works there or not as long as they are a visitor or customer under pain of fine and or imprisonment.

Sorry John.. a lot of non-smokers cannot socialise away from home either!.. and now you're trying to convince me by saying that people who smoke are more likely to be murdered and raped!!
You are more likely to be killed by a family member or someone you know..should we not make friends and be seperated from our families at birth too..

Every driver in the land who smokes in a works van that is of regular use by another worker other than themselves, or smokes in a van that gives access to the public or another worker is breaking the law!! If you are talking about external van pollution John.. we've already discussed it.

READ MY QUESTION AGAIN - John

Why does your CHOICE to pollute air that we BOTH breathe in a contained space override my CHOICE to breathe in air that is clean!?

Anonymous said...

Breathing is an act of nature not a right!

"Why does your CHOICE to pollute air that we BOTH breathe in a contained space override my CHOICE to breathe in air that is clean!?"

With separate facilities you do not have to breathe in smoke do you? Unless you choose to do so!
This is the bottom line, there is no argument beyond that, there is the choice, go to an smoking pub or go to a non smoking pub, simples!

The rest is an circular argument that will not be resolved until the art of compromise is learned.

john.

Baz said...

Separate facilities do not help those employed in that building, or even smokers who are trying to quit, or even friends of smokers who have come to the smokers pub because of their friendship..or even... heaven forbid.. the smokers themselves!!!!

The compromise has been made, the problem is you don't agree with it.

Look at it this way;

At one end of the scale you can smoke anywhere. At the other end is a total ban on cigarettes.

Looking at it in that context.. You have a great compromise.

Anonymous said...

Dictating where someone may carry out a legitimate habit is not compromise, it is coercion, the favoured method of dictators you will do what I want or suffer the consequences!

My solution offers real choice, whether or not to enter a premisis where smoking is allowed.

Be honest has any smoker ever held a gun to oyur hed and dragged you into a pub?

Did you ever say to any landlord that you'd prefer non smoking pubs before the ban?

I doubt it, it probably never crossed your mind to ask if anyone else wanted a smoke free pub pre ban.

A compromise is in the middle of the parameters you described the very solution I propose in fact, the one that you continuously reject and by doing so denied all people any choice at all.

No different to the Nuremberg Decrees and the Health act which the article compares.

I am glad you feel it is a great compromise, just a shame your context is wrong!

Baz said...

My solution offers real choice, whether or not to enter a premisis where smoking is allowed.

Your "choice" doesn't offer choice to anyone around you.

Be honest has any smoker ever held a gun to oyur hed and dragged you into a pub?

Have they to you? or has a non-smoker ever done that to you? go on...make my day, punk!

Did you ever say to any landlord that you'd prefer non smoking pubs before the ban?

Did I ever know any landlord who wasn't bothered by anything other than his bottom line; making money? NO.. which is the same for most business men. If it wasn't for certain laws we'd still have men on building sites without hard hats.

I doubt it, it probably never crossed your mind to ask if anyone else wanted a smoke free pub pre ban.

Not really sure why I'm answering this, as it has nothing to do with the question, but ho hum. It didn't cross my mind - the idea of a smoking ban - but like most good things, I didn't realise I needed it until I experienced it. I'm sure many people can't imagine living without a mobile phone, but 30 years ago people said why would I need to be contacted immediately and everywhere. The "personal computer" was another idea that was laughed at, people said why would I want a computer in my house? what for? and now pretty much everyone in the UK has a pc and the majority of them on the internet. Infact the Internet is an example of something that I never thought of but I can't imagine living without now!.. so, No Anon, I didn't think of it.. but I'm glad it's here and now I couldn't imagine going back to before :)

A compromise is in the middle of the parameters you described the very solution I propose in fact, the one that you continuously reject and by doing so denied all people any choice at all.

The compromise I suggested IS in the middle of those two extremes. I continuously point out why those places are not smoker friendly too.. let's be fair here, I haven't just dismissed any arguements here I've debated them fully.

No different to the Nuremberg Decrees and the Health act which the article compares.


YOU LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY not a DICTATORSHIP. These aren't like-for-like comparisons.

Anonymous said...

The people around me would mainly be smokers who would have chosen to be there as would the those non smokers who are there! So where then is there no choice?

I'll take that as a no then and assume you chose to be in a smokey pub, you could have done what the smokers did chose to drink cheap beer at home and enjoy themselves witha smoke as well, you could have lobbied your landlord to go smokeless so you had choices you were just to idle to impliment them.

Owning amobile ohon eor a computer has not had the detrimental effect on pubs that the smoking ban has had so the point is moot!

It's the law tough luck is not a comromise Baz its a taunt a very childish taunt at that, no different to my dads bigger than yours, come back with a real argument! Sepatate facilities will not affect those who work there if they all smoke will it, there would be plenty of non smoking pubs for non smoking bar staff unless they choose to work in a smoking pub so your scenario does not exist there is room for both, only a bigot would disagree with that!

The Third Reich's rise to power was also democratic, read your history, Hitler was democratically elected to the Bundesrat, He democratically succeeded Von Hindenbuerg as chancellor of Germany, he democratically declared a state of emergency before declaring himself Fuhrer. it was all done democratically, no coup, no rebellion no civil war but democratically.

One more thing Baz losing your rag and shouting at me means you are very desparate, you have lost this battle, strike your colours and offer your sword for you the war is over!

It is very poor netiquette to shout in such a fashion and since your name has been linked to National Socialism on another blog it looks like people are making their minds up I would either withdraw or surrender, history proves your comment on democracy is wrong, the line between the two is gossamer thin and very easily crossed.

The current target shifting to drinkers and the obese lends far more credence to the comparison between The Nuremburg Decrees an dthe Health Acts than anything I could ever write after all the Jews were not the only victims of the Nuremburg decrees, Gypsies, the disabled, the mentally ill, (also targetted by the NHS smoking bans) and those who opposed the policies of the day were also victims.

They are indeed like-for -like-comparisons.

John.

Baz said...

The people around me would mainly be smokers who would have chosen to be there as would the those non smokers who are there! So where then is there no choice?

workers, cleaner, barstaff, waiters, chefs, cooks, glass collectors.. These people don't choose to work in a smokey pub or not, they don't make a choice they go where the work is.. and since it's the cheapest work they can get they tend not to query it, and also since the people that tend to do these low paid jobs are the youngest in the work force (mainly students) they will often take more risks with their health for money than older people

I'll take that as a no then and assume you chose to be in a smokey pub, you could have done what the smokers did chose to drink cheap beer at home and enjoy themselves witha smoke as well, you could have lobbied your landlord to go smokeless so you had choices you were just to idle to impliment them.

Sorry, John.. but whether or not I lobbied my MP over a smokefree pub 20 years or even 5 years ago is completely irrelevant to the point in question. I agree with smokefree pubs :) I think it's a good idea.

Owning amobile ohon eor a computer has not had the detrimental effect on pubs that the smoking ban has had so the point is moot!

a point I didn't raise, only clarified someone elses moot question! Infact in that statement I actually said "Not really sure why I'm answering this, as it has nothing to do with the question, but ho hum"

It's the law tough luck is not a comromise Baz its a taunt a very childish taunt at that, no different to my dads bigger than yours, come back with a real argument!

Sorry John, but I haven't said anything about your dad's bigger than mine, I haven't been childish, I have gotten bored of the circular debate however. I have challenged every single one of your points and the very fact that you opened this post by telling me that your friends in the pub have made a choice to smoke in a smokey pub and you can't acknowledge any negative effects, or recognise anyone else works in that pub (be they smokers or not) just reinforces the fact that you haven't bothered to read any of the points I've raised.

Anonymous said...

They still have the right to choose where they work and is what is denied their right to choose, Every serviceman in the UK makes that choice yet you have no objection to that, every policeman, fireman and papramedic put themselves into harms way through choice, you don't object to that either To be a smoker and work in a smoking environment is no different. This for the safety of the workers excuse in regard to pubs is garbage especially when the employer, employee and customer choose to share a smoking environment!

Oh but it does Baz, it tells me that before the smoking ban you could not give a monkeys uncle about smoking, that you, the Nazis provided the Germans wth theirs HMG provided you with yours, like the Germans before you have got a legalised big stick to beat up on minorities.

You're no good with comparisons are you? its very simple Baz you effectively said its the law tough luck to which the playground equivelent is my dads bigger than your dad now have you got it or do I have go back to infant school English to communicate with you? Like cat and mat is a comparison, all you presented was the from the ASH handbook, My article is a novel approach which you have declined to debate which seems to me that as in PACE silence is no defence and in future when you moan about someone calling you a Nazi remember you had a chance to defend yourself a task at which you failed miserably, I wish you luck in your future endevours, hav ehte last word by all means but the point of my article has been made without a single word of debate specifically the last paragraph. I believe we are now done!

John.

Baz said...

John. It's the Law, and I have to stick to it as much as you do!.. so if it's tough luck on you, then it's tough luck on me!.. so your logic is way off.. sorry

and as I've said there have been a great many advances in society while I've been alive, I haven't bucked or cheered every single one of them, that doesn't mean I don't support or deny them. And to suggest that just because I didn't suggest to my local landlord "why don't you go non-smoking" means that I am not entitled to my view in this area is ridiculous! (and quite frankly insulting to your intelligence!)

As for servicemen or firemen or even paramedics putting themselves in harms way for their job.. er, yeah.. cos that's a good comparison isn't it? someone saving lives, fighting for democracy and protecting you from terrorist attacks, compared to the barmaid servicing someone who works in an office with a pint during their lunch hour!! Please don't talk to me about comparisons if that's what you are offering in return. It not only undermines your arguements but also insults our troops and servicemen who do an amazing job risking life and limb.

John, I haven't even looked at the "ash" handbook!! but again, if your last resort to my valid arguements is to say I read ASH reports then you have sadly misjudged me.

As for this debate I have read your opening and answered directly every point you have rasied thus. It's funny though.. because you haven't answered my question... you have continually avoided it.

As for allowing me the last word! how very magnamimus of you.

You will note that I have deliberately left the choice as to how Baz wishes to regarded in respect to Nazism to him, I will not judge him here, I would rather that he be judged by his own words not mine, let the people and posterity judge him.

I already know how I regard myself John. I think on a pro-smoking website with a select readership, who have already been in contact with you critising me and this debate, along with calling me a cunt, a bastard, telling me to fuck off several times, imagining me goosestepping down the high street, etc etc.. That it is not my words that will be judged.

Anonymous said...

It is not you judging you it is them judging you, I kept my word and the fact remains that you were allowed to debate completely off topic throughout the entire debate, not all people are eloquent with words Baz and you came here of your own free will and yet again you chose not to leave the debate. Of course I could of simply replied off topic to every post there are many who would have.

To object to being sworn at when others like you wish smokers dead or encourage violence against smokers, neither of which you are involved in is a little bit rich! So like me you suffer the backlash of those who are more expressive of their anger, neither you nor I are responsible for what anyone else writes so in the words of the anti smoking community live with it!

Now we have kept this civil between us and it has ended that way, no doubt our paths will cross again, we have exausted the topic, done the circular argument bit and there is now nothing left to say so I wish you well.

I would advise you in the future to stay on topic when responding to an article I have written, after all its no fun being shut out with two word responses and I mean off topic, any other mode of reply is between you and the author of the post.

John.

Baz said...

John.

You've made this sound like you've been doing me a favour by replying, or humouring me for the last 140'odd posts.

I appreciate that you put a lot of time, thought and effort into that initial blog posting.

If you feel I personally have sidetracked then I'm very sorry about that.

Anonymous said...

Considering that so few posts referred to the article and that you were allowed to stay off topic then yes you were granted a favour, on some blogsites you would have been shredded, those who read Obo, or Guido would eat you alive!

It must have been a very solid case I put forward, and yes a lot of thought and effort went into it, I remain thankful to you for your kind words on the article and I accept your apology.

Baz said...

John, In the interest of parity I thought I would go through step by step your opening post. I didn't want you to think I'd sidetracked and ignored it.

Your first main paragraph you say the anti-smoking campaign of the Nazi's..

The first Anti-smoking campaign started in Germany in 1904 and had nothing to do with the Nazis

Your second paragraph talks about Hitler and The Nazi's efforts to discourage smoking. This discouragement wasn't particularly effective and more often than not smokers and smoking was overlooked.

A lot of the information about non-smoking Nazi's is complete rubbish, and myth.. I did type it all out in a reply, but deleted it because I didn't want to go off track. Do some research, John I'm sure you'll find several links that establish for example that Eva Braun was a smoker! Hitler can't have been that bothered.. Especially when he partly paid the Hitler Youth in cigarettes and cigarettes contributed 1/12th to the war effort. How? If they were banned!!!

Your definitions were nicely set out. However your pro-choice favouring of inside pubs and smoking rooms doesn't take into account any "pro-choice" rights of non-smokers in those rooms, or even people we might call smokers who are neither for or again, but trying to give up, or even the air quality in that room. You are advocating choice for the sake of choice. Every choice is based on reasoning and compromise.

There is clearly no argument that can be made against that definition, if you are not pro then you can only be anti!

Unless you are neutral and I would suggest that there are a lot of neutral smokers and non-smokers.

Tolerant non smokers by definition are also anti smoking but are also pro choice in regard to smoking venues for smokers.
Just because you've got a definition of "pro-choice" doesn't mean that choice extends to a pub, because once your choice infringes on someone else’s then it's not a choice. When your choice involve polluting the internal air space that someone else breathes then your choice is outweighed.

All of these things you didn't address.

Baz said...

"The true hardcore Antis are the ones that say no, not inside pubs, not outside pubs in beer gardens when the weather is nice and I want to be outside without smokers, the ones that having got their law preventing smokers from smoking inside pubs now want them cleared from the streets, from the parks even from inside the car which the smoker paid for and owns!" Your opinion.

By the way no-one has cleared smokers from the streets, and inside your own car you are perfectly entitled to smoke! so why bother trying to distort the truth?

Your statements on the history of tobacco are pointless.. Of course it can be traced back to ancient Egypt.. So what? It makes no difference what the history of a product is. Humans used to write on Papyrus for centuries before we discovered a way to make paper from wood pulp. Monks transcribed the bibles for centuries, doesn't mean they have to now!

And finally, the old smokers trick of dismissing scientific papers. Just dismissing outright scientific evidence is a good way to establish your argument.
-- Your description of principle as a juridic law is interesting.. You start by talking about a quote then lead straight in with an example that has nothing to do with the subject.. You speak of 40 businesses a week, however before the smoking ban 28 pubs were going out of business. Your vulnerable groups in danger is non-sense too. People have a choice to smoke they make that choice to go outside and do it. There have been many dog owners attacked, and many joggers attacked, should we make dog owners stay in and joggers go to the gym?

You previously dismissed scientific information, so how can you then say that the health and safety laws are counterproductive.. I'm sure it's counterproductive to wear a bright yellow reflective jacket if you’re a policeman at night.. It might be really uncool, you might get laughed at by teenagers.. but it's part of health and safety laws.. Are you examining the H&S laws in relation to themselves and what they’ve achieved or in relation to the limits they’ve imposed on business. Are you saying the business and money and your enjoyment is more important than the health of other people (including yourself)?

Ahh bigotry? with no actual evidence.. just statement after statement.

Baz said...

As for the Nuremberg decrees.. the health acts target everyone not just smokers. Sorry John but the choice to breathe in clean air is of benefit to you and me!

No one has forced smokers 20-30 smokers in to small houses with appalling sanitary conditions..

The health and safety act prohibits smoking inside, however it is the pub landlord who must provide a shelter for smokers, if that shelter feels like a “ghetto”.. then complain to him!.. again a terrible comparison.. bad logic.

The Media.

Sorry again John, but I’ve never seen anyone on the media who smokes as carrying disease, in fact most smokers in the media are seen as cool. As for the French.. we're not in France. You talk of newspaper articles inciting violence.. There was ONE.. and it was removed! I've had people incite violence at me because I'm vegan. I don't go around thinking about it on the level you are..

Eating babies? non-smokers are too..

Child abusers can be non-smokers too..

Drinker and the obese.. You mean there are a few leaflets and a couple of programs on TV!.. are you seriously going to tell me that being obese doesn't give you diabetes, and that drinking doesn't give you long term liver damage!.. Even you and your re-interpretation of hard factual evidence can't deny that one.. So what you're saying is that if someone wants to get fat or drink that's their choice.. what if they want help? and because of your pro-choice there are no leaflets, no advice centres, no information and they die a horrible liver failing death.. is that ok then?

As for the final few paragraphs I already covered those..

Ashley Williams said...

Hello!! Thank you for this post :) I support to ban tobacco !!

opinions powered by SendLove.to

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Pages on this blog