The issue of public v private workspaces is interesting. In England, smoking will be banned in all enclosed public workspaces, but not in private ones. One contentious blurring of the distinction between public and private is in the case of truck drivers, whose commercial vehicles are considered public workplaces. They won't be able to smoke, for example.
Anti-smoking lobbyists are calling for banning smoking in residential homes when they become places of work for visiting doctors or tradespeople.
i drive a car... the government tells me i have to wear a seatbelt... why should I? oh thats right... its for the common good... its sensible
and how are they tellign you how to run it? they are imposing a condition upon you just as they impose condition on pharmacies, vet practices, car garages, bookmakers, restaurants, hotels, etc
bars are no different and no more special
To your first statement I don't think the government should require you to wear a seatbelt. If you want to stupid enough to not wear one that is your problem. Many restrictions that government pose on businesses I think are unnecassry, not just the smoking ban. just because an action is deemed sensible doesn't mean that it should be a law.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Application of Part 2
2. The exemptions in this Part apply only to premises that would be smoke-free under section 2 of the Health Act 2006 if those exemptions had not been made.
Private accommodation
3. —(1) A private dwelling is not smoke-free except for any part of it which is—
(a) used in common in relation to more than one set of premises (including premises so used in relation to any other private dwelling or dwellings); or
(b) used solely as a place of work (other than work that is excluded by paragraph (2)) by—
(i) more than one person who does not live in the dwelling;
(ii) a person who does not live in the dwelling and any person who does live in the dwelling; or
(iii) a person (whether he lives in the dwelling or not) who in the course of his work invites persons who do not live or work in the dwelling to attend the part of it which is used solely for work.
(2) There is excluded from paragraph (1)(b) all work that is undertaken solely—
(a) to provide personal care for a person living in the dwelling;
(b) to assist with the domestic work of the household in the dwelling;
(c) to maintain the structure or fabric of the dwelling; or
(d) to install, maintain or remove any service provided to the dwelling for the benefit of persons living in it.
(3) In this regulation, "private dwelling" includes self-contained residential accommodation for temporary or holiday use and any garage, outhouse or other structure for the exclusive use of persons living in the dwelling.
a bar is a private business but a public service... its called a "public bar", serves the general public and this is where the phrase "pub" comes from
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
that doesnt make sense. its like saying working in a cubicle is discriminatory against people who like to stand.
Not really health is an important issue standing or sitting in your job is not.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
a bar is a private business but a public service... its called a "public bar", serves the general public and this is where the phrase "pub" comes from
Answer me this should bars and resteraunt be required by law to only serve you one or two drinks because there is a possibility you may get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car and kill someone. Seems sensible don't you think.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I feel a persons right to health is more important than a persons right to smoke.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
To your first statement I don't think the government should require you to wear a seatbelt. If you want to stupid enough to not wear one that is your problem. Many restrictions that government pose on businesses I think are unnecassry, not just the smoking ban. just because an action is deemed sensible doesn't mean that it should be a law.
Ok, then a comparable situation would be to forbid you to drive while drunk.
Your car is your property, alcohol is a legal drug, but alcohol + driving is dangerous for others. So there is a ban on drunk driving. I think it's a pretty good idea (since I already have trouble walking when I'm drunk) though it strips me from some freedom.
edit : right, since we're talking business owners, let's say you're a drunk truck driver.
What about people who are forced to inhale other peoples second hand smoke, what about their freedom rights.
What you're asking here is "how come I don't have a right to dictate to someone else how to use their property"? So I can't really answer your question about "freedom rights", since you don't seem to have the same definition of freedom that I do.
its quite easy actually. but you can scream till your blue in the face, it wont happen unless people are forced
of course it's easy... so just do it!!! and forced they will be.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
if you think they have a right to smoke then you shouldnt want a law forced them not to do so.
The law is not to force people not to smoke it's to make public places smoke free environments. I don't care if you wanna kill yourself and waste a hell of a lot of money while you are at it, I just don't want to inhale you smoke when I go to a pub for a few drinks.
Astoria 20/04/06, Leeds 25/08/06, Prague 22/09/06, Wembley 18/06/07,
Dusseldorf 21/06/07, Manchester 17/08/09, London 18/08/09, LA 06/10/09, LA 07/10/09.
Ok, then a comparable situation would be to forbid you to drive while drunk.
Your car is your property, alcohol is a legal drug, but alcohol + driving is dangerous for others. So there is a ban on drunk driving. I think it's a pretty good idea (since I already have trouble walking when I'm drunk) though it strips me from some freedom.
Because you pose a serious threat to the safety of other motorists on the road. With the smoking ban you can always go to an establishment that is smoke free. With drunk driving what am i supposed to do stay off the roads constantly because there may be a drunk driver on the road.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I feel a persons right to health is more important than a persons right to smoke.
Hehe..this is what happens when we invent rights.
No one has a "right to health", nor does anyone have a "right to smoke". Health is a bodily condition, not a right. And smoking is a behavior, not a right.
Answer me this should bars and resteraunt be required by law to only serve you one or two drinks because there is a possibility you may get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car and kill someone. Seems sensible don't you think.
and how does this relate to someone being allowed to smoke?
doesnt seem sensible at all... if you get behind the wheel of a car whilst drunk then how is that the bar's fault? its your own fault... if, like the case of several barstaff who campaigned for the Smoking Ban in Scotland, your health is harmed by continually having to breathe in smoke at your job... then thats not your own fault
smoking kills... fact
ban people smoking doesnt kill ... fact
making fat lazy selfish cunts walk 10 yards to a covered and heated smoking area is a good idea... fact
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
I don't care if you wanna kill yourself and waste a hell of a lot of money while you are at it, I just don't want to inhale you smoke when I go to a pub for a few drinks.
but I dont think a bar is a public place. as for public places, I agree.
of course it is... it maybe run by a private entity but its a public place
1. it has to apply for a licence to serve the public
2. it serves the general public
3. the name "pub" is an abbreviation of the phrase "public bar"
the only thing private about is the ownership.. and even then some larger 'chain style' pubs are PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANIES!!
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
and how does this relate to someone being allowed to smoke?
doesnt seem sensible at all... if you get behind the wheel of a car whilst drunk then how is that the bar's fault? its your own fault... if, like the case of several barstaff who campaigned for the Smoking Ban in Scotland, your health is harmed by continually having to breathe in smoke at your job... then thats not your own fault
smoking kills... fact
ban people smoking doesnt kill ... fact
making fat lazy selfish cunts walk 10 yards to a covered and heated smoking area is a good idea... fact
See you stiil see it as a smoking issue and it's not. It's a property rights issue and until people start understanding that they will continue to keep their head in the sand. Most smokers I know don't give a flying fuck about having to walk 10 yard or 100 yards to have a smoke. The problem is that government is interfering in private business and that is a FACT.
Tell me what is wrong with making this ban a voluntary program where those that decided to ban smoking would receive a tax break. If the government would have followed this course of action I wouldn't have one fucking complaint because the decision was left to the business owners.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Tell me what is wrong with making this ban a voluntary program where those that decided to ban smoking would receive a tax break. If the government would have followed this course of action I wouldn't have one fucking complaint because the decision was left to the business owners.
It can easily be argued that banning cigarettes in your bar while the one next to you doesn't may get you to loose customers. And the fear of going out of buisness is enough to stop an owner from banning smoking even if he wanted to.
but I dont think a bar is a public place. as for public places, I agree.
then you shouldnt go to a bar.
A bar is a public place hence why we call them public houses over here!
I have the right to go to a bar and not have difficulty breathing because smoking is a choice, when you were born you wasn't a smoker it is not in your genes to become a smoker, you smoke because you decided you want to for whatever reason.
Astoria 20/04/06, Leeds 25/08/06, Prague 22/09/06, Wembley 18/06/07,
Dusseldorf 21/06/07, Manchester 17/08/09, London 18/08/09, LA 06/10/09, LA 07/10/09.
The problem is that government is interfering in private business and that is a FACT.
the government is tasked with looking after the common good of the public... all private business is interfered with to some extent
by your rationale i should be allowed to sell a deranged mental patient with a nazi slogan tattooed on his head a machine gun (if i owned a gun store)... but government 'interference' has made it so that when i check up on this guy it comes up on a computer screen
"do not sell the mad fucker a gun"
but if we go your route then why cant i sell it to him? and maybe throw in some free grenades for him as well!!
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
of course it is... it maybe run by a private entity but its a public place
1. it has to apply for a licence to serve the public
2. it serves the general public
3. the name "pub" is an abbreviation of the phrase "public bar"
the only thing private about is the ownership.. and even then some larger 'chain style' pubs are PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANIES!!
ok. and for the record dunk, I do my best to not smoke in front of people who do not smoke. I'm not trying to defend a smokers right to blow smoke in peoples faces. just some friendly debate. relax a bit mate.
It can easily be argued that banning cigarettes in your bar while the one next to you doesn't may get you to loose customers. And the fear of going out of buisness is enough to stop an owner from banning smoking even if he wanted to.
It can easily be argued that there are many people who would prefer a non smoking establishment to a smoking establishment regardless of their proximity to each other.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
God I can’t believe how many people are so crazy about people not smoking in a bar. Dude it’s a Bar. You people are insane. If someone smoked at my gym I'd have a problem with it. If someone wanted to work out at a bar I guess I wouldn't really have a problem it would be pretty funny actually but it would still be odd. I just don't get it. Why is everyone trippin on a little smoke at a bar? If you don’t want to inhale second hand smoke go to a library.
God I can’t believe how many people are so crazy about people not smoking in a bar. Dude it’s a Bar. You people are insane. If someone smoked at my gym I'd have a problem with it. If someone wanted to work out at a bar I guess I wouldn't really have a problem it would be pretty funny actually but it would still be odd. I just don't get it. Why is everyone trippin on a little smoke at a bar? If you don’t want to inhale second hand smoke go to a library.
the law is more geared towards the people who work in the bars.
Comments
Anti-smoking lobbyists are calling for banning smoking in residential homes when they become places of work for visiting doctors or tradespeople.
To your first statement I don't think the government should require you to wear a seatbelt. If you want to stupid enough to not wear one that is your problem. Many restrictions that government pose on businesses I think are unnecassry, not just the smoking ban. just because an action is deemed sensible doesn't mean that it should be a law.
Exemptions
Application of Part 2
2. The exemptions in this Part apply only to premises that would be smoke-free under section 2 of the Health Act 2006 if those exemptions had not been made.
Private accommodation
3. —(1) A private dwelling is not smoke-free except for any part of it which is—
(a) used in common in relation to more than one set of premises (including premises so used in relation to any other private dwelling or dwellings); or
(b) used solely as a place of work (other than work that is excluded by paragraph (2)) by—
(i) more than one person who does not live in the dwelling;
(ii) a person who does not live in the dwelling and any person who does live in the dwelling; or
(iii) a person (whether he lives in the dwelling or not) who in the course of his work invites persons who do not live or work in the dwelling to attend the part of it which is used solely for work.
(2) There is excluded from paragraph (1)(b) all work that is undertaken solely—
(a) to provide personal care for a person living in the dwelling;
(b) to assist with the domestic work of the household in the dwelling;
(c) to maintain the structure or fabric of the dwelling; or
(d) to install, maintain or remove any service provided to the dwelling for the benefit of persons living in it.
(3) In this regulation, "private dwelling" includes self-contained residential accommodation for temporary or holiday use and any garage, outhouse or other structure for the exclusive use of persons living in the dwelling.
its quite easy actually. but you can scream till your blue in the face, it wont happen unless people are forced
a bar is a private business but a public service... its called a "public bar", serves the general public and this is where the phrase "pub" comes from
Not really health is an important issue standing or sitting in your job is not.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Answer me this should bars and resteraunt be required by law to only serve you one or two drinks because there is a possibility you may get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car and kill someone. Seems sensible don't you think.
I feel a persons right to health is more important than a persons right to smoke.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Ok, then a comparable situation would be to forbid you to drive while drunk.
Your car is your property, alcohol is a legal drug, but alcohol + driving is dangerous for others. So there is a ban on drunk driving. I think it's a pretty good idea (since I already have trouble walking when I'm drunk) though it strips me from some freedom.
edit : right, since we're talking business owners, let's say you're a drunk truck driver.
What you're asking here is "how come I don't have a right to dictate to someone else how to use their property"? So I can't really answer your question about "freedom rights", since you don't seem to have the same definition of freedom that I do.
no its not... people like to stand but sitting at their job doesnt harm their health.
of course it's easy... so just do it!!! and forced they will be.
The law is not to force people not to smoke it's to make public places smoke free environments. I don't care if you wanna kill yourself and waste a hell of a lot of money while you are at it, I just don't want to inhale you smoke when I go to a pub for a few drinks.
Dusseldorf 21/06/07, Manchester 17/08/09, London 18/08/09, LA 06/10/09, LA 07/10/09.
Ain't gonna be any middle anymore.
Because you pose a serious threat to the safety of other motorists on the road. With the smoking ban you can always go to an establishment that is smoke free. With drunk driving what am i supposed to do stay off the roads constantly because there may be a drunk driver on the road.
Hehe..this is what happens when we invent rights.
No one has a "right to health", nor does anyone have a "right to smoke". Health is a bodily condition, not a right. And smoking is a behavior, not a right.
and how does this relate to someone being allowed to smoke?
doesnt seem sensible at all... if you get behind the wheel of a car whilst drunk then how is that the bar's fault? its your own fault... if, like the case of several barstaff who campaigned for the Smoking Ban in Scotland, your health is harmed by continually having to breathe in smoke at your job... then thats not your own fault
smoking kills... fact
ban people smoking doesnt kill ... fact
making fat lazy selfish cunts walk 10 yards to a covered and heated smoking area is a good idea... fact
if it doesnt matter then your analogy was shit...
then you shouldnt go to a bar.
my point is that its not discriminatory
of course it is... it maybe run by a private entity but its a public place
1. it has to apply for a licence to serve the public
2. it serves the general public
3. the name "pub" is an abbreviation of the phrase "public bar"
the only thing private about is the ownership.. and even then some larger 'chain style' pubs are PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANIES!!
See you stiil see it as a smoking issue and it's not. It's a property rights issue and until people start understanding that they will continue to keep their head in the sand. Most smokers I know don't give a flying fuck about having to walk 10 yard or 100 yards to have a smoke. The problem is that government is interfering in private business and that is a FACT.
Tell me what is wrong with making this ban a voluntary program where those that decided to ban smoking would receive a tax break. If the government would have followed this course of action I wouldn't have one fucking complaint because the decision was left to the business owners.
It can easily be argued that banning cigarettes in your bar while the one next to you doesn't may get you to loose customers. And the fear of going out of buisness is enough to stop an owner from banning smoking even if he wanted to.
A bar is a public place hence why we call them public houses over here!
I have the right to go to a bar and not have difficulty breathing because smoking is a choice, when you were born you wasn't a smoker it is not in your genes to become a smoker, you smoke because you decided you want to for whatever reason.
Dusseldorf 21/06/07, Manchester 17/08/09, London 18/08/09, LA 06/10/09, LA 07/10/09.
Ain't gonna be any middle anymore.
the government is tasked with looking after the common good of the public... all private business is interfered with to some extent
by your rationale i should be allowed to sell a deranged mental patient with a nazi slogan tattooed on his head a machine gun (if i owned a gun store)... but government 'interference' has made it so that when i check up on this guy it comes up on a computer screen
"do not sell the mad fucker a gun"
but if we go your route then why cant i sell it to him? and maybe throw in some free grenades for him as well!!
ok. and for the record dunk, I do my best to not smoke in front of people who do not smoke. I'm not trying to defend a smokers right to blow smoke in peoples faces. just some friendly debate. relax a bit mate.
It can easily be argued that there are many people who would prefer a non smoking establishment to a smoking establishment regardless of their proximity to each other.
roll me a fat one then buddy
the law is more geared towards the people who work in the bars.