The Londoner & The Office

[ClaytonSeymour]

The problem with the freedom of choice debate is that the law as written does not permit that. I agree it would be an elegant solution, New York allows bars to purchase a tobacco licence and declare themselves smoking bars. But this is not the case here.

What you have is bars breaking the law on smoking. At 20,000 baht a time, that is 600,000 baht in potential fines in 30 days. Obviously they are not paying 600,000 baht in fines, are they?

I don't know about you, but I do wonder.

Which brings me back to my point, a level playing field is better for the consumer. Of course it's better & a blanket, enforced ban is the right way to go about this.

[burman]

Yet again we see the pro smoking lobby going on about freedom of choice blah, blah. I'm sorry, but stop being selfish and face the facts; you are stuck in nicotines grasp and slowly poisoning yourself. Just because you are too weak, or unwilling to deal with your addiction, why should you have the right to poison others too? Should I have the right to poison the local water supply? If you want to slowly kill yourselves fine, do it in private & not in front of your children.

And your argument against separate smoking and non smoking bars is...?

Doesn't that give both groups their freedom of choice?

Doesn't that give the non smokers a chance to enjoy a drink without being poisoned by smoke?

[ClaytonSeymour]

Yet again we see the pro smoking lobby going on about freedom of choice blah, blah. I'm sorry, but stop being selfish and face the facts; you are stuck in nicotines grasp and slowly poisoning yourself. Just because you are too weak, or unwilling to deal with your addiction, why should you have the right to poison others too? Should I have the right to poison the local water supply? If you want to slowly kill yourselves fine, do it in private & not in front of your children.

And your argument against separate smoking and non smoking bars is...?

Doesn't that give both groups their freedom of choice?

Doesn't that give the non smokers a chance to enjoy a drink without being poisoned by smoke?

It must be a level playing field & a blanket ban also makes it easier to enforce. The bans working fine in the UK,& the public are encouraged to assist the enforcement; if you enter a bar where the owner isn't enforcing the ban - 08005871667. This is the smokefree hotline for reporting such matters.

[burman]

Why must it be a level playing field? Why couldn't there be smoking and non smoking bars?

If there is a such a support for non smoking bars then I would guess most publicans would opt for the non smoking license.

[ClaytonSeymour]

Why must it be a level playing field? Why couldn't there be smoking and non smoking bars?

If there is a such a support for non smoking bars then I would guess most publicans would opt for the non smoking license.

You also have to consider a governments duty of care towards its' citizens; long neglected where smoking has been concerned.

Having smoking and no smoking bars offers significant less assistance in the fight to prevent future generations becoming addicted to this vile habit than a blanket ban does.

Edited April 4, 2008 by ClaytonSeymour

[DavidS]

Why must it be a level playing field? Why couldn't there be smoking and non smoking bars?

If there is a such a support for non smoking bars then I would guess most publicans would opt for the non smoking license.

As a point of clarification, in my post my reference to a level playing field simply means that all should operate within the law.

I would hope that every reasonable person would agree with this, which is why I made the appeal for support for these establishments in the first place.

I still see the New York situation as a level playing field. Two types of bars catering to 2 distinct segments of the market, in compliance with the law.

But we do not have that here. And when some bars find a way to avoid complying with the law and others suffer a disadvantage as a result, then I have to disagree with that situation.

Some have complained about pricing at the Londoner. One would hope that the owners of that establishment would recognise this and do something about it, for their own good.

Nobody has yet complained about pricing at The Office, though one poster noted that the decline pre-dates the smoking laws.

Edited April 4, 2008 by DavidS

[twschw]

The ban is not being fully enforced until June. We are now in a transition period.

[burman]

Why must it be a level playing field? Why couldn't there be smoking and non smoking bars?

If there is a such a support for non smoking bars then I would guess most publicans would opt for the non smoking license.

You also have to consider a governments duty of care towards its' citizens; long neglected where smoking has been concerned.

Having smoking and no smoking bars offers significant less assistance in the fight to prevent future generations becoming addicted to this vile habit than a blanket ban does.

A good and fair point Clayton, I'll take it on board. One of the first reasonable arguments I have seen against the two separate styles of bars.

I guess we may very well see a restriction on the amount of alcohol served in public bars too in the future. Just last week they mentioned raising the age of drinkers in the UK to 20 I think.

And saying that, are cigarettes still being sold in the UK legally to 16 yr olds?

[ClaytonSeymour]

Why must it be a level playing field? Why couldn't there be smoking and non smoking bars?

If there is a such a support for non smoking bars then I would guess most publicans would opt for the non smoking license.

You also have to consider a governments duty of care towards its' citizens; long neglected where smoking has been concerned.

Having smoking and no smoking bars offers significant less assistance in the fight to prevent future generations becoming addicted to this vile habit than a blanket ban does.

A good and fair point Clayton, I'll take it on board. One of the first reasonable arguments I have seen against the two separate styles of bars.

I guess we may very well see a restriction on the amount of alcohol served in public bars too in the future. Just last week they mentioned raising the age of drinkers in the UK to 20 I think. The last time I was in Asda, they announced over the tannoy that they will no longer serve alcohol to anyone who looks under 25 unless they show ID.

And saying that, are cigarettes still being sold in the UK legally to 16 yr olds?

http://www.tobaccoagechange.co.uk/

Edited April 4, 2008 by ClaytonSeymour

[DavidS]

The ban is not being fully enforced until June. We are now in a transition period.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but as I understand it, for now the authorities will issue warnings if they find people smoking in bars. Fines start in June. That means that there is a clear expectation that smoking in bars will stop from the date of the law being gazetted (or however they do it here), else why the warnings?

As for Clayton's point about a Government's duty of care towards its citizens, he is indeed correct. New York opted to do so whilst preserving some choice. The UK, Ireland, France etc opted for a blanket ban. They are doing what they should as democratically elected governments. People are then obliged to comply with the laws.

Minorities disagreeing with laws that have the support of the majority really is a different subject from this thread, so I will not go down that road.

[twschw]

Typical degeneration of what started out as a decent thread. Take care and best of luck to you all.

[ClaytonSeymour]

Typical degeneration of what started out as a decent thread. Take care and best of luck to you all.

I certainly will take care; I'll be avoiding smoking establishments like the plague.

[PhilHarries]

Why must it be a level playing field? Why couldn't there be smoking and non smoking bars?

If there is a such a support for non smoking bars then I would guess most publicans would opt for the non smoking license.

You also have to consider a governments duty of care towards its' citizens; long neglected where smoking has been concerned.

Having smoking and no smoking bars offers significant less assistance in the fight to prevent future generations becoming addicted to this vile habit than a blanket ban does.

Like sending them to Iraq?

[ClaytonSeymour]

Why must it be a level playing field? Why couldn't there be smoking and non smoking bars?

If there is a such a support for non smoking bars then I would guess most publicans would opt for the non smoking license.

You also have to consider a governments duty of care towards its' citizens; long neglected where smoking has been concerned.

Having smoking and no smoking bars offers significant less assistance in the fight to prevent future generations becoming addicted to this vile habit than a blanket ban does.

Like sending them to Iraq?

We are not here to discuss the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war.

[burman]

Typical degeneration of what started out as a decent thread. Take care and best of luck to you all.

The topic has not degenerated at all, there's a nice enough discussion going on based on the OP.

I know, shocking for TV isn't it.

[misterman21]

People smoke full stop - ok if they have to be segragated then what can be fairer than that.

A third of the US population are morbidly obese which has a direct affect on the rest of the population - inreased taxes etc. They have the chioce to ruin their health and burden the tax payer. 1 in 4 young americans have/has had an STD - they choose to be reckless and burden the tax payer.

So let the first lean person without a dose cast the first stone at smokers.

As for Clayton Seymore stating smokers are lucky that the governments havent banned it completely - well come the reveloution he is first against the wall

[burman]

The revolution is already here and it's the smokers with their backs to the wall.

[mrtoad]

Typical degeneration of what started out as a decent thread. Take care and best of luck to you all.

I certainly will take care; I'll be avoiding smoking establishments like the plague.

Good. I assume there is some irony there, or are you exercising you're freedom of choice which you deny to others?

Edited April 4, 2008 by mrtoad

[Ulysses G.]

As for Clayton Seymore stating smokers are lucky that the governments havent banned it completely

Smokers are lucky that it is taking so long to ban their disgusting habit completely, but it won't be long before something so addictive, dangerous, smelly and dirty and with no redeeming values will be completely against the law.

[burman]

I doubt tobacco will ever be against the law. And if it is, you'd better watch out because alcohol will follow.

[mrtoad]

As for Clayton Seymore stating smokers are lucky that the governments havent banned it completely

Smokers are lucky that it is taking so long to ban their disgusting habit completely, but it won't be long before something so addictive, dangerous, smelly and dirty and with no redeeming values will be completely against the law.

So McDonalds could be next on the list then.

[Ulysses G.]

McDonalds only harms people who eat there and only in excessive amounts. Tobacco stinks up large areas full of innocent non-users and very well might damage their health.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Ulysses G.

[ClaytonSeymour]

I doubt tobacco will ever be against the law. And if it is, you'd better watch out because alcohol will follow.

I'm not sure I agree with you on tobacco. I think we'll continue to see a decline in users & once the number is reduced to the extent that governments are no longer reaping huge amounts of revenue - I think a complete ban does become a possibility. A long way off? yes & in all probability not in our life times.

As for alcohol, I certainly think we'll see an increase in taxation, afterall, aside form health & social issues, they'll need to plug the gap from the decline in tobacco revenue.

[ClaytonSeymour]

McDonalds only harms people who eat there and only in excessive amounts. Tobacco stinks up large areas full of innocent non-users and very well might damage their health.

Many smokers seem mentally incapable of absorbing this.

[mrtoad]

You clearly believe in the Nanny state, whereas I prefer to make my own informed decisions rather than have them made for me.

[burman]

I doubt tobacco will ever be against the law. And if it is, you'd better watch out because alcohol will follow.

I'm not sure I agree with you on tobacco. I think we'll continue to see a decline in users & once the number is reduced to the extent that governments are no longer reaping huge amounts of revenue - I think a complete ban does become a possibility. A long way off? yes & in all probability not in our life times.

Yes agreed maybe in the distant future. For sure not in our lifetimes.

As for alcohol, I certainly think we'll see an increase in taxation, afterall, aside form health & social issues, they'll need to plug the gap from the decline in tobacco revenue.

There's plenty of money to be made in other drug sales now though. Look at all the happy happy prozac poppers. Perhaps an alternative drug to alcohol will come about one day?

But maybe more restrictions will come into place for alcohol usage, you may very well find in years to come that you are only allowed 3 pints and a shot of whiskey in an establishment. Or even no public drinking at all.

[ClaytonSeymour]

You clearly believe in the Nanny state, whereas I prefer to make my own informed decisions rather than have them made for me.

Fine, make your own ill informed decision to smoke, but don't subject others (willing or unwilling) to the fall out.

I've yet to see any reasonable argument from the pro-smoking lobby as to why the pre-smoking ban status quo should be maintained.

[ClaytonSeymour]

I doubt tobacco will ever be against the law. And if it is, you'd better watch out because alcohol will follow.

I'm not sure I agree with you on tobacco. I think we'll continue to see a decline in users & once the number is reduced to the extent that governments are no longer reaping huge amounts of revenue - I think a complete ban does become a possibility. A long way off? yes & in all probability not in our life times.

Yes agreed maybe in the distant future. For sure not in our lifetimes.

As for alcohol, I certainly think we'll see an increase in taxation, afterall, aside form health & social issues, they'll need to plug the gap from the decline in tobacco revenue.

There's plenty of money to be made in other drug sales now though. Look at all the happy happy prozac poppers. Perhaps an alternative drug to alcohol will come about one day?

But maybe more restrictions will come into place for alcohol usage, you may very well find in years to come that you are only allowed 3 pints and a shot of whiskey in an establishment. Or even no public drinking at all. In the UK a loose variant of this already exists, that is establishments are not supposed to serve anyone who is drunk. The problem imposing a set limit is that the drinker would just move to the next establishment and so on.

[Ulysses G.]

You clearly believe in the Nanny state, whereas I prefer to make my own informed decisions rather than have them made for me.

I used to feel sorry for smokers and think that we should phase it out it slowly, but then I started to see that young people continue to take up smoking even with all the knowledge we have now about how addictive it is and how poisonous it is for others. That doesn't even address how irritating it is for non-smokers.

I’m sorry, but, people that are <deleted> stupid enough to start smoking in this day and age need someone to nanny them!

[misterman21]

Man has smoked since the dawn of history. Some men chose not to - choice!

Alchohol causes more health problems to non participents than cigarettes by far. Just ask any battered wife or visit a casualty dept. on a weekend evening. So it should be banned - or not!!

Anyone over indulging (binge drinking) and destroying their liver in this day and age needs to be nannyed!!

Choice! Choice! Choice!

Signed: a freedom loving non smoker