Comments on Colcam: No Smoking - Jack's Found An Easy Way To Justify H...

Thanks Jez. Hope the piece ever actually gets publ...

2006-03-28T12:44:00.000+01:00

Thanks Jez. Hope the piece ever actually gets published - it's one thing battering out any old crap in this blog, another thing entirely doing 2,000/3,000 words with high quality images for a publication that pays.

And I'm very, very rusty on the words bit!

KATS!!!So glad to hear from you.

2006-03-28T12:38:00.000+01:00

KATS!!!

So glad to hear from you.

Just a minute while I light up and think about it!...

2006-03-28T12:34:00.000+01:00

Just a minute while I light up and think about it!

Apologies accepted, and no problem!No doubt there ...

2006-03-28T08:21:00.000+01:00

Apologies accepted, and no problem!
No doubt there are draconian, possibly NewLabour-ishly dictatorial elements to the new law, but in itself, I can only agree with it. Once again, I fear it is a problem of being forced into a situation where we have to be either for or against it. So, I can only be for it, as I see non-smokers' rights as more important than smokers' rights (on the subject of smoking, of course).
Looking forward to your piece..

Mushsis, thanks for commenting, and good luck with...

2006-03-28T02:12:00.000+01:00

Mushsis, thanks for commenting, and good luck with quitting.

As I, too, am in the middle of earning a crust, I am commenting no further at present. As I have explained to Jez (above) I am in an awkward situation at present with this, and probably shouldn't have mentioned the subject at all at this time

Apologies Jez, I didn't intend to twist your words...

2006-03-28T02:02:00.000+01:00

Apologies Jez, I didn't intend to twist your words, I assure you.

I would be most interested to hear about a smoking club being set up. My understanding is that that would most certainly be illegal, as the legislation covers all private clubs, with no exceptions.

I'm afraid I cannot argue further on this at present - I did say earlier that I was in danger of being in conflict with another piece I am working on, and I have already come too close to stepping over a line that could cause me some considerable loss.

So for the next month or so... I can comment no further.

Sorry.

I think as long as you accept smoking is bad for y...

2006-03-28T00:17:00.000+01:00

I think as long as you accept smoking is bad for your health, then it's fairly obvious passive smoking is going to have a detrimental effect too. That's logic.
Now, please do not twist my words. I did not say 'enforce', but 'defend'. You believe the government is being dictatorial, I believe the state is upholding the right to all to enjoy life in public spaces while protecting their health. I have heard that there has already been one smoking club set up for smokers. That's fine, but a pub is a place open to all, and those who most need defending are those who do not wish their health to suffer. Also, there are those who work in pubs.
I already said I do not condone spying and informing. That is not an argument against a smoking ban, I'm afraid.

hmmm. I don't agree colcam. sorry if I'm sounding ...

2006-03-27T21:09:00.000+01:00

hmmm. I don't agree colcam.

sorry if I'm sounding like a health fascist, but the risks of passive smoking have actually been fairly well researched, and the body of evidence is growing. an overview of the evidence can be found here

there was one fairly recent article in the BMJ that stated that the risks were not as great as previously thought, however this has been largely criticised as it was funded by tobacco companies with conflicting interests, and the data was too old to be accurately interpreted.

another small but significant and important study (BMJ 5 april 2004) done in helena in montana (a geographically isolated town, that introduced a smoking ban) showed a significant reduction in admissions from heart attack in the 6 months of the study. this has important implications for Scotland, where heart disease is the biggest killer (and expenditure in the nhs)

yes, people have the right to smoke, but don't non-smokers have the right not to breathe other people's smoke too? what about people who work in clubs and pubs - should they be forced to put their own health at risk so they can earn a crust?

yep, I'll stop now. definitely sounding like a health fascist, but in my defence, it's my job :)

Jez, I don't agree. It's nannying, and it's anothe...

2006-03-27T12:47:00.000+01:00

Jez, I don't agree. It's nannying, and it's another tiny step towards state control, and citizens are being encouraged to police the law by informing, as the real PC Plod refuses to get involved.

It doesn't affect me much, although I smoke, and while I agree with many aspects of the ban, I object to the draconian nature of it, and the stupidity of much of it.

And the dangers of passive smoking are highly debatable and more about spin than serious research findings.

It would have been relatively easy to strike a balance that would have allowed those who wish a "risk free" life (as you suggest we are all entitled to and is governments role to enforce) to not have to suffer the smell and possible effects of smoke, and allow the minority who wish to smoke do so, at least within pubs and private clubs who choose to allow it and who don't serve food.

This is more to do with political correctness and political convenience than rights, and certainly shows scant regard for minority rights.

That said, I would not encourage informants. howev...

2006-03-27T11:17:00.000+01:00

That said, I would not encourage informants. however, I utterly and completely disagree that this is a case of the nanny state. The state is there to uphold the rights of everyone to live safely. If someone wants to harm themself, then they should have the right to do so, but not if they harm another person in the process.

I have to disagree. Ok, no doubt Jack's motivation...

2006-03-27T11:13:00.000+01:00

I have to disagree. Ok, no doubt Jack's motivations are not among the best. However, to me banning smoking in public spaces is simply logical. It is about defending the rights of those who don't wish to smoke as well as those who, like me enjoy smoking, but don't wish to do so in an enclosed space. I just don't understand this talk of non-smokers as having feelings of superiority. Why should they have to tolerate smoke? It's the same as with polluting cars. Some woman interviewed by the BBC said people should have the right to waste their money on such cars. That simply ignores the fact that the rest of us also suffer from pollution, both directly through our respiratory systems as well as indirectly through the effects on the planet. So no, polluters don't have the right to make others suffer!

Thanks Byronb.The feckin' Taliban would do a bette...

2006-03-26T23:22:00.000+01:00

Thanks Byronb.

The feckin' Taliban would do a better job here than Jack the Political Pygmy.

Gordon Brown has more sense than to involve himself with this bunch.

Our parliament, I should say, is a good thing and I'm all for devolution.

We just need some real politicians of all persuasions in the place, rather than the set of jumped up local councilors we are unfortunate to have at the moment.

You can have Gordon back if you want?

2006-03-26T20:09:00.000+01:00

You can have Gordon back if you want?