UK - Next the anti-smoking guardianistas will be

[Scarletprayers]

I am a bit confused. What restaurants are not privately owned? Even the biggest restaurant chains are privately owned, they certainly are not owned by the government. So what you all are saying is that the government should only be able to ban smoking in their own buildings, courthouses, etc.? Any other place is invasion of privacy? If that were true then I would be able to own any restaurant, or store, and sell whatever I wanted to whomever I wanted, and allow them to do whatever they wished.

We do have laws that control certain things, which we all agree are good ones.

. . .can't grow and sell marijuana

. . .can't sell alcohol to minors

. . .can't sell cigarettes to minors

. . .pornography is covered or in a seperate room,

Why is there such an uproar about this one? And if so many people thought it was a bad law, how come it passed? If you didn't think it was a good idea and you didn't vote. . . you have no right to complain.

Bib, these laws are passed in the house at the state level, they didn't run this as part of their platform, at least not in my state, the Governor that passed this smoking ban, this is his last time in office, do you think he cares????? 64 cent tax added to each pack of smokes............all to go to "education" just like his bringing the lottery into Tennessee, and the money was supposed to go to education, but only for scholarships........while we rank among the lowest in the nation for school test scores. 95% of the scholarships that have gone out are lost because the student can't keep the grade point average to retain the scholarship, and all the while the money keeps building..................and guess what???? There's already rumbles of all the other things that "extra" money can do..............but NONE of them have anything to do with education. Do you really believe that politicians care what the people want???? Only during election time, after they are in, its all bets are off.

[Guest Biblicist]

cigarettes are legal for adults. marijuana is not. porn and alcohol are illegal for minors. your arguments fall flat.

yes, all restaurants are privately owned and operated, and yes, the government should quit interfering with an individual's right to sell what he wants to whomever he wants provided the substance being sold is not illegal for the person it is being sold to.

and if you really have to ask why the law here passed, or comment about whether or not i voted, perhaps you need to go back and read what i posted. both questions are answered very clearly.

Lady C, I was not directing the voting comment at you. It was a general statement, if you didn't vote you don't have the right to complain. If you did, call your congressman!

How come you had trouble understanding the law in the voting booth, I didn't and I hardly passed English. I didn't even realize that there was any confusion as to which way to vote.

Why is it wrong, illegal, to sell to minors, or grow and sell marajuana?

Because it's BAD for you. It's been proven that it causes brain damage after prolonged use.

Cigaretts are bad for you, why are they legal?

Alcohol is bad for you, why is it legal?

Abusing any substance will eventually cause you some harm, and damage.

But if I do it on my own property, for my own purposes, isn't it MY business. Where do you want the government to draw the line? What do you think they should make legal and not legal?

Your daughter wantes marijuana to be legal and smoking banned? She sounds confused.

I do agree that MORE Laws are not the answer, just enforcing the ones we already have is tough enough.

[Guest LadyC]

sorry for mistaking the voting comment. as to why i had trouble with it in the voting booth, the answer is the same as why almost every person interviewed in countless news segments prior to election day (and even ON election day) had trouble... a crappy advertising campaign, and just as crappy wording of the question on the ballot. i know that makes no sense to those who don't live here and didn't see it, but i'll try to explain. (forgive me for not breaking up the paragraph, my computer needs rebooting and it's acting stupid. my "enter button isn't working.).......................................................................

.................. ok, i'll have to use dots to separate. now, the questions on the ballot were worded in such a way that it left EVERYONE confused. both were for clean air acts and the protection of children. one was called the "clean indoor air act", the other was called the "protect nevadans from second hand smoke" act. both restricted smoking, but one was more restrictive than the other, and the summary on the ballot did NOT give a detailed description of which act covered what restrictions....................................................................

................... even those who were promoting the "protect nevadans from second hand smoke act" acknowledged after the fact that their advertising campaign only muddied the issue. they spent millions trying to get the point across that this act would protect people from second hand smoke, but did so by pointing out that it would prohibit smoking in many public places. sadly, all they were doing was immitating the 'clean indoor air act" campaign, only without giving ANY information about what set the two acts apart...........................................................................

.................... although man-on-the-street type interviews, local news polls, and other measures of gathering data prior to the election confirmed that the majority of citizens did NOT want smoking banned, it also indicated most citizens couldn't tell the difference between the two questions and weren't sure how to vote. this is why i wrote it on a scrap of paper and took it to the polls with me. unfortunately, most people didn't end up doing that, and the measure passed 54-46. (as it was set up, whichever question had a simple majority of votes would pass into law.)

[Guest LadyC]

oh, and to answer the other question...

But if I do it on my own property, for my own purposes, isn't it MY business. Where do you want the government to draw the line? What do you think they should make legal and not legal?

again, (WOW, my enter button worked this time!), the two issues can't be compared, because it's not just the smoking of pot that is illegal, it's the SALE of pot, the growing of pot, the distribution of pot, everything about pot that is illegal. you can't break the law by smoking it on your own property without also breaking other laws, and without OTHER people ALSO breaking laws to supply it.

the whole point is, cigarrettes are legal to sell, purchase, and smoke. it is discriminatory to tell business owners that they can't allow a legal activity to take place just because it offends another segment of the population.

[followerofjesus]

The taxes produced from alcohol and tobacco made are astronomical.

[buckthesystem]

Every medieval church in England must now be defaced by large No Smoking signs

People have to be told not to smoke in church?

No, that's not it Bib. The UK gov't, like all governments, is committed to being a "machine dedicated to justifying the existance of bureaucrats" and it takes enless money from the taxpayer to do so (imagine if the individual or a private company could legally use your money to make you do what was on their personal agenda). So these - would otherwise be idle - bureaucrats have created this industry to give them something to do and have convinced people that their "work" is essential. And have no respect for historic medieval churches and have absolutely no qualms about defacing them with silly "anti-smoking" signs.

[buckthesystem]

I don't think there's any doubt that smoking cigarettes will, one day soon, be completely illegal. We just have to sit through these idiotic incremental laws for a while until it's over for good.

The real question is: What's next?

Personally, I think it will be fatty foods or the gasoline engine.

On a side note- where's all the freedom-of-choicers that want smoking marijuana to be legalized? I'd have figured they would be in on the side of the cigarette smokers......

t.

"Regulating" fatty foods are definitely on (at least our) government's agenda. They have been threatening to take extra tax what they term "unsuitable" foods for years. About two weeks ago the PM announced (no debate of course) legislation to restrict what is sold in school "tuck shops". And people have been ringing talkback radio concerned about "teachers going through their kids' lunchboxes looking for 'unsuitable' food".

One weird thing that has come out of the anti-smoking in bars legislation is that before it came in if you saw someone or a group standing outside a bar smoking in the street, you could be sure that they were smoking marijuana. Now the tobacco smokers and the marijuana smokers are all grouped together and it isn't obvious who is smoking what.

However I will never cease to be totally amazed at the way people see this. I am amazed at peoples' belief that this REALLY IS about smoking/non smoking/second hand smoke. It is so not! It is all about control, control of the masses, and the thrill that bureaucrats get out of ordering people around and marching into a businessman's premises and telling him what he can and can't do in his own business, using the taxpayers' money to do so, and justifying their existance.

I am 100% certain that it won't stop here. When all these weird little people have got their way, and know that they can get away with pushing people around and ordering them what to do on their own property or in their own home, what will be "regulated" next?

I read that one of the catchprases in East Germany during the "Stasi" regime was "your neighbour is your worst enemy". That is relied on to "catch" errant smokers. There are people who are so obsequious to government demands, trust governments implicitly, and really believe that this is all about "smoking" that will "drop people in it" "at the drop of a hat". Governments have been really cunning here, bureaucrats don't have to do this themselves, there are plenty of ordinary people who are more than willing to "tattle tale" on their neighbours.

That is the saddest part about it. And it will be the same with "fatty foods" and what ever else replaces it.

[ladypeartree]

9 pages on the laws about smoking in enclosed public places ( or at least that is what it started as )

Now I wonder how many pages the suggested law in Bucks own home land will run to ...not read it yet ? Well it suggests that for the good of the people that less well educated women should be forcably made infertile unless thay apply for an antidote

[buckthesystem]

9 pages on the laws about smoking in enclosed public places ( or at least that is what it started as )

Now I wonder how many pages the suggested law in Bucks own home land will run to ...not read it yet ? Well it suggests that for the good of the people that less well educated women should be forcably made infertile unless thay apply for an antidote

LadyP, I'm shocked Are you suggesting that I should be made infertile?

(Well I suggested to my husband that we have another baby now as I reckoned that I have about 18 months tops left before the menopause, but he said an emphatic NO!)

Anyway, the article about this is in "general discussion". If you want though, I could try to find the "study" that was conducted.

[Guest Biblicist]

However I will never cease to be totally amazed at the way people see this. I am amazed at peoples' belief that this REALLY IS about smoking/non smoking/second hand smoke. It is so not! It is all about control, control of the masses, and the thrill that bureaucrats get out of ordering people around and marching into a businessman's premises and telling him what he can and can't do in his own business, using the taxpayers' money to do so, and justifying their existance.

I am 100% certain that it won't stop here. When all these weird little people have got their way, and know that they can get away with pushing people around and ordering them what to do on their own property or in their own home, what will be "regulated" next?

You really believe that? You don't in any way believe that it may be the "weird little people" bowing to the wishes of The People. I wonder how many of the people the public office do smoke and have been adversely effected by the enforcement of this law? That would be interesting to note. I think it would be interesteing to know how many of them voted against the law.

How can they possibly control us when we have the power in our vote? Which would be the reason our government was set up the way it was, to avoid the absolute power of one man/woman.

I still believe this nation's government is still "of the people, by the people, for the people."