Thursday, 28 June 2007

The Smoking Ban in England, A few Questions

The smoking ban in England commences on the 1st July. The intention of the ban is to stop all smoking in enclosed public spaces to prevent the risks of passive smoking. With that in mind, I would like to ask a few questions:

1) Most companies employing smokers have had a smoking room fitted out with air filtration and ventilation to the open air. Non-smokers did not enter those rooms and therefore were not breathing in second hand smoke. Where was the passive smoking risk?

2) Air ports spent thousands of pounds building smoking booths that were totally enclosed and surrounded with filtration units. Again non-smokers did not enter those booths. Where was the passive smoking risk?

3) Now smokers must stand outside their places of work (even though there are perfectly safe rooms inside). Why are the shelters that can be erected for smokers, regulated to make them open to the environment (no front or sides) when non-smokers will not enter them? Where is the passive smoking risk?

4) Why can we not smoke in our homes if a council worker visits? (you MUST not smoke up to 30 minutes before they arrive) surely your home is not a public space?

5) If this is all about preventing passive smoking, why are anti-smoking campaigners trying to get smoking banned outside public buildings, when there is not a risk to non-smokers?

6) Why are privately own pubs, restaurants and private members clubs classed as public spaces? Absolutely no one is forced into them, nor do they need to enter them to gain access to a necessary public service. The people who work in these areas do so out of free will, I work in a dangerous environment and I do so out of free will.

7) In the last election the government promised to ban smoking only in those places that sell food. They have gone back on that promise, just like their promise to hold a referendum on the EU Treaty. They have lied to us and then they have rode roughshod over our civil liberties. The BMA have started to make noises about alcohol consumption, is that next for a ban?

8) How do you feel about your civil liberties? how free do you feel now? how free do you think you will feel in ten years time when you are constantly monitored by CCTV, your car and even your rubbish bin is chipped and you carry an ID Card with ALL your details on it?

How free will you feel?
Please click here to subscribe to my feed


Henry North London said...

Civil Liberties?

There are hardly any anymore You cant even strike for better conditions unless the government? employer has offered something and you dont like it

Its enough to make you leave but the thing is the US and AUS and NZ are virtually police states in anycase

My tip is Scandinavia it has enough space for all of us...

Anonymous said...

Good questions indeed. They reveal themselves as frauds.There's not a damn thing you can do about
it because the politicians are all powerful and the common man is quite content with a police state.

Anonymous said...

On no account should a total smoking ban be allowed ! That is pure fascism, those who are trying to enforce it are pure fascists, and as such are dangerous and should be fought tooth and nail as any dangerous fascist should.

The solution to the smoking/non-smoking problem is to have separate areas. That works perfectly well and there is no valid reason to change it. There is a lot of medical propaganda about smoking that is unproven or false, notably on the subject of passive smoking.

It is pure humbug. The rights of smokers are just as important as those of non-smokers and let no-one say otherwise. Hitler singled out the Jews in the 1930’s just like people are singling out smokers now. It is very very dangerous and these people must not be allowed to get away with this, if only because it is an open door to other things ………alcohol, fatty foods, car exhaust fumes etc etc. Rail Travel is dangerous, air travel, cars on the road.

You could argue that anything is dangerous and that it should be banned. The argument just doesn’t make sense. I have not one iota of doubt in my mind that these would-be banners are wrong and they must be stopped.

The other thing, the most hypocritical thing of all, is that if cigarettes were really as dangerous as they would have us believe, then their sale would be banned, wouldn’t it ? Ah yes, but there is too much money involved. Cannabis, which is not dangerous at all, is banned ? Why? No-one knows, but it does containes less dangerous products than tobacco.

All this goes to prove that the government are a load of hyprocrites and should in no case be listened to. It’s time the public stood up to these people who really take them for a bunch of idiots.

revinkevin said...

But you can smoke in the Houses of Parliament, and prisoners can smoke in Prison.

So this government do not give a fig about their own employees i.e workers in the houses of Parliament and Prison Officers

luap said...

From a nanny state to a police state in one fell swoop. Is there any wonder that people want out of this country as fast as possible?
I have no faith whatsoever in any of the so-called big three parties. A change is long overdue.

Anonymous said...

Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) causes disease in non-smokers. Workplace bans on smoking are interventions to reduce exposure to ETS to try to prevent harmful health effects. The Irish Government on the 29th March 2004 introduced the first national comprehensive legislation banning smoking in all workplaces including bars and restaurants.