UK Smoking Ban Rebellion?

[MilitantAnarchist]

Right, ive said this to a million people and they all agree, so why dont we do somthing about it? It is a small thing, and just goes to show that the British people are soft as shite and will submiss to anything the law says. Well bollocks to submiss, i say subvert!
In 2006, when the smoking ban came in, all the smokers just agreed. Fair enough, there was a few pubs who carried it on and fair play to them, but why didnt every pub across the land say NO. And every smoker continued to smoke inside. What could they do, if EVERYONE carried on? They would change the law. And if they didnt, youve got them by the balls, because the amound of money made on fags ins UNREAL! its like 3 quarters tax (hence why i buy from black market), but if everyone stoped buyin kosher fags (no stocking up either) for JUST ONE DAY they would be on there knees, and would comply.
A little bit of unity goes a long way.... But people are scared of the law, which aint right. And although we still have lock ins to smoke in, you live in fear of getting caught... Whos life is it anyway?

Agreements? Disagreements?
Discuss...

[ls]

The smoking ban is a piece of shit. It should be killed straightaway (I don't smoke btw).

[MilitantAnarchist]

Exactly, its discusting, its a removal of freedom... Dont get me wrong, i dont think smoking is good, we cough n they profit, but it is a choice... They didnt even give pubs a choice to be 'smoking' or 'non smoking' which would of been practical... but that gives people 'choice' and they smother that at any chance.
If we all stood together on this, it would just be the start cos everyone would realise that standing together works...

[ls]

All true. Something probably should be done about it on that scale. Maybe a small movement could quickly develop into a bigger one.

[Pogue]

How would you respond to the argument that non-smokers should have the freedom not to have to breathe in second hand smoke, which I believe has been proven to be harmful to people's health?

The reason why the BMA were so staunch on urging the government to ban this is the fact second hand smoke is detrimental to other people's health, or at least, thats what they said. How would you guys respond to this?

[MilitantAnarchist]

How would you respond to the argument that non-smokers should have the freedom not to have to breathe in second hand smoke, which I believe has been proven to be harmful to people's health?

The reason why the BMA were so staunch on urging the government to ban this is the fact second hand smoke is detrimental to other people's health, or at least, thats what they said. How would you guys respond to this?

I would agree with you to a certain extent. Why should you breath my smoke when you shouldnt have to? Hence my argument pubs should have the right to be 'smoking' or 'non smoking', or provide smoke rooms as apposed to an outright ban, which is infringing on my rights.
Before the ban, i had courtesy not to smoke around people who didnt want it, as most people do (or atleast did). You dont need laws to tell you how to behave. Its not done for your health its done to flex political muscles and prove that when they say jump, we all say 'how high'.

[Kassad]

In Ohio, there were smoking and non-smoking sections of nearly every single dining establishment or building. This gives those who don't want to be around smoke to... not be around smoke. One problem that was a major problem in Ohio was that smoking was only banned in Columbus and other cities at first, but not a lot of the outlying districts had a ban in effect. People were literally leaving their usual dining establishments, bars and places to go to other places where they could smoke. This literally killed businesses in Columbus. A lot of places closed down because of it and I know this is happening in other places.

There's no reason we can't have smoking and non-smoking sections in businesses and other assorted places. If I feel like commiting classy suicide, I'll do it. If you fear second-hand smoke, go sit in the other sections. Fucking magic.

[Pogue]

Yeh there was alot of political muscle flexing but I think, the nature of the BMA putting the emphasis for it to happen shows a health concern too, which was there. Basically, the healthcare experts pressurised the government for the ban and produced evidence as to why it should be banned and the government accepted it. I'd be itnerested to know how you'd deal with that.

[Rusty Shackleford]

to an extent, i agree that smoking should be banned in buildings that are geared towards children or if they are hospitals, but if they serve alcohol, then let the smokers fucking smoke.

plus, the whole second hand smoke issue is a decent argument BUT what about say.... Second hand smog? i live in california, but lukily out of the major smog zones. in So-cal and other regions here theres a haze that can kill you. form what? automobiles. and is anyone banning them out right on public health issues? no. *there are emission standards but this is getting beyond the point*

i know im not in the UK but this argument is universal, let people smoke in places wherer they can drink, and if you MUST, then put a smoke free zone in the building.

[black magick hustla]

this is a dumb thread, i am a smoker too but this is so dumb. smoking ban is so trivial

[Os Cangaceiros]

How would you respond to the argument that non-smokers should have the freedom not to have to breathe in second hand smoke, which I believe has been proven to be harmful to people's health?

The reason why the BMA were so staunch on urging the government to ban this is the fact second hand smoke is detrimental to other people's health, or at least, thats what they said. How would you guys respond to this?

If you don't want to breathe secondhand smoke, what would prevent you from simply not patronizing smoking establishments?

[MilitantAnarchist]

Places should be able to chose if they are smoking or non smoking. I would go with that. It is unfair to stop me from smoking.



this is a dumb thread, i am a smoker too but this is so dumb. smoking ban is so trivial

Trivial! what is up with you? Its the principle and also its the what do you agree to next?

[Pogue]

If you don't want to breathe secondhand smoke, what would prevent you from simply not patronizing smoking establishments?

Well I guess you'd have to work out whats more fair, some people having to have their health damage and breathe in something which, lets face it, smells and tastes foul, making going the 'smoking' pubs and resteraunts and unpleasant and unhealthy experience, or having to make people smoke outside of the resteraunt or pub. Personally I think its fairer to just expect people to take something which stinks out a room and damages the health of those people who breathe it in outside.

[Os Cangaceiros]

My point is simply that if you don't want to expose yourself to secondhand smoke, then the clear solution (to me, anyway) would be not to go to bars/diners/restaurants/etc. where this might occur. Most establishments where I live have both smoking and non-smoking sections, and there are many places that simply don't allow smoking entirely, without an across-the-board ban.

[The Idler]

How much does it infringe your freedom to just step outside for a smoke? Enclosed areas wouldn't allow any other poisonous noxious gas to be released (like the sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway) so why allow tobacco smoke?

[Sam_b]

Its one of my pet hates when people go on about the ban as removing their 'freedoms' or whatever. And I say this as a seriously heavy smoker.
You can have all these ideas about 'smoking' and 'non smoking' pubs and clubs if you like, so you yourself get some sort of freedom to choose, but in the current economic crisis where is that freedom to choose for a young worker getting minimum wage pulling pints for ten or twelve hour shifts?

When there are scarcely any jobs going around then there is no choice or comforts in decision for low paid workers.

[freakazoid]

If you think smoking should be banned then you should ban automobiles. And contrary to popular belief, second hand smoke is not harmful.

[MikeSC]

If you think smoking should be banned then you should ban automobiles. And contrary to popular belief, second hand smoke is not harmful.

Really?!? Has someone informed the doctors and scientists that think it does?

I'm for the smoking ban. Smoking in enclosed public spaces is the imposition, not the prevention of it. Leave this cause to the Mail and the Sun and the Telegraph and the Jeremy Clarksons, it's not socialist in nature at all.

[freakazoid]

Sorry I couldn't get more info, but I'm on a limited time right now. But for now, http://knol.google.com/k/dave-hitt/second-hand-smoke/3e57mbkdb8gxm/2#
http://www.freedom-of-choice.com/AS3.htm

[which doctor]

There's this area on my campus where they put up a whole bunch of no-smoking signs. There's like 30 of them in an approximately 50m x 50m area, they're impossible to miss. It used to be a popular smoking spot, and the ironic thing is, it's still a popular smoking spot. They took away the ash cans but people continue to light up anyways. It's not like there's anyone to really enforce the rule though. I always laugh a little to myself whenever I see someone leaning up against one of the no-smoking signs, smoking nonchalantly.

[John The Outlaw]

To hell with the smoking ban. Where I live I think you've got to be 30 feet away from a business. I smoke right outside the door. My uncle from Florida said that where he lives if your neighbor doesn't like the fact that you're smoking, they can put an end to it by *****ing to officials. :(

[khad]

This thread is fucking ridiculous. For this idiotic thread from an outed fake leftist I will fully support any smoking ban.

[Absolut]

Im surprised noones brought up the workers right to a smoke-free workplace. For me, thats the most important aspect of the whole issue. If the workers dont want to work in a smokey workplace, thats final. If they dont mind working in a workplace that allows smoking indoors, I dont see why you shouldnt be able to smoke. I think the whole "right to smoke" is total bullshit, at least when compared to the right to a safe workplace. Its not really that hard to get up and walk outside to smoke, or even 30 feet.

[Killfacer]

Okay go for this but if you start smoking in my face i'm gonna punch you in the head. Having said that i do smoke occasionally, only around other smokers though.

[Kassad]

Okay go for this but if you start smoking in my face i'm gonna punch you in the head. Having said that i do smoke occasionally, only around other smokers though.

Because that's the solution to all life's problems for rational adults. 'Look at me flex my nuts.'

[Killfacer]

Because that's the solution to all life's problems for rational adults. 'Look at me flex my nuts.'

I don't really care to be honest.

[Hoggy_RS]

the smoking ban is one of things the govt in ireland has actually done right. No longer do i end up with my throat wrecked from just entering a pub. That said, all the banter is usually out in the smoking room.:lol:

[The Idler]

Im surprised noones brought up the workers right to a smoke-free workplace. For me, thats the most important aspect of the whole issue. If the workers dont want to work in a smokey workplace, thats final. If they dont mind working in a workplace that allows smoking indoors, I dont see why you shouldnt be able to smoke. I think the whole "right to smoke" is total bullshit, at least when compared to the right to a safe workplace. Its not really that hard to get up and walk outside to smoke, or even 30 feet.The idea that workers can choose where to work is almost like the idea that workers can choose to earn more money if only they work harder, or choose a workplace with health insurance.

[Absolut]

The idea that workers can choose where to work is almost like the idea that workers can choose to earn more money if only they work harder, or choose a workplace with health insurance.

Yes, obviously, whats your point?

What I meant was that people (especially socialists) have a faulty perspective if the look at the problem as a right of the costumer to smoke, and not as a right of the worker to a safe workplace. I know that workers often dont have any say in whats going on on the workplace, but that doesnt mean that we shouldnt have a healthy perspective on the matter.

[Ultra_Cheese]

Sorry I couldn't get more info, but I'm on a limited time right now. But for now,
"This Freedom-of-Choice website is dedicated to the truthful and factual analysis of how our rights and freedoms are being taken away by various groups such as the anti-smokers, the ACLU, secularists, and others. Let's work together in getting the truth out and save the freedoms that have made the United States great."
Sounds like a reputable source to me. Some of the sources they cite are over fifteen years old. They also have a section called "Taking Away Our Freedoms & Property Rights."

[Il Medico]

If people want to smoke in private, let them. But if they are smoking at work and their fellow workers are bothered by it, then they should not be allowed.

[MilitantAnarchist]

Whos an outed fake leftist?
Im not fucking right wing, and i wouldnt call myself a lefty either. I've never really claim to be, we just share more views and oppinions then with others.
And i think that is pretty messed up you calling me that... get your facts straight before you make accusations.

[ls]

Because that's the solution to all life's problems for rational adults. 'Look at me flex my nuts.'

Flexing one's nuts solves arbitrary problems, it could even fix this smoking ban, I shall do it three times in a row in five or so minutes just to be sure I have done my duty as a comrade of my nuts.

[freakazoid]

Sounds like a reputable source to me. Some of the sources they cite are over fifteen years old. They also have a section called "Taking Away Our Freedoms & Property Rights."

HOLY SHIT!!!!!1111 3 out of 13 stated references are over 15 years old!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


:laugh::laugh::laugh: Nice rebuttal.


What I meant was that people (especially socialists) have a faulty perspective if the look at the problem as a right of the costumer to smoke, and not as a right of the worker to a safe workplace. I know that workers often dont have any say in whats going on on the workplace, but that doesnt mean that we shouldnt have a healthy perspective on the matter.

In that case all vehicles should be banned, something that actually does put out dangerous fumes in the air.

[Vanguard1917]

Let's make no mistake about what we're dealing with here: the smoking ban means that a policeman now has the power to come into a pub and arrest a working man or woman for doing nothing other than smoking a cigarette. People on the left used to oppose greater policing of the lives of workers. Not anymore; they can now be found at the forefront of campaigns for greater police powers over the everyday lives of the working class.

The idea that the smoking ban is justified because cigarette smoke negatively affects bar workers is idiotic on a number of levels. Firstly, there are a number of things inherent to pubs, bars and night clubs which negatively affect the staff within them. It is arguable, for instance, that dealing with drunk people and their mess -- cleaning puke off toilet seats and out of sinks, dealing with drunk and aggressive customers, having to intervene in drunken fights, mopping up after those who can barely stand let alone hold a glass filled to the brim, etc. -- is equally if not far more annoying for bar workers than exposure to a bit of cigarette smoke. Should we therefore call for alcohol bans as well? Should working class people be arrested for drinking alcohol in a pub? Why not?

Secondly, the 'problem' of indoor smoke is not unsolvable. The installation of better ventilation systems, for example, is something that can significantly affect it. The fact that the state was not at all interested in such alternatives indicates that the ban was much more than about supposed attempts at making life easier for people who work in bars.

Thirdly, therefore, the smoking ban was not about protecting workers but about increasing state intervention into their lives. Something as trivial as having a ciggie with a beer in a pub was criminalised by a government trying to increase state powers over even the most trivial aspects of public life. It was about granting the police greater powers to scrutinise what people do in their daily lives, and about enforcing moral codes of public behaviour.

The smoking ban is an example of the state interfering in our lives in ways that would in previous decades have been commonly thought unthinkable. We need to take a stand against this trend, not welcome it.

[Absolut]

In that case all vehicles should be banned, something that actually does put out dangerous fumes in the air.

Indeed they do, and so do cigarettes, at least out on the streets. I mean, when was the last time someone brought their car in to the pub and claimed that it was their fucking right to idle the car next to the table, and that the goddamn government should just stay out of it.

Also, I would very much like to see less cars and a free and functioning public transportations, for a variety of reasons, amongst others, I would like to limit the amount of dangerous fumes in the air.

[Ultra_Cheese]

HOLY SHIT!!!!!1111 3 out of 13 stated references are over 15 years old!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


:laugh::laugh::laugh: Nice rebuttal.
The references about secondhand smoke in particular are old.
The first one (2. on the reference list) is from 1999 and is not a study but an essay about the subject. That source's two sources about secondhand smoke are thirteen years old. They are both irrelevant because they only criticize old studies.
The next source (3. on the reference list) cites World Health Organization data and specifically their study about passive smoking. The study I believe they're referring to actually did find a connection; however, there were attempts by British American Tobacco to discredit it.
The last one about the effects of secondhand smoke (6. on the reference list) is over 15 years old, and it is the one I was mostly referring to when I made the comment.
Disregarding all of this, you still can't deny that the creators of that website are delusional with all of that garbage about property rights being threatened and secularists and the ACLU trying to take away their freedom.

[pastradamus]

Smoking is not a concept unique to the/or restricted to the working class. So this thread is foolish.

[The Idler]

Let's make no mistake about what we're dealing with here: the smoking ban means that a policeman now has the power to come into a pub and arrest a working man or woman for doing nothing other than smoking a cigarette. People on the left used to oppose greater policing of the lives of workers. Not anymore; they can now be found at the forefront of campaigns for greater police powers over the everyday lives of the working class.As I understand it smokers (regardless of class) aren't being arrested, instead licensee's lose their license to serve alcohol and doormen will ask smokers (regardless of class) to step outside to smoke. In fact drunks, vomiters and fighters would also be told to get out too - so this "state intervention" against activities deleterious to bar staff is not even specific to smokers let alone "the working class".

[Vanguard1917]

As I understand it smokers (regardless of class) aren't being arrested

Man arrested after refusing to put out his cigarette in pub

Last updated at 11:58 05 July 2007



Comments (28) (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-466368/Man-arrested-refusing-cigarette-pub.html#comments)
Add to My Stories (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-466368/Man-arrested-refusing-cigarette-pub.html)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/07_01/martinwhiskerRP_228x319.jpg Martin Whisker was arrested for refusing to stub out his cigarette after lighting up in a pub

A man drinking in a bar was arrested after refusing to stub out his cigarette, police have said.
Martin Whisker, 42, is believed to be one of the first people in the country to land himself in trouble after flouting the new ban on smoking in public places.
Officers were called to Riskers bar in Scarborough on Monday evening after Whisker refused to leave, North Yorkshire Police said.
He said he was protesting against the ban but police escorted him out, arrested him and handed him an £80 fixed penalty fine for being drunk and disorderly.
Whisker, a painter and decorator, said he was locked in a police cell until 6am the following day. He told the Scarborough Evening News: "I made my protest to make a point.
"I can see the point of banning smoking where food is being served but there is no need to stop people smoking altogether."
The ban came into force at 6am on Sunday.
Owners and managers of pubs, clubs and cafes are legally bound to enforce the ban and face fines of up to £2,500 if they fail to do so.
Bar owner Barry Risker, 62, said Whisker was lighting up cigarette after cigarette.
He said: "A police officer ended up taking a cigarette out of his mouth and stamping it on the floor."
But he added that he had some sympathy for Whisker's position and described the ban as "crazy".
"At least he had the guts to do something about it."
Regulars at the bar reportedly had a whip-round to contribute to the fine, leaving donations in an ashtray.
Anyone caught smoking illegally can be given a fixed penalty notice of £50 - reduced to £30 if paid within 15 days - or fined up to £200 if they are prosecuted and convicted by a court.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-466368/Man-arrested-refusing-cigarette-pub.html



this "state intervention" against activities deleterious to bar staff is not even specific to smokers let alone "the working class".


Since the majority of people in pubs, bars and nightclubs across the country are members of the working class, the law is targetted at the working pupulation.

[BOZG]

If you don't want to breathe secondhand smoke, what would prevent you from simply not patronizing smoking establishments?

So when I go out with some mates, I'll go visit the smokers pub and they can go visit the non-smoking pub? The reality is that smoking imposes on non-smokers, not the other way around. From experience, the most frequent complaint that I hear from smokers going outside is complaining about the weather. Besides that, smoking outside is far more socialable and forces you to talk to people that you wouldn't if you were sitting at a table all night. As HoggyRS said, all the craic is in the smoking area these days anyway.

[Vanguard1917]

Besides that, smoking outside is far more socialable and forces you to talk to people that you wouldn't if you were sitting at a table all night. As HoggyRS said, all the craic is in the smoking area these days anyway.

So let's not criticise increased policing of our lives?

[Killfacer]

So let's not criticise increased policing of our lives?

Our lives? You mean you can't smoke in my face and you're passing it off as some evil state oppression.

[BOZG]

So let's not criticise increased policing of our lives?

I'm not saying that. But this idea that having to go outside for 2 minutes is destroying lives is ridiculous.


You're free to continue to oppose progressive health & safety legislations that's supported by trade unions though, just because you don't want the man kicking you out into the cold for 2 minutes.

[Vanguard1917]

Our lives? You mean you can't smoke in my face and you're passing it off as some evil state oppression.

It's a case of giving the police greater powers to scrutinise and harrass the public, and increasing state intrusion into working class life generally.

And, no, i don't smoke cigarrettes, btw.



I'm not saying that.


Yes, you are. Further, you're welcoming increased police presence in our lives by calling it 'progressive health & safety legislation'.

[BOZG]

Yes, you are. Further, you're welcoming increased police presence in our lives by calling it 'progressive health & safety legislation'.

No, I'm saying that it's not all doom and gloom and you're life won't be fucking ruined by having to go outside. You could argue the same logic about any health & safety legislation for fucks sake. The reality is that smoking bans are supported by workers, by the trade union and by the vast majority of working class people, because it benefits their health and they have a right to support it.

Using your logic, you should support the right of drunks to remain obnoxious and aggressive and oppose the right of bar staff to refuse to serve someone because it also provides the state with increased police presence.

[Vanguard1917]

The reality is that smoking bans are supported by workers, by the trade union and by the vast majority of working class people

Even if that was true, that doesn't mean that socialists should be welcoming it. A lot of workers support more police on the beat; socialists, on the other hand, strongly oppose increased police presence in society.

[Pogue]

There's a difference between supporting police presence and believing we have a right not to have our health damaged by someone else's desire for a ciggarette.

[Vanguard1917]

There's a difference between supporting police presence and believing we have a right not to have our health damaged by someone else's desire for a ciggarette.

The fact that increased policing of working class life was justified using the justification of 'health protection' shows that 'health' has become the new means through which the enforcement of state intrusion is now legitimated, since the old means through which the state used to enforce moral codes -- significantly, religion -- have been undermined. All kinds of bourgeois state intervention into our lives -- what we drink, eat and smoke, how we generally live, how we raise our children, and even our sex lives -- are now justified along the lines of this new moralism.

[Patchd]

Fuck the smoking ban, but on other grounds. I'm a smoker, trying to quit admittedly, but when I was a smoker I felt the same way, and I quite liked being in a bar without having to smell cigarette smoke, and it was especially better since I worked behind the bar too.

But whether I'm a smoker or not is not the point, what should be going on is local communities, or regulars should decide how that pub is to be run on a collective basis, including the workers there, you know, and decide on things such as whether they should allow smoking in the pub, and if not, what could they do to make it more comfortable and appealing to the smoking community.

This government initiative is another example of bourgeois shit, trying to seem like they are actually a viable "nanny" for the working class. Frankly, a lot of smokers, when they became affected by this law were probably further antagonised by the fact that the government was trying to impose this on them. The government being a bunch of people, sitting in an old building far away in London making decisions for us. Opposition to the smoking ban, not because I can't smoke in pubs, but because it is another bourgeois initiative that unnecessarily splits the working class into two camps on an issue.

With community running, more people would be happy with outcomes from decision making. Local social pressure can be much more of an influence than a state imposed pressure, with more people feeling pleased. I have heard that proper ventilation can be installed which can draw the smell out, otherwise, why can they at least not provide decent smoking facilities for smokers, the smell coming from the smoking room (if there was one) to the pub will be as much as the smell from smokers standing outside coming in as long as there is decent ventilation in the smoking room.

Profit has a part to play in this no doubt, and again it boils down to Capitalism. Why would pub landlords, or chain companies begin introducing all these initiatives when it would not be in their interests to do so?

[pastradamus]

The fact that increased policing of working class life was justified using the justification of 'health protection' shows that 'health' has become the new means through which the enforcement of state intrusion is now legitimated, since the old means through which the state used to enforce moral codes -- significantly, religion -- have been undermined. All kinds of bourgeois state intervention into our lives -- what we drink, eat and smoke, how we generally live, how we raise our children, and even our sex lives -- are now justified along the lines of this new moralism.

Im a smoker. I was extremely against the Idea of a Smoking ban from the offset. Though now im in favour of it.

I used to smoke 2 cigs per pint before. Now I have one Cigarette for every two pints. It saves me money, Benefits my health slightly and I meet and make friendly chat with people in the smoking room. I even know non-smokers who come out to smoking rooms in pubs and clubs simply for the different atmosphere and chat. So in saying all that, I dont think this is big brother telling us what to do for no simple reason but rather is a health and safety benefit.

[BOZG]

The fact that increased policing of working class life was justified using the justification of 'health protection' shows that 'health' has become the new means through which the enforcement of state intrusion is now legitimated, since the old means through which the state used to enforce moral codes -- significantly, religion -- have been undermined. All kinds of bourgeois state intervention into our lives -- what we drink, eat and smoke, how we generally live, how we raise our children, and even our sex lives -- are now justified along the lines of this new moralism.

As I've already said, huge swathes of health & safety legislation create the conditions that allow greater police interference, whether it's in bars or hospitals or whatever. Are you suggesting that we should oppose this legislation? That we should oppose the right of nurses, doctors, bar staff to work in a safe environment? Because that's the logic you're using.

Even general workplace health & safety legislation can regularly be used by companies to sack workers. Are you suggesting that we propose the removal of this type of legislation that workers have fought to have introduced for decades?

What's particularly interesting in this thread is that every single person opposing the ban has only mentioned bars? The smoking ban also applies to general workplaces. Are you proposing that offices should be a smoking environment, that trucks, warehouses, engine rooms, production areas should also be smoking environments?

[Devrim]

What's particularly interesting in this thread is that every single person opposing the ban has only mentioned bars? The smoking ban also applies to general workplaces. Are you proposing that offices should be a smoking environment, that trucks, warehouses, engine rooms, production areas should also be smoking environments?

It is no surprise really. The pro-smoking lobby such as groups like FOREST, which is a mere front for the tobacco companies, are pushing the argument about smoking in bars.

The group which VG1917 supports grouped around 'Spiked' is involved in supporting FOREST. Indeed FOREST's slogan "Nanny state? No thanks" is echoed in VG1917's arguments.

I don't think that it is at all interesting that a group that is sponsored by various big companies, and has a track record of backing freedom for big business should be arguing the same line as the tobacco companies.

What is surprising is that people mistake them for socialists.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

To hell with the smoking ban.

Go fuck yourself. If you smoke in a pub not only are you harming yourself, and the others who have volunteered to visit the pub, but the workers who have to work there.

Workers should not have to work in environments that can kill them. And people like you should phone the NHS, quit smoking and become a better person.

[Forward Union]

But whether I'm a smoker or not is not the point, what should be going on is local communities, or regulars should decide how that pub is to be run on a collective basis,

Sort of.

While it is a community center, the pub is also a workplace. Where people work. People who might want to make some money without breathing fatal carcinogens because you're too feeble to muster the willpower to quit.

Smoking bans should be supported and enforced by unions.

[Vanguard1917]

As I've already said, huge swathes of health & safety legislation create the conditions that allow greater police interference, whether it's in bars or hospitals or whatever. Are you suggesting that we should oppose this legislation? That we should oppose the right of nurses, doctors, bar staff to work in a safe environment? Because that's the logic you're using.

If you have any evidence that exposure to second hand cigarette smoke by bar workers causes any significant risk to their health, please provide it.

Until we establish that it does, we can't accurately describe the ban as 'health and safety legislation'.



I don't think that it is at all interesting that a group that is sponsored by various big companies, and has a track record of backing freedom for big business


spiked 'has a track record of backing freedom for big business'?

Any evidence? No, thought not.



should be arguing the same line as the tobacco companies.



Opposing greater policing of the everyday lives of the working class is not 'arguing the same line as the tobacco companies'.

The fact that you confuse it as such only reveals your own political illiteracy and confusion.

When Marx condemned the English state's Sunday trade restrictions on alcohol -- on the grounds that they're designed to regulate what working class people can and cannot do -- i guess he was just arguing the same line as the major brewery companies... Actually, no -- he was opposing the anti-working class puritanism of the bourgeois state.

[Devrim]

spiked 'has a track record of backing freedom for big business'?

Any evidence? No, thought not.

Well if we wanted to discuss the tobacco industry in particular, with Claire Fox of the 'Institute of Ideas' speaking from a FOREST platform at a fringe meeting of the 2005 Labour party conference.

Here is what Wiki says about FOREST:


Funding and membership FOREST has been described as an astroturf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing) group created and primarily funded by the tobacco industry.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOREST#cite_note-7) Its establishent was planned by the Tobacco Advisory Committee, the British tobacco industry trade association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_association). At a 1979 meeting, the Tobacco Advisory Committee discussed the launch of FOREST as well as ways to maintain its appearance of independence.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOREST#cite_note-8)
After its founding, grassroots interest in FOREST was meager and failed to make the organization self-financing, despite aggressive membership campaigns.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOREST#cite_note-voice-smoker-1) In one instance, 10,000 cigarette retailers were solicited to join FOREST, but only 4 joined.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOREST#cite_note-9) Thus, financial support from the tobacco industry remained the major source of funding for FOREST, while funding from outside the industry was minimal.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOREST#cite_note-voice-smoker-1)
Notwithstanding efforts to create the appearance of independence, the Tobacco Advisory Council controlled leadership at FOREST. Internal industry memos stipulated: "If money invested is to be properly effective then control and management are essential." Contact between the Executive Director of FOREST and the Tobacco Advisory Council was envisaged "on an almost daily basis."[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOREST#cite_note-10)


I would say that was some evidence really.


Opposing greater policing of the everyday lives of the working class is not 'arguing the same line as the tobacco companies'.

The fact that you confuse it as such only reveals your own political illiteracy and confusion.

I think its not only the same argument, but it is being argued from the platforms of front groups organised and paid for by big business.

Of course, those sort of supporters are no strangers to the people who run 'Spiked':


http://www.spiked-online.com/images/navright.gifhttp://www.spiked-online.com/images/pixel.gif[I]spiked partners and sponsors Current and former spiked partners and sponsors include: Arts Council England (http://artscouncil.org.uk/), Bloomberg (http://bloomberg.com/); the British Association for the Advancement of Science (http://the-ba.net/); the British Council (http://www.britcoun.org/); BT (http://bt.com/); Cadbury Schweppes (http://cadburyschweppes.com/); Cambridge University Press (http://cambridge.org/); the Cheltenham Science Festival (http://www.cheltenhamfestivals.com/whats_on/science_festival.html); Colubris Networks (http://colubris.com/); the City of London (http://cityoflondon.gov.uk/); Clarke Mulder Purdie (http://cmpcommunications.com/); Continuum International Publishing Group (http://continuumbooks.com/); the Dana Centre (http://www.danacentre.org.uk/); the European Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm) research project RightsWatch (http://www.rightswatch.com/); EuroScience (http://euroscience.org/); Hill and Knowlton (http://hillandknowlton.com/); IBM (http://ibm.com/); INFORM (http://www.idfa.org.uk/inform.aspx); the Institute for the International Education of Students (http://www.iesabroad.org/); the Institute of Psychiatry (http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/); International Policy Network (http://policynetwork.net/); Luther Pendragon (http://luther.co.uk/); the Medical Research Council (http://www.mrc.ac.uk/); the Mobile Operators Association (http://mobilemastinfo.com/); the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (http://nesta.org.uk/); Natural Environment Research Council (http://www.nerc.ac.uk/); Orange (http://orange.com/); O2 (http://www.o2.com/); Pfizer (http://pfizer.com/); the Royal Institution of Great Britain (http://www.ri.ac.uk/); the Social Issues Research Centre (http://sirc.org/); the Society of Chemical Industry (http://www.soci.org/); TechCentralStation (http://techcentralstation.com/); University of East London (http://www.uel.ac.uk/); the Wellcome Trust (http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/); and others.



When Marx condemned the English state's Sunday trade restrictions on alcohol -- on the grounds that they're designed to regulate what working class people can and cannot do -- i guess he was just arguing the same line as the major brewery companies... Actually, no -- he was opposing the anti-working class purinatism of the bourgeois state.

I think that you are labouring under the misapprehension that I am interested in discussing socialist ideas with you in some sort of fraternal fashion. I am not at all.

I am just pointing out to others where your argument is coming from.

Devrim

[Vanguard1917]

Well if we wanted to discuss the tobacco industry in particular, with Claire Fox of the 'Institute of Ideas' speaking from a FOREST platform at a fringe meeting of the 2005 Labour party conference.

So what? The fact that someone spoke at a meeting of a pro-tobacco pressure group (which is indeed heavily backed by the tobacco industry) is enough evidence for you that that person is backing big business? Nevermind what the content of her actual arguments may have been...

And, for the record, if someone enjoys a consumer good (e.g. tobacco), there is nothing wrong with them supporting its continued production and opposing laws against that production. That's not, however, the same thing as supporting the way that such production is organised.


http://www.spiked-online.com/images/navright.gifhttp://www.spiked-online.com/images/pixel.gifspiked partners and sponsors Current and former spiked partners and sponsors include: Arts Council England (http://artscouncil.org.uk/), Bloomberg (http://bloomberg.com/); the British Association for the Advancement of Science (http://the-ba.net/); the British Council (http://www.britcoun.org/); BT (http://bt.com/); Cadbury Schweppes (http://cadburyschweppes.com/); Cambridge University Press (http://cambridge.org/); the Cheltenham Science Festival (http://www.cheltenhamfestivals.com/whats_on/science_festival.html); Colubris Networks (http://colubris.com/); the City of London (http://cityoflondon.gov.uk/); Clarke Mulder Purdie (http://cmpcommunications.com/); Continuum International Publishing Group (http://continuumbooks.com/); the Dana Centre (http://www.danacentre.org.uk/); the European Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm) research project RightsWatch (http://www.rightswatch.com/); EuroScience (http://euroscience.org/); Hill and Knowlton (http://hillandknowlton.com/); IBM (http://ibm.com/); INFORM (http://www.idfa.org.uk/inform.aspx); the Institute for the International Education of Students (http://www.iesabroad.org/); the Institute of Psychiatry (http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/); International Policy Network (http://policynetwork.net/); Luther Pendragon (http://luther.co.uk/); the Medical Research Council (http://www.mrc.ac.uk/); the Mobile Operators Association (http://mobilemastinfo.com/); the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (http://nesta.org.uk/); Natural Environment Research Council (http://www.nerc.ac.uk/); Orange (http://orange.com/); O2 (http://www.o2.com/); Pfizer (http://pfizer.com/); the Royal Institution of Great Britain (http://www.ri.ac.uk/); the Social Issues Research Centre (http://sirc.org/); the Society of Chemical Industry (http://www.soci.org/); TechCentralStation (http://techcentralstation.com/); University of East London (http://www.uel.ac.uk/); the Wellcome Trust (http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/); and others.

That's evidence that spiked has received sponsorship money from various companies. It's not evidence that spiked 'has a track record of backing freedom for big business'.

Provide the needed evidence. You simply can't.


I think that you are labouring under the misapprehension that I am interested in discussing socialist ideas with you in some sort of fraternal fashion. I am not at all.


In other words, "i can't be bothered to back up my allegations with evidence"...

And nor can you, it seems, be bothered to try to understand that the founder of Marxism was an ardent opponent of ruling class attempts to regulate working class life.

[freakazoid]

Go fuck yourself. If you smoke in a pub not only are you harming yourself, and the others who have volunteered to visit the pub, but the workers who have to work there.

Well in that case lets also ban alcohol. People should be safe from drunks in a bar because you never know when they could just snap and start hurting and killing people. Won't someone please think of the children. :crying:

Go cry me a fucking river. Fuck the nanny state!

[Absolut]

Well in that case lets also ban alcohol. People should be safe from drunks in a bar because you never know when they could just snap and start hurting and killing people. Won't someone please think of the children. :crying:

Go cry me a fucking river. Fuck the nanny state!

Theres a slight difference between alcohol and tobacco. When you smoke, you directly harm other people in your surroundings, when you drink, you harm yourself. Ive never heard of second hand drinking at least. However, if you start a fight in a pub, youll most probably get kicked out, because you might harm someone. Same with cigarettes, you harm other people.

There are other things that are more important things to fight than state legislation that could actually benefit the working class.

[BOZG]

If you have any evidence that exposure to second hand cigarette smoke by bar workers causes any significant risk to their health, please provide it.

Until we establish that it does, we can't accurately describe the ban as 'health and safety legislation'.

A quick google would find you numerous sources.

[BOZG]

Well in that case lets also ban alcohol. People should be safe from drunks in a bar because you never know when they could just snap and start hurting and killing people. Won't someone please think of the children. :crying:

Go cry me a fucking river. Fuck the nanny state!

Smoking automatically interferes with someone else, drinking doesn't.

[Forward Union]

Well in that case lets also ban alcohol. People should be safe from drunks

Wrong. Drinking doesn't necessarily harm workers. If I drink, it effects my body and not yours. If I smoke, it harms you more than me.

Workers should be safe from violent service users of course. This is a problem in a lot of work places, including hospitals like the one I worked in. Bar staff could be attacked by a drunk, or even a sober person or whatever, and that's something that needs to be dealt with. But it has nothing to do with working in a place where the fucking atmosphere is (potentially fatally) toxic.


Go cry me a fucking river. Fuck the nanny state!Thanks for that bill hicks. But don't you think workers have the right to work in a place that wont give them lung cancer? or should construction companies still use asbestos to?

You don't seem to understand. You don't have to smoke, but bar staff have to work, and they shouldn't contract fatal diseases whilst doing it.

[freakazoid]

But don't you think workers have the right to work in a place that wont give them lung cancer?

Except it doesn't.


Wrong. Drinking doesn't necessarily harm workers. If I drink, it effects my body and not yours. If I smoke, it harms you more than me.

In the US in 2006 there where 17,941 alcohol related traffic deaths.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Smoking increases the risk of developing lung cancer. It's practically the same with respect to the fact that it's a ridiculously stupid risk. If you think smoking doesn't increase the risk of "developing" lung cancer, your addiction is influencing your brain and you need psychological help.

So what is this nonsense about drinking and smoking being similar? I'll put more restrictions on alcohol before I put less restrictions on smoking. I've got my Stalin hat on. Liberty is more important than everything in the world, even if it kills 5 million people? I guess I'm a tyrant because I don't share the liberty dogmatism of others.

[Forward Union]

Except it doesn't.

You don't think secondary smoking is dangerous?


In the US in 2006 there where 17,941 alcohol related traffic deaths.St Johns Wood is the only tube station in London with no letters from the word mackerel in it. (that's actually a fact)

[Pogue]

Difference is, a drink driver or violent drunk hurting you involves someone doing something other than drinking - for example, it involves them hitting you or drink driving into you. Drinking alone causes neither of these things. However, simply smoking near someone damages their health, so its different.

[Pogue]

Sources on the damaging effects of second hand smoke:

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/passivesmoking/

http://smokefree.nhs.uk/why-go-smokefree/secondhand-smoke/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2053840.stm

[The Idler]

Man arrested after refusing to put out his cigarette in pub

Last updated at 11:58 05 July 2007
...The fact that it made a national newspaper shows how rare (and newsworthy) it is. That's without mentioning how right-wing the Mail is and that the smoker was also drunk and disorderly.

Since the majority of people in pubs, bars and nightclubs across the country are members of the working class, the law is targetted at the working pupulation.
The majority of people in pubs, bars and nightclubs are there as consumers not workers.

One more point, before the national ban, I would have to drive miles to go to a non-smoking pub which kind of defeats the point of reducing fumes.

[Patchd]

Sort of.

While it is a community center, the pub is also a workplace. Where people work. People who might want to make some money without breathing fatal carcinogens because you're too feeble to muster the willpower to quit.

I like how you cut out part of my text, despite the fact that it's very relevant to what you just said:

"But whether I'm a smoker or not is not the point, what should be going on is local communities, or regulars should decide how that pub is to be run on a collective basis, including the workers there"

Also, there's no need to make this personal. Many people smoke for different reasons, some find it harder to quit than others, not saying that applies to me, I've pretty much given up smoking straight tobacco.


Smoking bans should be supported and enforced by unions.

If there are alternatives which can appeal to non-smokers who don't want to have smokers in their bar, and to smokers, such as a well ventilated smoking room, or well heated beer garden, which would let as much smoke into the bar as would people smoking outside (due to the smoking ban), would you still rather go for your simplistic and somewhat offensive option?

[Forward Union]

I like how you cut out part of my text, despite the fact that it's very relevant to what you just said:

"But whether I'm a smoker or not is not the point, what should be going on is local communities, or regulars should decide how that pub is to be run on a collective basis, including the workers there"

I don't agree that within capitalism, the community should have any say over whether a workplace is toxic or not. While work is mandatory, there can be no possibility of it being dangerous for workers. When work is voluntary, communities can make decisions like that.

If it was voted on, smokers would outnumber non smokers and bars would be harmful to bar staff. That's simply not acceptable.

[Patchd]

I don't agree that within capitalism, the community should have any say over whether a workplace is toxic or not. While work is mandatory, there can be no possibility of it being dangerous for workers. When work is voluntary, communities can make decisions like that.

Neither do I, I don't advocate any reforms within the system really, but I take your point.


If it was voted on, smokers would outnumber non smokers and bars would be harmful to bar staff. That's simply not acceptable.

Not a vote, but consensus. At least I'd hope most, if not all smokers to be willing to walk a couple of yards to the smoking room in exchange for a smoking area that shelters them from wind and rain, at the same time, workers and non-smokers have no need to be worried because the problem itself would pretty much be eradicated. Obviously Capitalism can't really accommodate a compromise situation like this due to the reduction in profit business owners will see if they had to install better ventilation, and/or a smoking room, and doesn't take into account variations from community to community on the issue.

[choff]

Freakazoid,

Googling "second hand smoke" brings the National Cancer Institute's page on second hand smoke information as a first result. A list of information linking second hand smoke to various health complications - including cancer - can be found there. I have not yet accumulated enough posts to provide a link for you, but I don't think it'll be too difficult for you to find yourself. I'll provide a quick excerpt from the page just in case:






Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?
Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) .
Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults. Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke. The Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent.
Some research suggests that secondhand smoke may increase the risk of breast cancer, nasal sinus cavity cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer in adults, and leukemia, lymphoma, and brain tumors in children. Additional research is needed to learn whether a link exists between secondhand smoke exposure and these cancers.


While I'll avoid stating an opinion on the actual topic at hand here, as I have not read into the enforcement of smoking bans enough to really know what I'm talking about (I've never seen an actual cop come in and pull the cig out of someone's mouth, only them being asked to step outside and finish up), I plead ignorance to cases in other parts of the world.

I am quite confident in making a statement on second hand smoke, however: it is dangerous, and can cause cancer.

[Invariance]

If you have any evidence that exposure to second hand cigarette smoke by bar workers causes any significant risk to their health, please provide it.

Until we establish that it does, we can't accurately describe the ban as 'health and safety legislation'.


And contrary to popular belief, second hand smoke is not harmful. Care to cite some sources? I will:

Smoking ban reduces cardiac hospitalizations, Nurse Practitioner; Dec2008, Vol. 33 Issue 12, p45-45, 1/3p, 1 bw.

Abstract: The article focuses on a Scottish study published in the July 31, 2008 issue of "The New England Journal of Medicine" which found that hospitalizations due to acute coronary syndrome have dropped significantly since cigarette smoking has been banned in indoor places in Scotland. The drop in hospitalizations is attributed to reduced exposure to second-hand smoke. It was also found that in current smokers, the rate of hospital admissions fell by 14% after the ban was issued on April 1, 2006.

-

Second hand smoke hits toddlers hardest' RN; Apr2008, Vol. 71 Issue 4, p22-22, 1/4p

Abstract: The article discusses research being done on the effect of second hand smoke on toddlers, published in the web site Eurekalert.org. The study shows that toddlers appear to absorb more nicotine than their older siblings in the home and can show markers of heart disease at the age of 2. Results reveal that nicotine levels on the hair of 2-5 year olds are five times higher than those of 9-14 year olds in smokers' homes. Researchers noted that unlike adolescents, toddlers are trapped in the home and continuously inhale second hand smoke.

-

TNF-308 Modifies the Effect of Second-hand Smoke on Respiratory Illness-Related School Absences. MuIIaIIy, Bernie J.; Greiner, Birgit A.; Allwright, Shane; Paul, Gillian; Perry, Ivan J. European Journal of Public Health; Apr2009, Vol. 19 Issue 2, p206-211, 6p, 1 chart, 1 graph

Abstract: The article discusses research being done on the role of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-308 and its association with the effect of second-hand smoke on respiratory illness-related school absences. It references a study by M. Wenten and colleagues published in a 2005 issue of the "American Journal of Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine." A cohort of fourth-grade students from 27 elementary schools in southern California from whom school-absence data were collected from January to June 1996. Results revealed that there was a 51 percent greater risk of lower respiratory illness-related school absences among children with second-hand smoke exposure compared with those who were unexposed.

-
Secondhand Smoke, CRS - Adult Health Advisor; 1/1/2009, p1-1, 1p

Abstract: Secondhand smoke is the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe, or cigar. It is also the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. When nonsmokers breathe this smoke, it is called passive smoking. Exposure to tobacco smoke is dangerous to everyone.

-

Tobacco Smoke and Children with Asthma. CRS - Pediatric Advisor; 1/1/2009, p1-1, 1p

Abstract: Breathing second-hand smoke from tobacco (passive smoking) is harmful to the lungs of children.

-

Why Non-Smokers Get Lung Cancer. Ladies' Home Journal; Aug2008, Vol. 125 Issue 8, p138-138, 1/4p

Abstract: The article explains that non-smokers can also get lung cancer because of environmental factors such as air pollution, radon, second-hand smoke and asbestos in workplaces. Scientists have also discovered a gene that makes carriers more susceptible to smoke. There are no accurate screen tests for the early detection of lung cancer.

-

Passive smoking: Out from the haze. Nature; 6/28/2007, Vol. 447 Issue 7148, p1049-1051, 3p, 1 color

Abstract: The article discusses the effects of second-hand smoke on people's health. The California Tobacco Control Program (CTCP) has increased their tax on cigarettes to finance educational programs that promote awareness on the effect of second-hand smoke and ban smoking in work areas. According to Smokefree England website, second-hand smoke contains more than 4,000 different chemicals, including carbon monoxide and more than 50 carcinogens which causes heart disease and coronary problems.

-

Second hand smoke exposure in cars and respiratory health effects in children, Eur Respir J. 2009 Apr 8.

Abstract: We examined potential associations of "ever" asthma, and symptoms of wheeze (past 12 months), hay fever, eczema and bronchitis (cough with phlegm) among school children exposed to second-hand-smoke (SHS) in cars, using a modified Irish International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) protocol.2,809 children aged 13-14 years completed the 2007 ISAAC self-administered questionnaire selected randomly from post-primary schools throughout Ireland. Adjusted odds ratios [AOR] (adjusted for gender, active smoking status of children interviewed and their SHS exposure at home) were estimated for the associations studied, using multivariable logistic regression techniques.Overall 14.8% (13.9% in boys, 15.4% in girls) of Irish children aged 13-14 years were exposed to SHS in cars. Although there was a tendency towards increased likelihood of both respiratory and allergic symptoms with SHS exposure in cars, wheeze and hay fever symptoms were significantly higher (AOR with 95% CI: 1.35 [1.08-1.70] and 1.30 [1.01-1.67]), respectively, while bronchitis symptoms and asthma were not significant (1.33 [0.92-1.95] and 1.07 [0.81-1.42]), respectively. Approximately one in seven Irish school children are exposed to SHS in cars and could have adverse respiratory health effects. Further studies are imperative to explore such associations across different population settings.

-

Passive cigarette smoking induces inflammatory injury in human arterial walls, Chin Med J (Engl). 2009 Feb 20;122(4):444-8.

Abstract: Epidemiological studies have shown that both active and passive cigarette smoking increase the risk of atherosclerosis. But very little is known about the biological processes induced by passive cigarette smoking that contribute to atherosclerosis. We observe the expression of a few of biological and inflammatory markers in human arterial walls in vitro which were treated with the second-hand smoke solution (sidestream whole, SSW), and discuss the possible mechanism of inflammatory injury induced by second-hand smoke. METHODS: The biological markers (platelet endothelial cell adhesion molecule-1, PECAM-1; alpha-smooth muscle actin, alpha-SMA; collagen IV, Col IV) and inflammatory markers (vascular cell adhesion molecule-1, VCAM-1; monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, MCP-1; interleukin-8, IL-8) of human aortal wall were tested by immunofluorescence staining. The levels of MCP-1 and IL-8 mRNA expression were detected by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). RESULTS: No distinct difference was observed between SSW and the control group on the expression of biological markers as assessed by the light microscope. But the inflammatory markers VCAM-1, MCP-1 and IL-8 on the subendothelial layer and smooth muscle cell layers, which are near the endothelium of arterial wall, were strongly stained in the SSW group compared with the control group. Their fluorescence intensities in the 1:40 SSW group (VCAM-1: 0.35 +/- 0.04, MCP-1: 0.34 +/- 0.05, IL-8: 0.37 +/- 0.05) and the 1:20 SSW group (VCAM-1: 0.40 +/- 0.04, MCP-1: 0.52 +/- 0.09, IL-8: 0.51 +/- 0.07) were significantly stronger than the control group (VCAM-1: 0.12 +/- 0.04, MCP-1: 0.06 +/- 0.02, IL-8: 0.24 +/- 0.03) by semi-quantitative analysis of immunofluorescence (P < 0.001 vs control). MCP-1 mRNA expression in the 1:40 SSW (0.15 +/- 0.04) and the 1:20 SSW (0.19 +/- 0.06) group was significantly higher than in the control group (0.09 +/- 0.03) (P < 0.05, P < 0.01 vs control); IL-8 mRNA expression in the 1:40 SSW (0.64 +/- 0.12) and 1:20 SSW (0.72 +/- 0.13) groups was also significantly higher than that in the control group (0.49 +/- 0.13) (P < 0.05, P < 0.01 vs control) by RT-PCR. CONCLUSIONS: It is implied that a second-hand smoke solution induces the inflammatory reaction of the arterial wall by release of inflammatory factors even though there is no distinct structural change on the arterial walls under light microscope, indicating that passive cigarette smoking is related to inflammatory injury in human arterial wall and could be closely related to the early inflammatory stage of atherosclerosis.

-

The impact of banning smoking in workplaces: what are the early effects? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2008;6(2-3):81-92. doi: 10.2165/00148365-200806020-00001.

Abstract: Smoke-free workplace legislation reduces the exposure of both the general public and the workforce to second-hand smoke (SHS) without evidence of an increased exposure to SHS in children in the home. The reductions in exposure are linked to improved respiratory health in previously heavily exposed occupational groups such as bar, restaurant and casino staff. From some countries, there is evidence suggesting that smoking bans have led to declines in hospital admissions for myocardial infarction. There is general agreement that smoking bans, if associated with other tobacco control measures such as tax increases, together with provision of cessation supports, lead to a reduction in the numbers of cigarettes smoked and probably lower smoking rates. Most cities, regions and countries report neutral or positive economic impacts.

-

Second hand smoke exposure and exess heart disease and lung cancer mortality among hospital staff in Crete, Greece: a case study, Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2008 Sep;5(3):125-9.

Abstract: Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) is a serious threat to public health, and a significant cause of lung cancer and heart disease among non-smokers. Even though Greek hospitals have been declared smoke free since 2002, smoking is still evident. Keeping the above into account, the aim of this study was to quantify the levels of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and to estimate the attributed lifetime excess heart disease and lung cancer deaths per 1000 of the hospital staff, in a large Greek public hospital. Environmental airborne respirable suspended particles (RSP) of PM2.5 were performed and the personnel's excess mortality risk was estimated using risk prediction formulas. Excluding the intensive care unit and the operating theatres, all wards and clinics were polluted with environmental tobacco smoke. Mean SHS-RSP measurements ranged from 11 to 1461 microg/m3 depending on the area. Open wards averaged 84 microg/m3 and the managing wards averaged 164 microg/m3 thus giving an excess lung cancer and heart disease of 1.12 (range 0.23-1.88) and 11.2 (range 2.3-18.8) personnel in wards and 2.35 (range 0.55-12.2) and 23.5 (range 5.5-122) of the managing staff per 1000 over a 40-year lifespan, respectively. Conclusively, SHS exposure in hospitals in Greece is prevalent and taking into account the excess heart disease and lung cancer mortality risk as also the immediate adverse health effects of SHS exposure, it is clear that proper implementation and enforcement of the legislation that bans smoking in hospitals is imperative to protect the health of patients and staff alike.

-

Environmental and occupational risk factors for lung cancer, Methods Mol Biol. 2009;472:3-23.

Abstract: Lung cancer is the world's leading cause of cancer death. It is primarily due to the inhalation of carcinogens and highly accessible to prevention by diminishing exposures to lung carcinogens. Most important will be the complete cessation of exposure to cigarette smoke (first and second hand) and to asbestos. Two environmental exposures--radon in homes and arsenic in drinking water--cannot be totally avoided, but people in certain geographical regions would greatly benefit from a reduction in exposure magnitude. And last but not least, workers all over the world deserve that preventive measures at the workplace are observed with regard to exposures, such as arsenic, beryllium, bis-chloromethyl ether (BCME), cadmium, chromium, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and nickel.

-

The majority of these sources are from medical experts in their respective feilds, published in peer-reviewed journals.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

freakazoid:


In the US in 2006 there where 17,941 alcohol related traffic deaths.

Which is why it is illegal to drink and drive.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well done Vinnie, but you will soon learn that VG1917 (the representative of Big Capital at RevLet) ignores any and all evidence that you care to supply, all the while making unfounded allegations 'himself'.

You will also note that the comrades here who question the poisonous nature of second hand smoke use the same sort of arguments that the tobacco industry used to use to claim that first hand smoking isn't harmful.

[Vanguard1917]

Even if we assume that there is concrete evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke by bar workers poses a health risk, we still have to explain why that is justification for greater policing of our lives.

Drunk people coming out of pubs and clubs on Friday nights pose a potential risk to the public, as well as general annoyance for many workers (street cleaners, those who work in late night fast food outlets, etc.). Should we therefore support a greater police presence on the streets and an expansion of police powers?

[Vanguard1917]

The fact that it made a national newspaper shows how rare (and newsworthy) it is.

The fact is that if you refuse to put out your cigarette when told to do so by a pig, that pig now has the power to arrest you. That's what the smoking ban means in practice.

[Pogue]

The fact is that if you refuse to put out your cigarette when told to do so by a pig, that pig now has the power to arrest you. That's what the smoking ban means in practice.

The same way if you are asked to stop harming someone in any other way by a pig, a pig has the power to arrest you. Following your logic its bad for there to be laws against any kind of harmful activity because it means a pig can arrest you.

[Vanguard1917]

The same way if you are asked to stop harming someone in any other way by a pig, a pig has the power to arrest you. Following your logic its bad for there to be laws against any kind of harmful activity because it means a pig can arrest you.

The obvious point is that there are differing levels of 'harmful activity'. Also, if a policeman can arrest you for smoking in a pub, should they also be allowed to arrest you for smoking in your home if there are other people present? Why not? What about drinking in a pub? Should the state ban drinking on the grounds that drunk people pose a potential risk to the public and other workers?

And if the risk to bar workers from second-hand smoke is so great, why did the state not fund better ventilation systems in places like pubs and bars ? Why did it simply choose to step up its policing of working class life? I think the reason is that increased policing was the real objective and that the 'protecting workers' line was just the justification that was given in order to win support for it.

[MilitantAnarchist]

Theres a slight difference between alcohol and tobacco. When you smoke, you directly harm other people in your surroundings, when you drink, you harm yourself. Ive never heard of second hand drinking at least. However, if you start a fight in a pub, youll most probably get kicked out, because you might harm someone. Same with cigarettes, you harm other people.

There are other things that are more important things to fight than state legislation that could actually benefit the working class.

Yes there are more important things then this... that isnt the issue here.... its about human rights, we pay shed loads on taxes on fags, why cant we smoke em? fuck that... whats it gotta do with anyone else? yea it hurts them, if you dont like it dont go to the pub, or go to a 'non smoking' pub... they should of gave landlords/ladys the choice to be SMOKING or NON SMOKING.... im not talking about the big shit hole pubs like Wetherspoon pubs... i meen the local boozers... that is 90% local people, and most of them smoke... all the staff smoke... the people who dont smoke dont mind because theyve been coming in for years......
The smoking ban has killed the pub trade, it has kept people in instead of bringing them out...
How can you defend that? the corporations are winning they can lower beer prices to attract the majority... local pubs suffer.

Plus they can still smoke in the house of commons if they wanted, so the law makers dont follow the own rules.... yes they have 'banned' it to 'follow suit' but the point is, they COULD if they wanted... n how do we no they dont smoke in there?

[Pogue]

The obvious point is that there are differing levels of 'harmful activity'. Also, if a policeman can arrest you for smoking in a pub, should they also be allowed to arrest you for smoking in your home if there are other people present? Why not? What about drinking in a pub? Should the state ban drinking on the grounds that drunk people pose a potential risk to the public and other workers?

And if the risk to bar workers from second-hand smoke is so great, why did the state not fund better ventilation systems in places like pubs and bars ? Why did it simply choose to step up its policing of working class life? I think the reason is that increased policing was the real objective and that the 'protecting workers' line was just the justification that was given in order to win support for it.

As already stated, me sitting there drinking a pint does not harm anyone but myself. If I hit someone when I am drunk thats me hurting them, not alochol. This analogy fails because the simple act of smoking inside harms people who breathe it in - the drinking of alchol doesn't, and the majority of drinkers don't assault people when drunk.

Smoking in your home is classified as doing it in a private place, same as how you can do many things you cannot do in a pub in your home. I would have thought this obvious. In the home, the rules are made and enforced by the person who owns the house. Although I'd like to think most people are polite enough not to smoke inside when they have non-smokers around them, especially children.

The state probably didn't fund ventilation because thats not the state's reponsibility. They couldn't justify the money to most people (Yes, I know they should spend less on wars and bailing out banks, but if we looked at it whilst ignoring those factors). Also, arguably it doesn't completely prevent the harmful effects of second hand smoke as well as being completely removed from smoke does. Also, its not just the working class who smoke, and alot of working class people and even working class smokers will support this ban. I am working class and frequent pubs as often as I can get away with and I find them much nicer places to go to now than before the ban.

I think its absurd to say this was an attempt to increase police presence. The police hardly now patrol pubs making sure no one smokes - this is mainly done by the pub staff anyway, or even the customers, people who realise it's out of order to make other people suffer from your smoke. This ban was pushed through government by the British Medical Association because they recognised how harmful second hand smoke is. I am the last person to believe the state is benevolent and what not but not all sections of the state have as their sole aim oppresing the working class, that may be its main aim but in order to appear legitimate and to generally function, there are wings of it which listen to logic and healthcare research, such as the BMA, and will thus act occordingly. Not every single action of the state is focused on oppressing working class people, and this was not one of them. Do you not think that if the state was seeking to attack working class people, they'd do it in a much more effective way then saying they have to step outside before smoking a ciggarette?

[Pogue]

Yes there are more important things then this... that isnt the issue here.... its about human rights, we pay shed loads on taxes on fags, why cant we smoke em? fuck that... whats it gotta do with anyone else? yea it hurts them, if you dont like it dont go to the pub, or go to a 'non smoking' pub... they should of gave landlords/ladys the choice to be SMOKING or NON SMOKING.... im not talking about the big shit hole pubs like Wetherspoon pubs... i meen the local boozers... that is 90% local people, and most of them smoke... all the staff smoke... the people who dont smoke dont mind because theyve been coming in for years......
The smoking ban has killed the pub trade, it has kept people in instead of bringing them out...
How can you defend that? the corporations are winning they can lower beer prices to attract the majority... local pubs suffer.

Plus they can still smoke in the house of commons if they wanted, so the law makers dont follow the own rules.... yes they have 'banned' it to 'follow suit' but the point is, they COULD if they wanted... n how do we no they dont smoke in there?

So your argument is, 'If you don't want to be harmed by my addiction, you shouldn't frequent the same public places as me!'? That makes absolutely no sense. Clearly, from a moral point of view, it is the smoker who should not carry out an unnecesary action which harms others whilst they are around, not the non-smoker who should have to avoid pubs because some people have a desire to light up in there.

You pay taxes on them, yes. And you can smoke them. You just can't do it when it puts other people's health at risk. The same way you can set off fireworks, you just can't do it in a pub.

I'd like to see the facts proving the majority of people who attend or work in local pubs are smokers, because at the moment that just sounds like a fact you made up yourself. Also, how would you know that the people who don't smoke don't mind? Thats completely unsubstantiated.

The pub trade isn't dead. Sure, it has taken knocks. The smoking ban was not the sole cause of this - it was declining before the ban too. There are other factors, such as the high cost of beer in pubs and the low cost of buying it in supermarkets, and also the breakdown of working class communities in the last few decades as a result of Thatcher's attacks on the working class.

As we have said, we can defend a smoking ban because second hand smoke damages the health of non-smokers.

Also, who goes to the pub just to smoke? Smokers can still go to the pub, drink and socialise inside, and smoke outside. If they stop going to the pub because they have to step outside, thats there problem.

[MilitantAnarchist]

The pub trade isn't dead. Sure, it has taken knocks. The smoking ban was not the sole cause of this - it was declining before the ban too. There are other factors, such as the high cost of beer in pubs and the low cost of buying it in supermarkets, and also the breakdown of working class communities in the last few decades as a result of Thatcher's attacks on the working class.


I work in a pub, i no how dead it is, and i no that what you said is true, but the last nail in the coffin was the smoking ban... the pub i work at ive drank in for fuckin years, and saw how it was before the ban... the decline was almost instant...

Plus what would you say about having some pubs as smoking, and some as non?

[Pogue]

I work in a pub, i no how dead it is, and i no that what you said is true, but the last nail in the coffin was the smoking ban... the pub i work at ive drank in for fuckin years, and saw how it was before the ban... the decline was almost instant...

Plus what would you say about having some pubs as smoking, and some as non?

Who decides what is smoking and what is non smoking? What about the locals who want their pub to be non smoking but it becomes smoking? Quite simply, if you light up and other people suffer for it, your being selfish, your in the wrong, and so you shouldn't do it.

[Vanguard1917]

As already stated, me sitting there drinking a pint does not harm anyone but myself. If I hit someone when I am drunk thats me hurting them, not alochol. This analogy fails because the simple act of smoking inside harms people who breathe it in - the drinking of alchol doesn't, and the majority of drinkers don't assault people when drunk.

I'm not just refering to such cases -- i'm talking more broadly. If the state can say that smoking should be banned because it's harmful to the public, then it can -- and, indeed, does -- say similar things about getting drunk on a Friday night, since that can cause potential 'harm' to the public too (noise, disturbance, rubbish on the streets, etc).


Smoking in your home is classified as doing it in a private place, same as how you can do many things you cannot do in a pub in your home. I would have thought this obvious. In the home, the rules are made and enforced by the person who owns the house. Although I'd like to think most people are polite enough not to smoke inside when they have non-smokers around them, especially children.

So the state should not be able to enforce anti-smoking legislation in the home, but it's justified in the public space?



The state probably didn't fund ventilation because thats not the state's reponsibility.


But my point is that the fact that the state justified its increased interference into public life on the grounds of protecting workers' health, and yet did not even consider the introduction of improved ventilation systems, indicates that protecting workers' health was not the real motivation behind the ban at all. The real motivation was legimating more state powers over everyday life.


Do you not think that if the state was seeking to attack working class people, they'd do it in a much more effective way then saying they have to step outside before smoking a ciggarette?


The state is regulating everyday life in ways that in previous decades would have been thought absurd. The smoking ban is just one example. If you had told someone as little as 20 years ago that one day you could get arrested for having a cigarette in a pub, they would have likely called you a fantasist, just like if you told people 50 years ago that streets in every major town in Britain would one day be watched over by CCTV cameras on the grounds of 'public safety'.



I am working class and frequent pubs as often as I can get away with and I find them much nicer places to go to now than before the ban.



I'm not a big fan of smoke-filled places either. But that does not mean that i will call upon the state and the police to enforce my own preferences on to other people.

[Vanguard1917]

Who decides what is smoking and what is non smoking? What about the locals who want their pub to be non smoking but it becomes smoking? Quite simply, if you light up and other people suffer for it, your being selfish, your in the wrong, and so you shouldn't do it.

Why is it the smoker that is selfish? What about the non-smoker who tells the smokers not to smoke simply because he or she does not like it?

What if i came into a pub and said that swearing and shouting should be banned because such behaviour annoys me and makes me feel uncomfortable?

[Pogue]

I'm not just refering to such cases -- i'm talking more broadly. If the state can say that smoking should be banned because it's harmful to the public, then it can -- and, indeed, does -- say similar things about getting drunk on a Friday night, since that can cause potential 'harm' to the public too (noise, disturbance, rubbish on the streets, etc).


Once more, in these cases, it is noisy people, disturbing people and littering that are the crimes, not the consumption of alcohol. Many drunk people can control themselves, so drinking alone does not harm people.



So the state should not be able to enforce anti-smoking legislation in the home, but it's justified in the public space?


Firstly, it'd be impossible to enforce it in a home. Secondly, because its your personal place, you cannot be punished for it. They are trying to get people to not do it around children through adverts on television because they recognise its unenforcable because its your home, not a public place. As I said, there is the key difference - private place versus public place.


But my point is that the fact that the state justified its increased interference into public life on the grounds of protecting workers' health, and yet did not even consider the introduction of improved ventilation systems, indicates that protecting workers' health was not the real motivation behind the ban at all. The real motivation was legimating more state powers over everyday life.

Ventilation systems being installed are, as I said, not the states role. They would not work as well as simply saying you cannot smoke here, they would cost a ridiculous amount of money and are simply not neccesary. Its like saying the state should have to provide free punchbags for violent people so they can relieve themselves on them instead of hitting other people. Instead of the state (and thus by virtue the taxpayer) having to install ventilation systems that are efective enough to totally reduce the harmful effects of second hand smoke without turning pubs into a permament tornado, smokers should simply control themselves.


The state is regulating everyday life in ways that in previous decades would have been thought absurd. The smoking ban is just one example. If you had told someone as little as 20 years ago that one day you could get arrested for having a cigarette in a pub, they would have likely called you a fantasist, just like if you told people 50 years ago that streets in every major town in Britain would one day be watched over by CCTV cameras on the grounds of 'public safety'.

CCTV cameras are not the same thing, though. As I said, if you explained to a smoker, or proved to them, 50 years ago, that second hand smoke seriously damaged the health of people who inhale it, then they would have listened and saw it as less absurd, as many smokers realise now. CCTV cameras are not proven to reduce crime, and are quite simply different. I don't think this is an attempt to undermine community, because theres no reason why people can't go to pubs and not smoke and still socialise. They've meant now that people can socialise without damaging their hwalth a great deal. I think your trying to find a conpiracy like theory to try and criticise a ban that you oppose simply on the grounds that you'd rather smoke inside.

[Pogue]

Why is it the smoker that is selfish? What about the non-smoker who tells the smokers not to smoke simply because he or she does not like it?

What if i came into a pub and said that swearing and shouting should be banned because such behaviour annoys me and makes me feel uncomfortable?

Its selfish because its harming other people for your own pleasure. Your placing your desire to smoke inside above the very real risk to the health of all the people close to you. Thats a selfish decision when you could just go outside.

The swearing and shouting analogy is not the same because swearing and shouting has not been proven to have the same serious health effects as the inhalation of second hand smoke has, but if you were being exsessively noisy in a pub to the extent it was disturbing a load of other people, I think its justifiable to ask you to keep it down a bit, because your annoying other people.

[Vanguard1917]

Once more, in these cases, it is noisy people, disturbing people and littering that are the crimes, not the consumption of alcohol. Many drunk people can control themselves, so drinking alone does not harm people.

But if those things are at least partly the effects of alcohol, then is it OK to call on the state to police the public's alcohol consumption?



Ventilation systems being installed are, as I said, not the states role.


So subsidising better ventilation systems is not the state's legitimate role, but increasing police powers over working class life is?



Its like saying the state should have to provide free punchbags for violent people so they can relieve themselves on them instead of hitting other people.


No, it's not like saying that at all. If people enjoy tobacco consumption, then that's their business. What i see from you is a very strong moralist opposition to smoking and a very strong desire to control and dictate what people should and should not be allowed to do.

You not liking something does not give you the right to stop everyone else from liking it.


Instead of the state (and thus by virtue the taxpayer) having to install ventilation systems that are efective enough to totally reduce the harmful effects of second hand smoke without turning pubs into a permament tornado, smokers should simply control themselves.


And if they don't want to stop smoking, then the they should be made to through threats of police arrest and fines?


second hand smoke seriously damaged the health of people who inhale it

That's not actually true. Exposure to second-hand smoke can potentially cause damage to your health, as can crossing the road or going out on the town on a friday night.

Life is filled with risks. The existence of such risks should not be reason to call for more police powers over public life.



CCTV cameras are not proven to reduce crime


What if they were? Would you support them?

[Vanguard1917]

Its selfish because its harming other people for your own pleasure. Your placing your desire to smoke inside above the very real risk to the health of all the people close to you. Thats a selfish decision when you could just go outside.

What if you're in a pub where the majority smokes? Why should the minority be able to tell the majority that they can't smoke?

[MilitantAnarchist]

Who decides what is smoking and what is non smoking? What about the locals who want their pub to be non smoking but it becomes smoking? Quite simply, if you light up and other people suffer for it, your being selfish, your in the wrong, and so you shouldn't do it.

The landlord would... because the landlord would do what his/her locals want.
Its not fair that people smoke on the non smokers... but it isnt fair that you cant smoke on the smokers..... But if it was down to 'landlords' discretion, everyone wins... in my oppinion... as a smoker...

[Pogue]

But if those things are at least partly the effects of alcohol, then is it OK to call on the state to police the public's alcohol consumption?


As I said, drinking alcohol doesn't harm other people, but if you then do harmful things to other people when drunk, your harming other people. Its pretty obvious.


So subsidising better ventilation systems is not the state's legitimate role, but increasing police powers over working class life is?

Firstly, this whole argument is me disagreeing with the latter option, so I hope you realise how absurd this question is.

And no, if people become addicted to a substance that harms other people, it shouldn't be the role of any public body, whether it be a capitalist state or a communist society, to spend alot of money to compensate for their addiction, especially when they could simply walk outside. If they could develop a silent, efficient, cheap and 100% perfect ventilation system that the pubs themselves would install, fine, but this is not the case.


No, it's not like saying that at all. If people enjoy tobacco consumption, then that's their business. What i see from you is a very strong moralist opposition to smoking and a very strong desire to control and dictate what people should and should not be allowed to do.

You not liking something does not give you the right to stop everyone else from liking it.

And you liking something doesn't give you the right to damage everyone else's health just so you can do it. As I said, I support the smoking ban because one person smoking harms the health of everyone around them who breathes it in. Its not that I don't like it, its that I don't like having bad health just because someone else would rather sit inside than outside.


And if they don't want to stop smoking, then the they should be made to through threats of police arrest and fines?

No, they should just go outside. Quite simple, really.


That's not actually true. Exposure to second-hand smoke can potentially cause damage to your health, as can crossing the road or going out on the town on a friday night.

Life is filled with risks. The existence of such risks should not be reason to call for more police powers over public life.


It is true, and I linked several different sources earlier in the thread proving this. Its established fact to pretty much everyone except a hardened few smokers who can't accept the fact what they do harms others and they should simply go outside and do it instead.

Crossing the road can harm you, yes. Thats why we have areas to cross and zebra crossings and a law which says you have to stop when the red light shows and let people cross, as well as having laws saying you can't drive on the pavement. Going out on a friday night has risks, yes, thats why we have registered official taxis and bouncers and the like. The point is, there are laws restricting the ability to be harmed by these risks - such as the law saying you cannot smoke in an inside public space. Its been proven second hand smoke harms people - just as getting run over harms people. Hence why we put in precautions to stop it harming people, such as zebra crossings and smoking bans.


What if they were? Would you support them?

What a ridiculous question. My point was that it hasn't been proven that CCTV cameras prevent crime, whereas it has been proven second hand smoke causes health problems. I recognise that CCTV cameras do more harm than good, but I recognise in turn that asking someone to smoke outside does more good than harm.


What if you're in a pub where the majority smokes? Why should the minority be able to tell the majority what they can and cannot do?

A public space by its definition means its an area where members of the public can go to. So anyone can and does go there, smokers and non smokers alike. If the non-smokers go there, they have a right to not get their health damaged by any other people, when the other people could carry out their harmful act outside. Its quite simple - you don't have a right to harm other people for your own pleasure. Taking it to extremes, its like saying that its Ok for 10 people to murder one person as long as the 10 want to and the 1 is the only one opposed to this. Its a fundamental right to work in an non harmful environment, as much as it is a right to be able to be in an inclosed public space and not have your health damaged.

Do you not think its the right of the workers there not to have to do 8-12 hour shifts in an environment damaging to their health?

[Vanguard1917]

And no, if people become addicted to a substance that harms other people, it shouldn't be the role of any public body, whether it be a capitalist state or a communist society, to spend alot of money to compensate for their addiction


People enjoy smoking and your argument is that the state should be allowed to tell people that they can't enjoy it.



to spend alot of money to compensate for their addiction,


Smokers pay a fortune in taxes. And all you can do is defend the state?

You argue that funding better ventilation systems in pubs is 'not the state's role'. Yet you feel that it's perfectly fine for the state to have powers to come into pubs and arrest people for having a fag.



No, they should just go outside. Quite simple, really.


And if smokers in a pub don't want to go outside, they should be threatened with police arrests and fines?



It is true, and I linked several different sources earlier in the thread proving this. Its established fact to pretty much everyone except a hardened few smokers who can't accept the fact what they do harms others and they should simply go outside and do it instead.



It's true that it might pose a potential risk to your health -- as do a million other things. That does not justify increased police powers in society.



What a ridiculous question.


Why? If a study showed that CCTV cameras reduced crime rates and made the streets a bit safer, would that mean that we would have to give our support to them?



A public space by its definition means its an area where members of the public can go to. So anyone can and does go there, smokers and non smokers alike. If the non-smokers go there, they have a right to not get their health damaged by any other people, when the other people could carry out their harmful act outside. Its quite simple - you don't have a right to harm other people for your own pleasure. Taking it to extremes, its like saying that its Ok for 10 people to murder one person as long as the 10 want to and the 1 is the only one opposed to this.


No, it isn't.

What you're saying is that you have no regard for what the masses themselves want. You're saying that it's justified for a small minority of people to enforce authoritarian rules to dictate the lives of the majority.

If the majority of people in a pub want to be allowed to smoke, you're saying that the state should still send in the police if they do.



Do you not think its the right of the workers there not to have to do 8-12 hour shifts in an environment damaging to their health?


I answered that in my first post in this thread.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Vinnie, see what I mean about VG1917? -- whoosh, right over his head.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^More please -- I can use it as ammo to censure you in the CC.

[Pogue]

People enjoy smoking and your argument is that the state should be allowed to tell people that they can't enjoy it.

What a ridiculous and desperate strawman. I said people shouldn't be able to enjoy it at the expense of someone else's health. I personally think it should be the community that enforces this.


Smokers pay a fortune in taxes. And all you can do is defend the state?

You argue that funding better ventilation systems in pubs is 'not the state's role'. Yet you feel that it's perfectly fine for the state to have powers to come into pubs and arrest people for having a fag.


We all pay alot in taxes. So do drinkers. Whats your point?

I'm saying, how can you expect any public body to spend loads of money in an attempt install ventilation system so good they prevent any harmful effects of second hand smoke (suhc ventilation does not exist) when the alternative is asking people to just do it outside? And no, I don't support people getting arrested over it, I'd like this rule to be enforced by the pub and the people in it, as it is. Most smokers will be told to put their cigarette out by other drinkers or by the pub's staff, and I think most people would know to stop at this point. I don't think many people in the world are stupid enough to get arrested instead of simply walking outside.


And if smokers in a pub don't want to go outside, they should be threatened with police arrests and fines?

If they don't want to respect the rules of the pub and the health of the other people in there, they shouldn't be in the pub. I see no reason why it would ever have to lead to someone getting arrested anyway. I said that a smoking ban on public spaces is a good thing - I never said who and how it is enforced is. If someone lit up in the pub, they'd be asked to put it out. If they refused, they'd be told to leave by the pub owner. Quite simply, they should just go outside and respect other people's health. It only becomes an issue if someone decides to value their own desires over the health of other people. Most smokers just accept it and go outside.


It's true that it might pose a potential risk to your health -- as do a million other things. That does not justify increased police powers in society.


It damages other people's health. This justifies people having to stop doing it. Obvioulsly I am entirely opposed to the police, but that doesn't mean I am opposed to a smoking ban. As I said, the police will only get involved if a smoker refuses to respect the wishes of the publician and the other drinkers. There is no increased 'police presence'. We do not now have a policeman stationed in ever pub. Its such a non-issue that theres no need - you should just have the decency to step outside and do it, so that no issue develops.


Why? If a study showed that CCTV cameras reduced crime rates and made the streets a bit safer, would that mean that we would have to give our support to them?


This is so ridiculouslyy off topic and hypothetical. If you could prove CCTV cameras do absolutely no harm to the community, society or the working class, and instead only prevent crime and make everything nicer and safer, then of course I'd support them, but thats clearly not the case, and it never will be, so as I said, its an absurd question. Its like asking me if I'd support people smoking if it didn't harm anyone - of course but the simple fact is, it does harm people, including people who aren't even doing the smoking.

No, it isn't.


What you're saying is that you have no regard for what the masses themselves want. You're saying that it's justified for a small minority of people to enforce authoritarian rules to dictate the lives of the majority.

If the majority of people in a pub want to be allowed to smoke, you're saying that the state should still send in the police if they do.

I am saying that the health of anyone is more valuable than a smoker's desire to smoke inside. Your line is absurd. If 100 people in a room decide they want to racially abuse one other person in the room, is it authoritarian to prevent them? Clearly not. I respect the rights of people not to have their health damaged by someone else being too selfish as to not simply step outside when they feel the urge to smoke.

I mentioned nothing of the police or state enforcing it. I agree with smoking being banned, and as I said I would rather this was enforced by the community and people's rationale in seeing its morally wrong for them to do it inside. In a communist society I think such a ban should and would exist, and the case for it to exist would be much stronger than against it, as it was when it was enforced here. Most people accepted it was correct for it to be banned in the face of the overwhelming evidence of how much damage it does to passive smoker's health.

[Pogue]

I answered that in my first post in this thread.


No you didn't. The fact remains, smoking inside damages the health of the workersthere, thus they are working in an environment damaging to their health, which is against their rights.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Keep it up, numpty (VG1917), the more you thank me the deeper in the mire you sink.

[Vanguard1917]

What a ridiculous and desperate strawman. I said people shouldn't be able to enjoy it at the expense of someone else's health. I personally think it should be the community that enforces this.

What if the community is against it? What if the majority in a community (e.g. the majority of the people who drink in a given pub) smoke or believe that smoking in a pub should be allowed?

In a previous post, you argued that that would be 'like saying that its Ok for 10 people to murder one person as long as the 10 want to and the 1 is the only one opposed to this.'

Also, 'If 100 people in a room decide they want to racially abuse one other person in the room, is it authoritarian to prevent them?'

From that, it's obvious that you don't really give a damn what the 'community' thinks at all. You believe that smoking in a pub is akin to murder and racist abuse and that it's thus justified to enforce a ban even if the majority opposes it.



I'm saying, how can you expect any public body to spend loads of money in an attempt install ventilation system so good they prevent any harmful effects of second hand smoke (suhc ventilation does not exist) when the alternative is asking people to just do it outside?


Because maybe people would prefer not to go outside. As an ex-smoker (someone who quit largely as a result of the smoking ban), i remember just how pleasurable and relaxing an experience it was sitting down with friends in a pub and enjoying a few ciggies with beer. Now, that simple pleasure is illegal. I would have to go out into the rain and likely would not even be allowed to take my drink out with me.



I never said who and how it is enforced is. If someone lit up in the pub, they'd be asked to put it out. If they refused, they'd be told to leave by the pub owner.


So, then, you oppose the smoking ban? You believe that if a 'pub owner' permits smoking in his or her pub, the state and the police should have no say in the matter?



Quite simply, they should just go outside and respect other people's health. It only becomes an issue if someone decides to value their own desires over the health of other people.


If you can't handle a bit of smoke, don't go to a pub where the majority of the people smoke or don't mind second-hand smoke.

The solution is simple: pubs which allow smoking so that smokers and people who don't mind second-hand smoke can enjoy what they do without busybodies and pious anti-smokers lecturing them; and pubs where smoking is not allowed, where those who don't like smoke can choose to go.

What's so wrong with that? Why demand a total ban?



This is so ridiculouslyy off topic and hypothetical. If you could prove CCTV cameras do absolutely no harm to the community, society or the working class, and instead only prevent crime and make everything nicer and safer, then of course I'd support them, but thats clearly not the case, and it never will be, so as I said, its an absurd question.


The point is that something may make society 'safer' but not necessarily 'better'. Even if CCTV cameras reduced crime rates, we as socialists would still oppose them on the grounds that they infringe upon basic freedoms.



I am saying that the health of anyone is more valuable than a smoker's desire to smoke inside. Your line is absurd. If 100 people in a room decide they want to racially abuse one other person in the room, is it authoritarian to prevent them? Clearly not


And you can't see that there's nothing at all sensible about such a comparison?



I respect the rights of people not to have their health damaged by someone else being too selfish as to not simply step outside when they feel the urge to smoke.



And i respect the right of people to enjoy their lives free from rules enforced by a minority.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG1917:


enforced by a minority

Except, us non-smokers are in the majority.

[Pogue]

What if the community is against it? What if the majority of a community (i.e. the majority of the people who drink in a given pub) smoke or believe that smoking in a pub should be allowed?

In your previous post, you argued that that would be 'like saying that its Ok for 10 people to murder one person as long as the 10 want to and the 1 is the only one opposed to this.'

From that, it's obvious that you don't really give a damn what the 'community' thinks at all. You believe that it's justified to enforce a ban even if the majority opposes it.


"My freedom to swing my fist stops at your face." Your freedom to smoke, regardless of who supports it, stops at the point at which it hurts me. You can't vote to infringe upon someones personal liberty - it is not anarchist to have a vote to decide to rape someone, as an example.


Because maybe people would prefer not to go outside. As an ex-smoker (someone who quit largely as a result of the smoking ban), i remember just how pleasurable and relaxing an experience it was sitting down with friends in a pub and enjoying a few ciggies with beer. Now, that simple pleasure is illegal. I would have to go out into the rain and likely would not even be allowed to take my drink out with me.

And as a lifelong non-smoker and someone who has been in pubs before and after the smoking ban, I can tell you I now find it much nicer now, as do many people I have spoken too, and as does the majority of the public, according to the Office for National Statistics: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/smoke0608.pdf. If you want to do something that harms other people, you have to be adult about it and accept the consequences of this - which are that you have to do it outside.

It doesn't always rain mate, and most pubs have shelters. If they don't, they should install them.


So, then, you oppose the smoking ban? You believe that if a 'pub owner' permits smoking in his or her pub, then the state and the police should have no say in the matter?

You have quite a talent at taking what I have said and completely distorting what I said. These are your words, not mine. I have said I would like this ban to be a rule, a law, but as an anarchist I want it to be enforced by local communities and the rational of individual smokers rather than the state and police, which effectively it is at the moment.


If you can't handle a bit of smoke, don't go to a pub where the majority of the people smoke or don't mind second-hand smoke.

The solution is simple: pubs which allow smoking so that smokers and people who don't mind second-hand smoke can enjoy what they do without busybodies and pious anti-smokers lecturing them; and pubs where smoking is not allowed, where those who don't like smoke can choose to go.

What's so wrong with that? Why demand a total ban?

I don't see why I should have to have my health suffer for someone else's habit. It smells disgusting, tastes disgusting, and damages my health. And its my right to go to a public place and not have my health damaged just because someone else 'Doesn't want to go out in the rain'. I think my health and that of others around me is more valuable than your lack of desire to go outside for a few minutes.

So you'd like to make certain pubs smoking pubs. So what about people in the area who suffer from asthma, or generally want to go to the pub without having their health damaged by other people's smoke? It basically boils down to valuing the trivial desire of these smokers you seem to have fabricated, who couldn't possibly conceive of stepping outside for a ciggarette, over the health and right of others to go to a drinking establishment without getting their health damaged by second hand smoke.


The point is that something may make society 'safer' but not necessarily 'better'. Even if CCTV cameras reduced crime rates, we as socialists would still oppose it on the grounds that they infringe upon basic freedoms.

I oppose CCTV cameras for a number of reasons. But with safety comes liberty. I respect the safety of an innocent person and their right to not get raped more than I respect the 'right' or 'liberty' of a rapist to rape them. Which is why I believe having laws and a peoples militia (an democratic, non permament, recallable version of the police in a future anarchist society) around to try and prevent such things from happening. This CCTV camera debate seems to be an attempt by you to lead this debate away from the topic you are so futilely defending so I am going to stop it enaging you in it.


And you can't see that there's nothing at all sensible about such a comparison?

It boils down to you whether or not you believe such a thing as personal freedom exists, i.e. freedoms no one has the right to take away from you.


And i respect the right of people to enjoy their lives free from policing enforced by a minority.

And I respect peoples freedom to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm someone else. Unfortunately, smoking in inclosed indoor public areas harms other people, and so is an infringement of their basic liberty to not be harmed, and so should be banned.

[Vanguard1917]

"My freedom to swing my fist stops at your face." Your freedom to smoke, regardless of who supports it, stops at the point at which it hurts me. You can't vote to infringe upon someones personal liberty - it is not anarchist to have a vote to decide to rape someone, as an example.

You haven't answered the question. If the majority in a community (e.g. drinkers in a given pub) opposes a ban on smoking -- either because they are smokers themselves or because they don't believe that the state should have such powers -- would you still support it?

All you seem capable of doing is making absurd comparisons. Sensible people recognise that smoking is not murder, rape or racist abuse.



I don't see why I should have to have my health suffer for someone else's habit. It smells disgusting, tastes disgusting, and damages my health.

And i don't see why smokers should suffer because you're so offended by smoking. If you don't like smoking, don't drink in a pub where people smoke. If there was so much demand for such pubs, they would have been long established prior to the ban. But, of course, there wasn't.

Not satisfied with the policy of establishing smoke-free pubs alongside pubs which permit smoking, you feel that everyone should be forced not to smoke simply because you don't like it. The obvious question is, who do you think you are? If a group of people want a pub where smoking is permitted, what legitimate reason do you have to oppose that other than wanting to enforce your own oppostion to smoking upon others.



I oppose CCTV cameras for a number of reasons. But with safety comes liberty. I respect the safety of an innocent person and their right to not get raped more than I respect the 'right' or 'liberty' of a rapist to rape them. Which is why I believe having laws and a peoples militia (an democratic, non permament, recallable version of the police in a future anarchist society) around to try and prevent such things from happening. This CCTV camera debate seems to be an attempt by you to lead this debate away from the topic you are so futilely defending so I am going to stop it enaging you in it.


So, to ask again, if a study was produced which showed that CCTV cameras give way to reductions in crime, should that mean that we would need to support them?



And I respect peoples freedom to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm someone else. Unfortunately, smoking in inclosed indoor public areas harms other people, and so is an infringement of their basic liberty to not be harmed, and so should be banned.


You don't have to drink in a pub where people smoke. If the majority in a pub smokes or oppose smoking bans, then tough -- find somewhere else. You have no right to call upon the state to enforce the rules of a minority.

[Pogue]

You haven't answered the question. If the majority in a community (e.g. drinkers in a given pub) opposes a ban on smoking -- either because they are smokers themselves or because they don't believe that the state should have such powers -- would you still support it?

All you seem capable of doing is making absurd comparisons. Sensible people recognise that smoking is not murder, rape or racist abuse.

But the similarity is, its an act which some people want to do which harms others. As I said, in an anarchist society, the community could not justify taking away someones personal liberty solely on the lines that the majority said they could. If (and this is irrelevant anyway because its not the case) 51% of the pub wanted to smoke and 49% didn't, the 51% are taking awya the 49%'s personal liberty to not have their health damaged by second hand smoke.


And i don't see why smokers should suffer because you're so offended by smoking. If you don't like smoking, don't drink in a pub where people smoke. If there was so much demand for such pubs, they would have been long established prior to the ban. But, of course, there wasn't.

Not satisfied with the policy of establishing smoke-free pubs alongside pubs which permit smoking, you feel that everyone should be forced not to smoke simply because you don't like it. The obvious question is, who do you think you are? If a group of people want a pub where smoking is permitted, what legitimate reason do you have to oppose that other than wanting to enforce your own oppostion to smoking upon others.


Its not that it offends me, its that it harms my health unnecesarily. You could go outside, but you instead choose to value your desire not go go outside over my health. I don't see why I should feel I can't go to my local because lots of people in there cannot be bothered to go outside to smoke a cigarette - going outside doesn't damage them or impede upon their life much at all, and is the consequence of wanting to do a harmful thing. Me having to breathe their smoke harms me a significant amount and can easily lower my quality of life. All because they wont go outside. Luckily, the majority of people are clever and courteous enough to just go outside.


So, to ask again, if a study was produced which showed that CCTV cameras give way to reductions in crime, should that mean that we would need to support them?

I alreayd asnwered this, I reccomend you read my posts rather than repeating the ame questions over and over again in the hope that I'll either slip up or say something you can wildly distort.



You don't have to drink in a pub where people smoke. If the majority in a pub smokes or oppose smoking bans, then tough -- find somewhere else. You have no right to call upon the state to enforce the rules of a minority.


I never said I would call on the state, I explicitly said I'd call on the community. Its never been a problem because the majority of people, smokers and non smokers alike, recognise and accept the reasons for the ban, contrary to the hysteric dreams of smokers like the ones in this thread who wish to see some mighty smokers rebellion. People don't have to smoke where I drink - and they are in the wrong, because one smokers habit harms numerous people, whereas they are the only one who has to go outside, and going outside is less detrimental to health than people breathing in second hand smoke. Its really that simple, which is why the ban was passed and the majority of people support it.

[Vanguard1917]

If (and this is irrelevant anyway because its not the case) 51% of the pub wanted to smoke and 49% didn't, the 51% are taking awya the 49%'s personal liberty to not have their health damaged by second hand smoke.

Why couldn't the minority go to a smoke-free pub instead of banning the majority from smoking?



Its not that it offends me, its that it harms my health unnecesarily.


If you're not willing to take that risk to your health, why don't you go to a pub that's smoke-free?

It's like this example: if you don't want to undertake the potential risks to your safety of going to, say, a rowdy punk gig, you should maybe not attend that gig and find somewhere else to go.

Each to their own. I may not enjoy a smoke-filled pub or a rowdy punk concert. But i support the rights of those that do.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG1917:


Why couldn't the minority go to a smoke-free pub instead of banning the majority from smoking?

Once more, it's the majority who do not smoke.

[Vanguard1917]

VG1917:



Once more, it's the majority who do not smoke.

Even if those who smoked/did not support smoking bans were in a minority, why could they not accordingly have pubs which permitted smoking?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG1917:


Even if those who smoked/did not support smoking bans were in a minority, why could they not accordingly have pubs which permitted smoking?

Only if the workers involved all agreed, no one lost their job for disagreeing, and no non-smokers were barred from applying for jobs there.

Good luck with that one...

[Vanguard1917]

Only if the workers involved all agreed, no one lost their job for disagreeing, and no non-smokers were barred from applying for jobs there.

Good luck with that one...

Nothing unrealistic about that.

[Pogue]

Because, Vanguard1917, it would boil down to someones fundamental personal freedom to work or socialise in a harmless environment being robbed from them because a bunch of people decided they couldn't be bothered to go outside to smoke. Luckily, non-smokers are a majority, rational smokers are a majority and so we never encounter such issues.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG1917:


Nothing unrealistic about that.

No problem; at last we agree on something.

I need a shower...

[Vanguard1917]

Because, Vanguard1917, it would boil down to someones fundamental personal freedom to work or socialise in a harmless environment being robbed from them because a bunch of people decided they couldn't be bothered to go outside to smoke.

People who feel that way should have the freedom to socialise and work as they like; and people who don't feel that way should have exactly the same freedom.

But you've insisted that you're against that. What you want is everyone to have only the 'freedoms' that you yourself see as freedoms.

[Pogue]

People who feel that way should have the freedom to socialise and work as they like; and people who don't feel that way should have exactly the same freedom.

But you've insisted that you're against that. What you want is everyone to have only the 'freedoms' that you yourself see as freedoms.

I think basic logic would dictate someones freedom to not be harmed involuntarily is much more important that someone else's freedom to harm them because it would be oh so difficult for them to simply step outside.

[Invariance]

Even if we assume that there is concrete evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke by bar workers poses a health risk It isn't up for you to assume or not. I have presented sources which document that SHS is a health risk. You, on the other hand, have presented...nothing. Please present some sources which validate your opinion from a medical journal or other scholarly source. Until then, you have no argument.


Drunk people coming out of pubs and clubs on Friday nights pose a potential risk to the public, as well as general annoyance for many workers (street cleaners, those who work in late night fast food outlets, etc.). Should we therefore support a greater police presence on the streets and an expansion of police powers? As someone who once worked in a fast food outlet, there were many times when I would have gladly welcomed a greater police presence (in fact, its part of the reason why we gave discounts to police officers, so that there would be a greater police presence). You would feel that way too if you were threatened and abused by drunken customers. You seem to think that just because that behaviour happens, and workers often take it on the chin, that therefore anything goes. Sorry, doesn't cut it. Workers should be fighting for protection both against abuse from drunken customers and from other health risks. That would certainly include more security. The fact of the matter is that the state isn't prepared to spend more money on protecting workers from such abuse. And nor, typically, are the business owners. Its not helpful when people like you become apologists for such behaviour against workers.


The fact is that if you refuse to put out your cigarette when told to do so by a pig, that pig now has the power to arrest you. That's what the smoking ban means in practice.

Here is the legislation:

Health Act 2006:
7 Offence of smoking in smoke-free place

(1) In this section, a “smoke-free place” means any of the following—
(a) premises, so far as they are smoke-free under or by virtue of sections 2 and 3 (including premises which by virtue of regulations under section 3(5) are smoke-free except in relation to performers),
(b) a place, so far as it is smoke-free by virtue of section 4,
(c) a vehicle, so far as it is smoke-free by virtue of section 5.
(2) A person who smokes in a smoke-free place commits an offence.

(3) But a person who smokes in premises which are not smoke-free in relation to performers by virtue of regulations under section 3(5) does not commit an offence if he is such a performer.

(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (2) to show that he did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that it was a smoke-free place.

(5) If a person charged with an offence under this section relies on a defence in subsection (4), and evidence is adduced which is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to that defence, the court must assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding a level on the standard scale specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

and the Smoke-free (Penalties and Discounted Amounts) Regulations 2007:

Penalties and discounted amounts

2.—
(1) Level 3 is specified for the purposes of section 6(8) (no-smoking sign offences).

(2) Level 1 is specified for the purposes of section 7(6) (offence of smoking in a smoke-free place).

(3) Level 4 is specified for the purposes of section 8(7) (offence of failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place).

(4) In respect of an offence alleged under section 6(5)—


(a) the amount of the penalty specified for the purposes of paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 is £200;

(b) the discounted amount specified for the purposes of paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 is £150.
(5) In respect of an offence alleged under section 7(2)—
(a) the amount of the penalty specified for the purposes of paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 is £50;

(b) the discounted amount specified for the purposes of paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 is £30.
There is a very simple means for a person to avoid getting a fine: don't smoke where you're not supposed to. The great interference of the state compells a person to walk outside or to another appropriate area! And if the person had a reasonable excuse as to know that the premises was not smoke-free, then under the legislation they have a defence.

Your bogeyman of 'state interference' is just that - a mythical monster you have drawn up to support your lack of an argument. Do you think that Marx protested against the 'state interference' of the Factory Acts? On the contrary, the socialists and working class of the day fully supported further legislation to increase working standards. Capital was opposed to it through and through. And what did Marx have to say about those factory inspectors?
We should be appalled at the state of things at home, if, as in England, our governments and parliaments appointed periodically commissions of inquiry into economic conditions; if these commissions were armed with the same plenary powers to get at the truth; if it was possible to find for this purpose men as competent, as free from partisanship and respect of persons as are the English factory-inspectors, her medical reporters on public health, her commissioners of inquiry into the exploitation of women and children, into housing and food. Perseus wore a magic cap down over his eyes and ears as a make-believe that there are no monsters.
Likewise, you have covered your eyes to all evidence.


If you can't handle a bit of smoke, don't go to a pub where the majority of the people smoke or don't mind second-hand smoke. Its not about you or me. Its foremost about the workers whom have to deal with such an environment everyday.

[Invariance]

Sorry I couldn't get more info, but I'm on a limited time right now. But for now,http://www.freedom-of-choice.com/AS3.htm Perhaps you should choose your sources with a more critical mind. I'll quote some of the interesting things that website claims:



Our Rights are endowed from our Creator only to be taken away by our government.

This Freedom-of-Choice website is dedicated to the truthful and factual analysis of how our rights and freedoms are being taken away by various groups such as the anti-smokers, the ACLU, secularists, and others. Let's work together in getting the truth out and save the freedoms that have made the United States great.

Secularism (Anti-Religion): (http://www.freedom-of-choice.com/AR1.htm) It is "freedom of religion", not freedom from religion as the ACLU and its secular troops would have you believe. Find out why and how they are working to destroy the underlying morality of our country. (Under Construction)


AntiSmoking Crusade: Discover the real reasons why they are working to ban smoking everywhere without regard to the rights of individuals and property owners...and without regard to the facts. Also find out the make up of the people behind the "movement" and what their real agenda is.


Next time please quote from a source which doesn't subscribe to right-wing hysteria about those 'anti-freedom secularists' who want to destroy the things that 'have made America great' by 'undermining morality.'

[MilitantAnarchist]

H-L-V-S i did reply to what you said.. you have not commented however... and this is to all the 'supporters' of the smoking ban.......
An OUTRIGHT ban is unfair on the smokers... SO the landlord should decide if it is smoking or non smoking... and the landlord would be fair, because he/she would do it to the wishes of his/her customers and staff...... OR where places can have a smoking room (as they did in the old days) then a seperate room for smokers to go to...
That way, everyone is a winner in my oppinion....

How can anyone disagree with that?

[Invariance]

SO the landlord should decide if it is smoking or non smoking... and the landlord would be fair How odd when an anarchist supports landlords because of property rights!


because he/she would do it to the wishes of his/her customers and staff...... Because, obviously, the capitalist class will act in the interest of workers, right?

If I, as a capitalist, owned a pub and I had the choice of either having a smoking ban or not, I would be mad to enforce one; I would be losing customers to competitors whom didn't enforce a ban.


How can anyone disagree with that? On the basis of opposing liberalism.

[MilitantAnarchist]

How odd when an anarchist supports landlords because of property rights!



Odd? Thats how the pubs work... it would be stupid of me to just ignore landlords in the current capitalist system... im not talking about after a revolution, im talking about now... and i get on with my landlady quite well, most pubs arent free hold as in owned by the landlord... they are owned by the brewry that you buy into to run a pub... if we are getting technical


Because, obviously, the capitalist class will act in the interest of workers, right?

If I, as a capitalist, owned a pub and I had the choice of either having a smoking ban or not, I would be mad to enforce one; I would be losing customers to competitors whom didn't enforce a ban.


One the pub i work at the landlady would do somthing in interest of me, she has done many times... e.g getting in pear cider when im the only person who drinks it, and not that often and other things too....
You wouldnt loose customers when all the customers smoked, not in local pubs anyway... and the few that you would lose, your would make up for by people who want to smoke inside... and most of the people that are regulars in pubs didnt give a shit about smoking inside anyway...
All im saying is give people the choice!... and it isnt strictly true about
and I had the choice of either having a smoking ban or not, I would be mad to enforce one;
people said the same thing about 24hour drinking, but not every pub got the liscence for that....

And all that chat bout 'as an anarchist i should...' fuck all that, im saying people should have the choice to do what they want, and not be told what to do by the state.... if there was 2 pubs on one road, one smoking and one non smoking.... the smoking pub would have people who didnt care if it was smoking or not, and the non smoking pub would have people who did care about being near smoke....

I think that is more logical then an outright ban, and i really cant see the problem with having it that way...
(forgive the spelling mistakes, im in a rush at the moment... got work in an hour)

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I do not support this ban. Banning something like this means the government has more power over this. This can never be a good thing.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^You must be against the ban on, say, rape, then?

[Sam_b]

Yes there are more important things then this... that isnt the issue here.... its about human rights

Why don't you go to someone in Guantanamo, or Abu Graib, or political prisoners in Saudi Arabia and whine to them about how smoking is apparently your 'human right'?

I would fathom that you don't think a worker's right to work in a smoke-free and cancer-free environment is as much of a 'human right' as you not having to go outside to light up.

Seriously.....

[Stranger Than Paradise]

^^^You must be against the ban on, say, rape, then?

Yes of course. I was referring more in the same vein as what Vanguard1917 said.

[Vanguard1917]

Your bogeyman of 'state interference' is just that - a mythical monster you have drawn up to support your lack of an argument. Do you think that Marx protested against the 'state interference' of the Factory Acts? On the contrary, the socialists and working class of the day fully supported further legislation to increase working standards. Capital was opposed to it through and through. And what did Marx have to say about those factory inspectors?

We should be appalled at the state of things at home, if, as in England, our governments and parliaments appointed periodically commissions of inquiry into economic conditions; if these commissions were armed with the same plenary powers to get at the truth; if it was possible to find for this purpose men as competent, as free from partisanship and respect of persons as are the English factory-inspectors, her medical reporters on public health, her commissioners of inquiry into the exploitation of women and children, into housing and food. Perseus wore a magic cap down over his eyes and ears as a make-believe that there are no monsters.


Marx was not calling for greater policing of working class life, as you are. In fact, Marx strongly condemned attempts by the state to regulate the lives of workers -- see his condemnation of Sunday trade restrictions on alcohol, for example, which Marx saw as a puritanical attempt by the state to control workers' lives. When masses of workers gathered in Hyde Park, London to oppose the drinking restrictions, Marx celebrated it as a revolutionary act.

That's a million miles away from today's leftwing proponents of greater police presence in society and the extension of police powers.


I think basic logic would dictate someones freedom to not be harmed involuntarily is much more important that someone else's freedom to harm them because it would be oh so difficult for them to simply step outside.

It's not 'involuntarily' though, if you voluntarily chose to go to a pub where people smoke.

[Pogue]

It's not 'involuntarily' though, if you voluntarily chose to go to a pub where people smoke.


Once more, what about the workers who work there? And why should I have to accept that if I go to my local pub, my health will be damaged by other people just because they wont go outside and smoke?

[Vanguard1917]

Once more, what about the workers who work there?

Workers should be free to work wherever they want to work. That's part of the reason why we call for a socialist system. The workers who do shifts in smoky pubs should be those who voluntarily agree to it. Just like with any other work.



why should I have to accept that if I go to my local pub, my health will be damaged by other people just because they wont go outside and smoke?


Why should people in a pub made up of smokers have to accept that they must go outside into the rain or cold just because you want them to?

[Pogue]

Workers should be free to work wherever they want to work. That's part of the reason why we call for a socialist system. The workers who do shifts in smoky pubs should be those who voluntarily agree to it. Just like with any other work.


And the people who want to go to the pub without being harmed by other people's smoke?



Why should people in a pub made up of smokers accept that they must go outside into the rain or cold just because you want them to?


And now we go back to the beginning again. Because smoking damages the health of other people, whereas going outside doesn't, it prevents people's health being damaged. This amazingly simple piece of evidence is the reason why the ban was enforced and why it has such overwhelming public support.

[Vanguard1917]

And the people who want to go to the pub without being harmed by other people's smoke?


If they can't tolerate the smoke, they would obviously have to go to a pub which is smoke-free.



Because smoking damages the health of other people, whereas going outside doesn't


So what? If people want pubs that people can smoke in, that's their choice. No one would be forcing you to go to them. Why do you think that you have the authority to tell people what they can do to their own bodies. If someone wants to go to a pub and inhale second-hand smoke, that would be their choice. Those who can't tolerate second-hand smoke could go to pubs that are smoke-free.

And if something being unhealthy was automatic justification for bans (as you seem to think it is), we would be living in a very sad old society indeed.

[brigadista]

Whisky is a shortened form of usquebaugh, which English borrowed from Irish Gaelic uisce beatha and Scottish Gaelic uisge beatha. This compound descends from Old Irish uisce, "water," and bethad, "of life," and meaning literally "water of life." It meant the same thing as the Latin aqua vītae which had been applied to distilled drinks since early 14th century. Other early spellings include usquebea (1706) and iskie bae (1583). In the Irish Annals of Clonmacnoise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_of_Clonmacnoise) in 1405, the first written record of whisky appears describing the death of a chieftain at Christmas from "taking a surfeit of aqua vitae". In Scotland, the first evidence of whisky production comes from an entry in the Exchequer Rolls for 1494 where malt is sent "To Friar John Cor, by order of the king, to make aquavitae


personally prefer it with a good smoke - and good company - usually other drinker smokers -but that is my personal choice - you dont have to join us if you cant abide the smoke..and i dont want to impose my smoke on you if you dont like it

[Pogue]

If they can't tolerate the smoke, they would obviously have to go to a pub which is smoke-free.

Or, you could universally makes it it a rule that you can't spread loads of dangerous fumes around an inclosed space just because you want too.



So what? If people want pubs that people can smoke in, that's their choice. No one would be forcing you to go to them. Why do you think that you have the authority to tell people what they can do to their own bodies. If someone wants to go to a pub and inhale second-hand smoke, that would be their choice. Those who can't tolerate second-hand smoke could go to pubs that are smoke-free.

And if something being unhealthy was automatic justification for bans (as you seem to think it is), we would be living in a very sad old society indeed.



Are we going to have to go on with this ad nauseum? We all know we have the right to do what we want with our own bodies, the point is we don't have the right to do something which harms other people, which is why smoking in inclosed public spaces is banned.

[Vanguard1917]

Or, you could universally makes it it a rule that you can't spread loads of dangerous fumes around an inclosed space just because you want too.

No, the whole pub is against a ban, since the pub in question is designated as permitting smoking. Those who go there do so voluntarily. No one is forced to go there, and there are pubs that are smoke-free for those who prefer that.



Are we going to have to go on with this ad nauseum? We all know we have the right to do what we want with our own bodies, the point is we don't have the right to do something which harms other people


And those who choose to be exposed to second-hand smoke should not have a right to do what they want with their own bodies? Why are you telling them that they should not have that right by demanding a total ban on smoking in pubs?

[Pogue]

No, the whole pub is against a ban, since the pub in question is designated as permitting smoking. Those who go there do so voluntarily.


Well, good luck getting that pushed through. As is said, the vast majority of people are in favour of the ban, for reasons we have repeated again and again on here. Its a stupid idea and it wouldn't go through. Its fundamentally wrong, which is why it was banned in the first place.


And those who choose to be exposed to second-hand smoke should not have a right to do what they want with their own bodies? Why are you telling them that they should not have that right?

Erm, what? lol, so we're not respecting the rights of passive smokers to passive smoke now? Mate you need to give this argument up already.

[Vanguard1917]

Erm, what? lol, so we're not respecting the rights of passive smokers to passive smoke now?


Why should people not be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they go into a smoky pub? If it's their own bodies, why should you be allowed to decide for them?



Its fundamentally wrong


You haven't been able to explain why.

[Pogue]

Why should people not be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they go into a smoky pub? If it's their own bodies, why should you be allowed to decide for them?

Why should people have to decide whether or not they want to risk their health going into a pub full of dangerous smoke caused by the habits of others?


You haven't been able to explain why.

About 5 of us have, providing sources too. But you maintain a ridiculous argument we've disproved countless times. But then you just return with excactly the same arguments.

[Vanguard1917]

Why should people have to decide whether or not they want to risk their health going into a pub full of dangerous smoke caused by the habits of others.

Maybe because some people aren't so hysterical about the whole thing, can tolerate a bit of cigarette smoke, think that there are more important things to life than worrying about every single potential health risk, and feel that sitting in a smoky pub is a small price to pay for freedom from state interference.

If such people want access to pubs that permit smoking, why should the state have powers to deny that right?



About 5 of us have, providing sources too. But you maintain a ridiculous argument we've disproved countless times. But then you just return with excactly the same arguments.


I am forced to repeat points because of your failure to address them.

[Pogue]

Maybe because some people aren't so hysterical about the whole thing, can tolerate a bit of cigarette smoke, think that there are more important things to life than worrying about every single potential health risk, and feel that sitting in a smoky pub is a small price to pay for freedom from state interference.

If such people want access to pubs that permit smoking, why should the state have powers to deny that right?

The state doesn't, the community does. And opinion polls support it, as does basic morality and health rights.

I love how you talk about hysteria and then talk about how oppresive it is that the poor smokers might have to be forced *shudder* *horror* outside to smoke. Its you whose getting hysterical about a bit of couteousy.


I am forced to repeat points because of your failure to address them.

No offense mate, but this is so ridiculous its embarassing you'd claim it. I think its clear to everyone but you that your the one failing to address points, hence your repetition and denial.

[Vanguard1917]

The state doesn't, the community does.


And what if a section of the community opposes a general smoking ban?

Why don't you address the point made? If some people want to have access to pubs where there is cigarrette smoke, why should you have the power to tell them what they can do with their own bodies?

[Pogue]

And what if a section of the community opposes a general smoking ban?

Why don't you address the point made? If some people want to have access to pubs where there is cigarrette smoke, why should you have the power to tell them what they can do with their own bodies?

As we have said, the liberty to not get harmed by someone elses choice is stronger than the desire to consume a ciggarete in an area where it harms other people.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bakunin-Kropotkin:


Yes of course.

So, you are against the ban on rape, then? You want rape legalised?

[Vanguard1917]

As we have said, the liberty to not get harmed by someone elses choice is stronger than the desire to consume a ciggarete in an area where it harms other people.

That's not addressing the point at all. If that's what some peole want (access to pubs which permit smoking), what legitimate reason do you have to tell them what they can do with their own bodies?

We're not saying that people should be forced into such places. We're saying that they should exist for those that want them.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG1917:


We're not saying that people should be forced into such places. We're saying that they should exist for those that want them.

In which case, you support the ban elsewhere.

[Vanguard1917]

VG1917:

In which case, you support the ban elsewhere.

I'd support there to be smoke-free pubs if that's what some people wanted.

[brigadista]

i find it funny that the most virulent anti smokers i know are bike riders and live in cities where breathing in means more damage than cig smoke..

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Brigadista:


i find it funny that the most virulent anti smokers i know are bike riders and live in cities where breathing in means more damage than cig smoke..

Can't speak for the bikers, but I'd support a clean air program and the use of non-polluting fuels. The thing wth transport is that it is essential; not so with smoking.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG1917:


I'd support there to be smoke-free pubs if that's what some people wanted.

Look, a second area where we agree in less than two days is freaking me out.

[Absolut]

Yes there are more important things then this... that isnt the issue here.... its about human rights, we pay shed loads on taxes on fags, why cant we smoke em? fuck that... whats it gotta do with anyone else? yea it hurts them, if you dont like it dont go to the pub, or go to a 'non smoking' pub...

You can smoke how many cigarettes you want, as long as you dont harm other people while doing it. Its quite simple actually, your freedom is endless, until it meets someone elses equally endless freedom. You can smoke however much you want, but when you impose your smoke on others you limit their freedom and extend your own over them, making them less free than you.


they should of gave landlords/ladys the choice to be SMOKING or NON SMOKING.... im not talking about the big shit hole pubs like Wetherspoon pubs... i meen the local boozers... that is 90% local people, and most of them smoke... all the staff smoke... the people who dont smoke dont mind because theyve been coming in for years......
The smoking ban has killed the pub trade, it has kept people in instead of bringing them out...
How can you defend that? the corporations are winning they can lower beer prices to attract the majority... local pubs suffer.

I dont really think you should give the landlords and -ladies the option to themselves choose wether one can smoke in their establishment or not, I would much rather see that the workers themselves chose it, theyre the ones that has to put up with it. If that possibility isnt open, Id much rather you have to walk outside to smoke, so that a worker doesnt have to inhale second hand smoking involountarily.

Dont put words in my mouth, Im not at all defending the big corporations that are able to have lower prices than the local pubs, just as I dont support Wal-mart and Starbucks tactics to knock out the local grocery stores and coffee shops. What Im defending is the workers that have to work in dangerous conditions, and as long as theyre not able to choose themselves wether to work there or not, Id rather noone had to.


Plus they can still smoke in the house of commons if they wanted, so the law makers dont follow the own rules.... yes they have 'banned' it to 'follow suit' but the point is, they COULD if they wanted... n how do we no they dont smoke in there?

Im not sure I follow you. Before the ban they could smoke there, but then they banned it to 'follow suit', but they still can?

The same principle that I outlined above applies to the House of Commons as well. If the people working there agree to it being a smoking establishment, I dont give to shits if they smoke or not.

Sorry if this has already been said, I couldnt be bothered to read through the whole thread.

[Radical]

I support a full ban of smoking.

Theres no good reason why smoking should be allowed.
It kills people and damages society.

[Sam_b]

I support a full ban of smoking.

Theres no good reason why smoking should be allowed.
It kills people and damages society.

I support a full ban of alcohol.

Theres no good reason why alcohol should be allowed.
It kills people and damages society.

---

I support a full ban of high-fat foods.

Theres no good reason why high-fat foods should be allowed.
It kills people and damages society.

I take it that you would ban all these as well then?

[JohnnieGoodtimes]

I am for a partial smoking ban. Smoking should not be allowed in hospitals, offices, restaraunts or anywhere children are present.

However, I do feel smoking should be allowed in bars and pubs. And if an establishment chooses to be smoke-free that is their right.

I live in Michigan and the state is currently mulling an all out ban. As a smoker this hurts me doubly so, as the city I live in has a law banning smoking 25ft from entrances of all public buildings. Meaning, if I step out of one our many non-smoking bars for a smoke I could be potentially fined. Another issue is the weather in Michigan. I can put up with rain or heat. But winter here is brutal. If I were to go out in January, it could very well be about -5 degrees Fahrenheit outside. (-20 Celcius). No amount of heating lamps would keep someone warm in that weather.

I prefer how it is now. If I am going out with smokers or by myself, I go to the bar that is known as a very smokey bar. If I go out with my anti-smoking friends, we go to a bar where smoking is not allowed. Same for employment, if I don't want to work in a smokey bar, I won't, nobody is forcing me too. I will find employment elsewhere.

There should be no reason for smoking bans in a bar/pub. If you don't like whats on the radio you change the station. If you don't like smoking, go to a smoke-free establishment.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I support a full ban of alcohol.

Theres no good reason why alcohol should be allowed.
It kills people and damages society.

---

I support a full ban of high-fat foods.

Theres no good reason why high-fat foods should be allowed.
It kills people and damages society.

I take it that you would ban all these as well then?

I know it's not your intention, but, technically, those aren't bad ideas.

[Sam_b]

I know it's not your intention, but, technically, those aren't bad ideas

So you think it isn't a 'bad idea' for the state to restrict further what people can and cannot do to their own bodies? They haven't banned smoking outright, only in places where others can share the risks. Saying that this isn't a 'bad idea': doesn't that directly contradict the idea of anarcho-communism and body autonomy?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

So you think it isn't a 'bad idea' for the state to restrict further what people can and cannot do to their own bodies? They haven't banned smoking outright, only in places where others can share the risks. Saying that this isn't a 'bad idea': doesn't that directly contradict the idea of anarcho-communism and body autonomy?

Any political ideology that places values as "fixed" and "unchallengeable" is becoming fundamentalism. As much as we may think a value is universal, we should never commit to it fundamentally. That makes one a fundamentalist. Maybe I am mistaken on my anti-fundamentalist fundamentalism.

Bodily autonomy exists because it creates desirable results and is intrinsically good. If the results of bodily autonomy are significantly harmful, they can justify restrictions. Restriction on the basis of harm to others is one such example.

The idea that we should attach no value to the suffer of others is not accepted. The idea that we should never value the suffering of others over their bodily autonomy is also accepted. Why? We will limit the bodily autonomy of others to harm others - killing minorities, perhaps - but we will not do so for others upon themselves?

Why society can be ban is a difficult topic. We avoid it altogether because of the risk involved. However, if society came forth with a petition to ban alcohol and a cheap effective way to do so, I'm not sure I wouldn't sign it. A lot of people die because of alcohol. A LOT. Freedom is worthless without your life.

Society is a balancing act. We should dismiss restrictions on freedom fundamentally unless we have a concrete argument for unlimited freedom. Even historical thinkers such as Mill have made exceptions. We lack a criteria to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate restriction so we tend to avoid it altogether. However, everything in life need not be analytical. If we can point to restrictions on a case by case basis, it's not necessarily a worry if they contradict one another.

[Klaatu]

I have one thing to say here: buy tobacco and make a capitalist rich.

Tobacco companies are run by capitalist pigs.

NOW what do you smokers think of smoking???

HeHeHe :lol:

[Sam_b]

I have one thing to say here: buy tobacco and make a capitalist rich.

Tobacco companies are run by capitalist pigs.

NOW what do you smokers think of smoking???

HeHeHe

Food companies are run by capitalist pigs.
Clothing companies are run by capitalist pigs.

NOW what do you think about eating and wearing clothes?

Fool.

[Klaatu]

Obviously you missed my point completely, so let me explain it to you.

(1) Food and clothing do not KILL people. Tobacco does.

(2) If your (real) cause is socialism, then you should look around you and recognize the
manner in which you are being subjugated by capitalists at every turn. It is a dirty rotten
shame that a private company can legally addict people on it's product and make them sick,
even kill them, all in the name of profit. Perhaps you do not mind being under the control of
a capitalist (tobacco companies) but I find such a thing reprehensible.

[Sam_b]

(1) Food and clothing do not KILL people. Tobacco does.

To hell with your bleeding heart liberalism. Do you not think that smokers are aware of the risks? All you are doing is calling for state powers to limit a person's right to do what they want to their own bodies.


(2) If your (real) cause is socialism, then you should look around you and recognize the
manner in which you are being subjugated by capitalists at every turn. It is a dirty rotten
shame that a private company can legally addict people on it's product and make them sick,
even kill them, all in the name of profit. Perhaps you do not mind being under the control of
a capitalist (tobacco companies) but I find such a thing reprehensible.

Way to miss the point completely. Hello, wake up. In a capitalist system such as this it is not just tobacco that is under control by capitalism - everything is. The choice of brands you go for, fast food, alcohol....So I imagine you'll be in the same game to prohibit chips, burgers, sweets, all this fattening food which is also addictive and manaufactured and controlled through the capitalist means of production.

Body autonomy is a pretty basic demand, and one that should be fought for. Pseudo Marxists like yourself need to wake up to this fact. Ban all drugs as well eh? Balls to you.

[Klaatu]

I prefer to attack the purveyors of the worst society has to offer: tobacco, alcohol, dope, porn, guns, and yes, high-fat foods. And so forth.

You are speaking of your own "rights" but do you realize that by buying these products, you are only contributing to the ever-tightening noose of capitalism? If you can agree with this, why not either buy your tobacco from a socialist country/company, or grow your own? Why make capitalists ever wealthier? Is this what you really want to do? If on the other hand, you like the capitalist system, you do need to realize it's pitfalls and shortcomings.

And there are many shortcomings. I'm not talking about the lowest-level individual-to-individual trade (for example you hire a guy to mow your lawn, or I buy your old car.) I am talking about the huge multinational corporate powers which are gaining an ever-increasing control over commerce and trade, crushing small businessmen, shipping good-paying jobs to low-wage countries, trashing the environment, and all the while lobbying (bribing) those capitalist-brainwashed politicians who have been on the take for years. This is a broken system.

That brings up a bigger issue: We sit here and gripe about the system which was forced upon us, yet we participate (myself included.) What real change is going to come about if we continue to buy the products of the capitalist system?

My point being this: How do we ever expect to change the world if we keep on pissing our money away on non-essential, even damaging, capitalist-created products and services? What choices do you have? You do have choices. For example, why not buy a new car from a socialist-leaning country such as Sweden or France? That would be a good slap in the face of safety/pollution/fuel economy regulation-fighting capitalist American car makers. Of course, no one is forcing you.

[Klaatu]

I think you have taken the wrong idea of my first (facetious) posting. I am attacking the flawed system, the nefarious products which are pushed on an unwary public, and those who profit from all of this. Also the massive level of corporate subjugation. Do you not think of yourself as a victim of the system? You are.

I am not attacking your personal "bodily autonomy" as you have derived.

[Sam_b]

You are speaking of your own "rights" but do you realize that by buying these products, you are only contributing to the ever-tightening noose of capitalism?

OH MY GOD REALLY. To get away from ridiculously naive semantics however....Its an absolute basic part of theory that we cannot boycott capitalism. Let's stop this noose eh? We should eat only which can can produce ourselves outside of the capitalist system, build our own homes, knit our own clothes from sheep we've raised outside capitalism. While we're at it, let's stop CAPITALISM'S GREAT NOOSE by calling for all workers to leave their jobs, as they are contributing to this capitalist system
This is the logical conclusion to your analysis, which equates small-level capitalism = acceptable, and big capitalism = bad. So pretty much some of the stuff that some more left liberal Democrats would epouse.

If we continue to buy our produce under the only current system, and work under the only current system, then it might just be possible that we won't starve to death. The point is to build a class conscious movement to overthrow the system, not just try and sidestep out of capitalism which leads to isolationism, defeat and the system crushing us again.

In short: I think you telling of smokers on here that they are somehow more guilty of supporting capitalism than others is absurd.

You'r on the internet, on a computer (perhaps a Dell, perhaps and HP) and very possibly using Windows or Internet Explorer. So where's your excuse for supporting 'big capitalism' then?

[Klaatu]

Have you been following the Great Banking Crisis of the past year? What do you think caused the present economic collapse? Well it wasn't socialists! Socialists work for the common good of all mankind, not for greedy profit, crush the little guy, trash the environment and all of the parameters which hungry capitalists thrive upon.

Let me ask you a question: What do you think of having lost money on your home, your investments, and perhaps your job, to the robber-barons of society? If you think these rapers-of-society are all good, honest "businessmen," I have some land on the moon for sale.

Lastly, I do not understand something: how do you call yourself socialist, if you have such staunch support of a system (capitalism) which is the antithesis of "public-ownership-of-the-means-of-production?"

[Klaatu]

You'r on the internet, on a computer (perhaps a Dell, perhaps and HP) and very possibly using
Windows or Internet Explorer. So where's your excuse for supporting 'big capitalism' then?

There are no computers on my list of "worst society has to offer"


I prefer to attack the purveyors of the worst society has to offer: tobacco, alcohol, dope, porn,
guns, and yes, high-fat foods. And so forth.

And I never said that every single businessman is a dirty rotten criminal.

[Sam_b]

Man, this conversation is ridiculous.



Have you been following the Great Banking Crisis of the past year? What do you think caused the present economic collapse? Well it wasn't socialists! Socialists work for the common good of all mankind, not for greedy profit, crush the little guy, trash the environment and all of the parameters which hungry capitalists thrive upon.

Capitalism caused the current crisis. No shit.



Let me ask you a question: What do you think of having lost money on your home, your investments, and perhaps your job, to the robber-barons of society? If you think these rapers-of-society are all good, honest "businessmen," I have some land on the moon for sale.

Tell me when I have said businessmen, or capitalism is good. Show me evidence or shut up with your whiny liberal bollocks.



Lastly, I do not understand something: how do you call yourself socialist, if you have such staunch support of a system (capitalism) which is the antithesis of "public-ownership-of-the-means-of-production?"


You're an idiot.

Show me where I am a supporter of capitalism. Now, if you actually bothered to read for one minute rather than you pathetic whining ("business is sooo bad tobacco companies suck" we know!) then all I have said in this thread is that it is impossible to boycott capitalism because it controls practically everything. The Zapatistas tried to create a space outside the system and what happened? The capitalist state rolled in to try and break it up. All I am advocating is none of this liberal bullshit about being 'guilty' for smoking cigarettes - it's not my fault that smokes are manufactured by capitalists.


There are no computers on my list of "worst society has to offer"

I couldn't give two shits if its on 'your list' or not. The fact is by the line you're arguing - you are a hypocrite. Lambasting people for smoking because of smoking's 'big business' but also typing your responses from a computer, probably just as bad for the health of the sweatshop labourers making some of the parts for a pittance a day.

Since when have 'boycotts of capitalism' ever actually worked either? Your utopian liberal idealism is appalling: the key thing here is that we build a movement in our communities to achieve a class-conscious population, which are able at some point to mount a revolutionary challenge to capital. It is emphatically not taking your bleeding heart 'high and mighty' approach where you lecture workers on the evils of smoking.

So, again, you cannot boycott capitalism - you have to accept that it is here and build a movement against it. So shut your liberal claptrap where if somebody doesn't agree with you you accuse them of supporting capitalism merely because you don't understand the simple arguments. Otherwise don't respond - put on your Crocs to go buy organic food somewhere while lecturing ever person you see smoking and stop infecting this board.

[Forward Union]

The argument is simply one of workers rights, and that is it. Answer this

Should workers be entitled to the human right of not being subjugated to potentially fatal substances whilst at work.

Yes (support smoking ban)

No (Vote Tory)

[Patchd]

The argument is simply one of workers rights, and that is it. Answer this

Should workers be entitled to the human right of not being subjugated to potentially fatal substances whilst at work.

Yes (support smoking ban)

No (Vote Tory)

No, not quite that clear cut as the two options you provided, and believing that workers should be entitled to work in healthy environments doesn't mean that you must support the smoking ban either.

The smoking ban can only be seen in a Capitalist context. Smoking rooms and better ventilation is less profitable than letting smokers stand outside, even if that cuts the amount of profit they would usually receive. At the same time, having smokers smoking inside also damages the health of other people around them, regardless of whether they smoke or not.

But again, the first option is purely an issue that workers have with Capitalist society, and that needs to be highlighted. Having smoking rooms with good ventilation in most public places is feasible in a profit-free society, under Capitalism, it becomes a problem.

So, yes, I do support workers' rights, at the same time, the smoking ban is another ridiculous attempt at making Capitalism seem patriarchal and caring.

Wrote a blog on it if anyone would care to read it: http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=415

[The Feral Underclass]

No, not quite that clear cut as the two options you provided, and believing that workers should be entitled to work in healthy environments doesn't mean that you must support the smoking ban either.

The smoking ban can only be seen in a Capitalist context. Smoking rooms and better ventilation is less profitable than letting smokers stand outside, even if that cuts the amount of profit they would usually receive. At the same time, having smokers smoking inside also damages the health of other people around them, regardless of whether they smoke or not.

But again, the first option is purely an issue that workers have with Capitalist society, and that needs to be highlighted. Having smoking rooms with good ventilation in most public places is feasible in a profit-free society, under Capitalism, it becomes a problem.

So, yes, I do support workers' rights, at the same time, the smoking ban is another ridiculous attempt at making Capitalism seem patriarchal and caring.

Wrote a blog on it if anyone would care to read it: http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=415

Furthermore, this is a statist solution to an issue that should be resolved by communities, not by governments or legislation.

I'd also like to highlight Forward Union's patronising attitude towards the working class. He essentially makes the implication that "workers rights" should be mandated by the state on behalf of the working class. Apparently the government banning smoking is "defending our workers rights".

But what are workers rights? There's no such thing as "rights" actually, except bestowed onto us by the ruling class. We don't need "rights" to determine what is best for our communities or our workplaces, those decisions should be made on the ground, by workers themselves.

If people in a workplace decide they want it to be smoke free that is their choice, but further to that if they decide it to be a place to smoke that is equally acceptable. Who are you or me never mind the state to dictate how workers should live their lives?

Then again, it's no surprise that FU is supporting statist solutions.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes (support smoking ban)

No (Vote Tory)

...Because the world is binary.

You're either with us or against us.


"This isn't just platformism. This is L&S platformism"

[Forward Union]

...Because the world is binary.

You're either with us or against us.


"This isn't just platformism. This is L&S platformism"

This has nothing to do with platformism or statism. Only 2 days ago I spoke to an AF member who agreed with me on this issue. Along with members of Action East end and HSG.

The question we should be asking is exactly the one I have posed. Workers, in bars, should not have to breath in carcinogens which kill them. Full stop. That's the end of the issue.


But again, the first option is purely an issue that workers have with Capitalist society, and that needs to be highlighted. Having smoking rooms with good ventilation in most public places is feasible in a profit-free society, under Capitalism, it becomes a problem.Fine, but if you haven't noticed, community organisational density is probably less than 2%. So for now that's like saying builders on construction sites shouldn't have hard hats because the safety law which requires them to wear hard hats is state legislation that we don't recognize. And until workers take over the world we don't give a fuck about shit. You're forgetting of course that the bosses are still in charge, and if not legislated to do so, will not willingly provide any safety equipment or training (meaning workers would have to buy it all themselves). They will also automatically allow pubs to be smoking pubs, as this increases revenue, the only reason they would ban smoking in pubs is because they're liberal pussy fuckwits. This is not to say I see the state as a benevolent force looking out for the small guy. The opposite. Such legislation was won through struggle, and will easily slip away if we don't have permenant bodies of class power.

Is your position that workers in Bars have less rights than any other human in the UK, and should be forced (coerced, by a need for wages) to breath incredibly dangerous toxins whilst at work? In capitalism members of the community can choose not to go to a smoking pub, they can stay at home, or start a speak easy. Bar workers, have to work. And should not have to die for it.

Your saying that workplaces should vote on whether to enforce smoking bans is exactly what should happen when workers have overthrown their bosses or created a situation of dual power. But going against the smoking ban now is like going against the NHS because that to is state run (then again, maybe you do say that, im not sure to what extent you've sold our your anarchism for ultra-left communism)



But again, the first option is purely an issue that workers have with Capitalist society, and that needs to be highlighted. Having smoking rooms with good ventilation in most public places is feasible in a profit-free society, under Capitalism, it becomes a problem.

Also, work will be voluntary, and non-smokers wont have to work in bars. But as it stands, they do.



I'd also like to highlight Forward Union's patronising attitude towards the working class. .Not at all. All concessions handed down to us are done unwillingly, through our own self organization or through or a general fear of this. It can also bea result of internal power struggles within the ruling class.


He essentially makes the implication that "workers rights" should be mandated by the state on behalf of the working class. Apparently the government banning smoking is "defending our workers rights"This is mindless ultra leftism. I welcome concessions made by the ruling class that physically benefit working class, because I live in reality and not ultra-left theory lala land

I mean, who the fuck did those haymarket martyrs think they were campaigning for the 8 hour day. Don't they realise that if the state legislate an hour day that's just supporting the idea that workers rights are mandated by the state. The nerve.

[Forward Union]

But what are workers rights? There's no such thing as "rights" actually, except bestowed onto us by the ruling class. We don't need "rights" to determine what is best for our communities or our workplaces, those decisions should be made on the ground, by workers themselves.

And why do they bestow them on us? Guilty conscience?

...Actually it was you who argued that human acts of altruism were beyond scientific explanation.. so maybe we'll have to stop it there.

[Forward Union]

So, yes, I do support workers' rights, at the same time, the smoking ban is another ridiculous attempt at making Capitalism seem patriarchal and caring.

Yea, like the 8 hour day and womens rights. I suppose we should get rid of them to, that'll teach those pesky bosses.

(Also, I think you meant paternal rather than patriachal ;) )

[The Feral Underclass]

This has nothing to do with platformism or statism.

Yes it does. The state is enforcing the ban, and you support it.


Only 2 days ago I spoke to an AF member who agreed with me on this issue. Along with members of Action East end and HSG.I don't see how it follows that an AF member and someone from two other groups who support the ban means that it is legitimised.


The question we should be asking is exactly the one I have posed.Well, clearly I don't agree, as I've stated.


Workers, in bars, should not have to breath in carcinogens which kill them. Full stop. That's the end of the issue. And it is your opinion that we should rely on state solutions in order to deal with it.


This is mindless ultra leftism. I welcome concessions made by the ruling class that physically benefit working class, because I live in reality and not ultra-left theory lala landThat's because you're a statist.


I mean, who the fuck did those haymarket martyrs think they were campaigning for the 8 hour day. Don't they realise that if the state legislate an hour day that's just supporting the idea that workers rights are mandated by the state. The nerve.This is where you're confusion comes in. You're unable to view the world outside of your binary world view and therefore are incapable of really getting to grips with "reality" as you call it.

I am perfectly happy for workers to ban smoking from their workplace, that's never been in question. In fact, as a smoker, I fully support working class people, in their workplace coming to the democratic decision that they want smoking stopped.

You, however, support the execution of the states perceived legitimate authority to enforce its regulations on the working class, despite what they think. You support the smoking ban after all.


And why do they bestow them on us? Guilty conscience?No, not because they have a guilty conscience, but because they have come to realise that recuperating class struggle is far more beneficial to their hegemonic control over society than attempting to fight it.


...Actually it was you who argued that human acts of altruism were beyond scientific explanation.. so maybe we'll have to stop it there.(That makes no sense)

Not it wasn't. Nice try though.

[Forward Union]

Yes it does. The state is enforcing the ban, and you support it.

I don't see how it follows that an AF member and someone from two other groups who support the ban means that it is legitimised.


And I don't see how it being espoused by a platformist amongst many others makes it illegitimised. But you started this game.]


You, however, support the execution of the states perceived legitimate authority to enforce its regulations on the working class, despite what they think. You support the smoking ban after all.


:cool:


No, not because they have a guilty conscience, but because they have come to realise that recuperating class struggle is far more beneficial to their hegemonic control over society than attempting to fight it.

:cool:


Not it wasn't. Nice try though.

:cool:

[h0m0revolutionary]

And I don't see how it being espoused by a platformist amongst many others makes it illegitimised. But you started this game.]


Just shows how insincere in your anarchism you are. You, as a platformist, are calling on the state to enforce blanket bans. Very libertarian :/.

[Blackscare]

I can't wade through it all right now, but where the hell does Platformism tie into this and why is it lumped in with the word "statism"?

You'd have to have a poor conception of Platformism to confuse it with something remotely statist (that's aimed at it's detractors and potentially at organizations that don't do it justice).

[Patchd]

Yea, like the 8 hour day and womens rights. I suppose we should get rid of them to, that'll teach those pesky bosses.

(Also, I think you meant paternal rather than patriachal ;) )

Who said I wanted to repeal the smoking ban? I simply don't support it. Just like I don't support the NHS, it can be made much better in terms of workers' control, but first and foremost it is a statist institution that I don't support, but will still defend. Likewise for the smoking ban, I would most likely defend it on the basis that workers should have the right to work in a smoke-free environment, I would defend it only because it is a gain, but it is essentially a bourgeois initiative and won't give any support to it.

And yeh, cheers. :rolleyes:


Freedom is worthless without your life.

And is life without freedom worth much?

[Forward Union]

Just shows how insincere in your anarchism you are. You, as a platformist, are calling on the state to enforce blanket bans. Very libertarian :/.

Do you agree with health and safety law that forces employers to provide workers with training and equiptment as to avoid fatalities at work?

If you do, you're as much a statist as I am.

[Forward Union]

Who said I wanted to repeal the smoking ban? I simply don't support it. Just like I don't support the NHS,

If you don't support the NHS then you're more an academic than an anarchist.


it can be made much better in terms of workers' control, but first and foremost it is a statist institution that I don't support, but will still defend.

So in other words you do support it but you have criticisms :rolleyes:


Likewise for the smoking ban, I would most likely defend it on the basis that workers should have the right to work in a smoke-free environment,

Right. We agree. Next issue.

[Chambered Word]

I thought we were fighting capital greed, not letting the capitalists make profits from fucking up everyone's health.

Enjoy your smokers' revolution. :rolleyes:

[Klaatu]

SAM B:

So you actually do not support capitalism. Good (because you had appeared to; I thus had read you wrong.)

But you still don't get my point, do you? I am blasting those capitalist enterprises that are, and have been, legally addicting and poisoning the public with substances and products which are insidious grave dangers to public health and safety.

I am not talking about boycotting or putting down the entire capitalist system by tomorrow morning! You make my statements sound as if I am advocating a wholesale regression of society into a primitive hunter-gatherer, cave-man existence. Where do you get such nonsense? Of course we need to produce food, shelter, clothing, and necessities of living. This is a necessary trade. So where do you get this silly idea that I am opposed to anything and everything in existence? You put an incredible spin on my original post, and then accuse me of being ridiculous?

You seem to be one of these people who wants to have the "freedom" to do whatever you please. Would you prefer to have the freedom to snort a pile of radioactive toxic waste, if suppose, the deceptive, profiteering capitalist declares it to be "safe, and actually healthy," so you can then trustfully consume it? Well count me out on that one. I would rather not be poisoned by the hand of the capitalist.

Lastly, I did not bring up computers, you did! (and what does Microsoft have to do with substance abuse???) And one more thing: try to improve your debating skills. Calling me a "fool" and "idiot" makes me think you are only about fourteen years old. Why don't you grow up!

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

SAM B:


But you still don't get my point, do you? I am blasting those capitalist enterprises that are, and have been, legally addicting and poisoning the public with substances and products which are insidious grave dangers to public health and safety.



I wish to take certain substances and thats my business and its my decision if I take the health risks. Not yours if i try to force you tablets or spike your drink then its your business and I have done something wrong. But my wish is do decide what enters my own body is none of your business and I would appricaite the decrease is gangs , decrase high prices which cause people with issues who are often afraid to seek help for them for legal reasons to break into houses and a decrease in the chance of me being put in a cell over night if I get caught doing something. My body my choice.

Piss off puritan.

[Klaatu]

"I wish to take certain substances and thats my business and its my decision if I take the health risks."

The emphasis is really on those who make and sell harmful substances, not so much the users. But since we are shifting the focus from the seller, to the user himself, let us analyze that end of it.

Is anyone in your family an alcoholic? Dope addict? If you have seen what this stuff does to people, (I have) you might think a bit differently. Sure, do what you want, and send me the health care bill when you land in the hospital as a consequence of your addictions. Isn't that what health insurance does? Stick the other guy with the medical bill for your freedoms to harm yourself?

Freedom is good. You do have freedom, sir. But a community does not want it's members to fall into a trap of addiction, harm, and death. Do you have children? Suppose you do, and they are grown (as mine are) would you not feel bad if they led a life of alcohol or dope addiction? Or perhaps you are not yet of legal age, in which case you still have a lot to learn. :cool:

[Klaatu]

Sam, I would be a hypocrite if I were, for example, blasting computers and internet crime, while at the same time using a computer to commit cyber-crimes. Or blasting homosexuals if I were actually a repressed closet homosexual. Or blasting pornography if I was a closet porn collector. People who are hypocrites usually have a hidden ulterior motive to their public positions, and wish to hide (or divert attention away from) their personal issues.

Maybe you are suggesting that I am a closet capitalist? :laugh:

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

The emphasis is really on those who make and sell harmful substances, not so much the users. But since we are shifting the focus from the seller, to the user himself, let us analyze that end of it.

The people who will kill you or if your lucky beat you shitless if you cant afford your adiction will quite simply go out of business if drugs are legalized.



Is anyone in your family an alcoholic? Dope addict?

Mind your own fucking business.

(PS: Ever being shot at by a drug gang?)


If you have seen what this stuff does to people, (I have) you might think a bit differently.

Yet again mind your own fucking business. Second of all I dont give a fuck what you have being though drug restrictions a fucking stupid thing as seen in the vast increase in crime in the US when alchoal was banned.


Sure, do what you want, and send me the health care bill when you land in the hospital as a consequence of your addictions. Isn't that what health insurance does? Stick the other guy with the medical bill for your freedoms to harm yourself?


I have no idea what the fuck your on about but i suspect its you not wanting to collectively pay for any health risks I take. Tough shit I accept people wish to cross roads even though it increases the chance of them turning jam. If in a communist soctiey you dont want to support other people in return for them supporting you , then your free to fuck off and a live in a cave.


Freedom is good. You do have freedom, sir. But a community does not want it's members to fall into a trap of addiction, harm, and death.

Hence the need for education. Teaching people the risks and benifits will work better then standing at the front of a classroom and going NO DRUGS NEVAAAAAAAAAA


Do you have children? Suppose you do, and they are grown (as mine are) would you not feel bad if they led a life of alcohol or dope addiction?

No I would cheer it on. :rolleyes:

Oh no I would make sure they were educated enough to be able to make informed decisions on what goes into there own body.



Or perhaps you are not yet of legal age, in which case you still have a lot to learn. :cool:

This is probably why you were abandoned as a child.


People are going to take drugs weather puritains like yourself want them to or not the majority of people in life quite simply do not care about what you think. Peple take drugs because they are fun sometimes they get hooked this can be prevented by education which we dont have now because of the legal problems and the fact that for illegal drugs the subject is taboo. When people do get hooked and are unable to pay the high prices (high prices as a result of criminalization) they mug people , break into houses and other kind of thing no one in there right mind would want happening this would be prevented by the lowering of costs that legalization would bring.

[Klaatu]

Comrade Joe

"If in a communist soctiey you dont want to support other people in return for them supporting you ,
then your free to fuck off and a live in a cave."

The difference is I do not take stupid risks. I don't do drugs, don't speed in traffic, don't
engage in stupidly risky sexual behavior, etc. And I don't ask others to cover for my mistakes.
__________________________________________________ __________________________

Think about freedom. (That word everyone likes to use.) Now try to understand that freedom
goes hand-in-hand with social responsibility. Freedom without responsibility, is not freedom
at all, it is Law of the Jungle, where the strong survive, and the weak get crushed. Freedom
without responsibility is the antithesis of civilization itself. The true socialist has this sense
of responsibility to the community. This is where you fell into my trap. You've shown that you
do not possess this responsibility to your community, as a true socialist would. Because if
you really cared about others, you would wish to improve your community as yourself.
This means watching out for your comrade, who might be in trouble (addiction, crime, etc.)
(Too bad you missed this part of Marxist philosophy.)

There are some people here that like to think they are socialist, when they are really just a
bunch of angry young men with issues. Some day you too, will see this.

[Klaatu]

Comrade Joe

You are correct, there is a lot of drug crime in the U.S. But I don't think the occasional drug crime (and this is
vastly overblown by the media over here) is good reason enough to just give up the battle on harmful dope.

Is the answer legalization of drugs? Here is an analogy: You, your parents, or grandparents, living in England,
during the early 1940s, would have been subjected to intense bombing from the Nazis. This was a clear and
present danger to your country. Now, what if your countrymen would have just "given up" the defense of your
homeland, and essentially "legalized" the Nazis? What would have been the outcome of that? And where would
your "freedom" have gone?

And what would legalization of drugs do to a country? That is the conundrum.

[Klaatu]

Comrade Joe

Let's look at this your way. Let's examine the pros and cons of legalization of drugs:

Illegal

• People in jail for manufacturing, selling, possession
• gang violence and killings
• un-employability of drug addicts
• addiction and resultant crime (theft to support drug habit)
• addiction and resultant hospitalizations and deaths from overdoses
• ruined families and friendships
• traffic accidents
• school dropouts

Legal

• un-employability of drug addicts
• addiction and resultant crime (theft to support drug habit)
• addiction and resultant hospitalizations and deaths from overdoses
• ruined families and friendships
• traffic accidents
• school dropouts
• drugs may cost even more, because the pharmaceutical companies would create
a cartel of their own (only they would be able to manufacture and sell drugs)

Even though we eliminate the first two factors (jail, violence) we may offset the
difference by a large increase in the other factors, because of the high probability
of many more users. These are people who might start using drugs because of
their new legality. If something is legal, it is likely that more people will try it
than if it remained illegal, because of lack of fear of getting caught using
something illegal.

Drug addicts are less likely to hold jobs (if they can even be hired; not many
employers want known dope-heads working for them) this leads to lack of money
to buy dope, hence increased theft and muggings. Not to mention broken families,
where the household provider is strung out.

What have we gained by legalization? Perhaps not much. We have only transposed
one bad thing for another. We can even make matters worse than they are now.

[an apple]

Smoking areas should be provided for those who don't mind the death sticks.

Non-smoking/smoking pubs are an alternative, though that means that you only attract smokers to 'smoking' pubs, as noone wants to bask in your smokey glory.

I personally don't care. A rebellion against a smoking ban seems a bit ridiculous.

Gaining it through lobbying/politics seems more realistic. They're not just going to give it to you because you break the law. In fact, the pub owners themselves would be prosecuted, which for many, is too much. It's not their problem, more so yours.

[Klaatu]

My apologies for getting off-topic; this thread is really about tobacco, not hard core drugs...

[welshboy]

Its one of my pet hates when people go on about the ban as removing their 'freedoms' or whatever. And I say this as a seriously heavy smoker.
You can have all these ideas about 'smoking' and 'non smoking' pubs and clubs if you like, so you yourself get some sort of freedom to choose, but in the current economic crisis where is that freedom to choose for a young worker getting minimum wage pulling pints for ten or twelve hour shifts?

When there are scarcely any jobs going around then there is no choice or comforts in decision for low paid workers.
Fuck me sideways. I actually agree with you here.
The smoking ban is fucking great. Smokers are selfish and infringe on others in the vilest manner by helping put them in the grave.
Smokers, a message to you. It's YOUR fucking addiction. Deal with it.

[an apple]

Smokers cost taxpayers (in the UK, with the NHS and public welfare) shitloads of cash as they succumb to various diseases, most
of which are serious and are costly to medicate. Tobacco giants grow larger and larger, paying tiny wages to their workers, profiting off death.

Don't give me the 'cars do the same' argument. At least cars serve a useful purpose and convey people about from place to place. Seriously, what the fuck is the point of cigarettes?

If you're going to enjoy your sickly habit then do it in your own house. If I'm sitting in a pub, I don't want to have to put up with it.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Comrade Joe



• People in jail for manufacturing, selling, possession

Well this not only puts off adicts from seeking help it also ruins shit loads of people's lives after they get done for "dealing" after sharing some weed with their mates.



• gang violence and killings

Gangs which almost always operate in working class areas , involve working class people being drawn in and working class people both in and out of the gangs getting killed ,getting intimidated etc



• un-employability of drug addicts

Meaning they cant afford the drugs which leads to.



• addiction and resultant crime (theft to support drug habit)

Yup tonnes of people get there homes broken into , are assaulted and have valuables stolen , and these people funnily enough are almost always working class.



• addiction and resultant hospitalizations and deaths from overdoses

Yeah - the hospital bills we would have to put up with because I belive in looking out for each other as those who dont would be better suited on their own in a cave.



• ruined families and friendships

Often made worse by the adicts refusel to seek help as a result of him/ her being scared of legal problems.


• traffic accidents

I think pissheads cause more of these then stoners or even heroin junkies.


• school dropouts


See previous points about seeking help.

Legal


• un-employability of drug addicts

They could get help unlike before and since most addicts function OK after there dose lower prices would mean that people would function better.


• addiction and resultant crime (theft to support drug habit)

Not so much with the lower prices that will result with legalization.


• addiction and resultant hospitalizations and deaths from overdoses
• ruined families and friendships
• traffic accidents
• school dropouts

See previous points on seeking help.


• drugs may cost even more, because the pharmaceutical companies would create
a cartel of their own (only they would be able to manufacture and sell drugs)


Look up the prices of drugs where legal and where illegal


Even though we eliminate the first two factors (jail, violence) we may offset the
difference by a large increase in the other factors, because of the high probability
of many more users. These are people who might start using drugs because of
their new legality. If something is legal, it is likely that more people will try it
than if it remained illegal, because of lack of fear of getting caught using
something illegal.

I disagree. I think its something like 1 in two adults in the UK admit to taking canibis at some point. The people may use them and thats there fucking business not yours.




Drug addicts are less likely to hold jobs (if they can even be hired; not many
employers want known dope-heads working for them) this leads to lack of money
to buy dope, hence increased theft and muggings. Not to mention broken families,

No because drugs will be cheaper and henceforth they will function better , they will be able to seek help easier meaning the less chance of remaining a junky.




What have we gained by legalization? Perhaps not much. We have only transposed
one bad thing for another. We can even make matters worse than they are now.

http://afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/shut_the_fuck_up.jpg

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Seriously, what the fuck is the point of cigarettes?

If you're going to enjoy your sickly habit then do it in your own house. If I'm sitting in a pub, I don't want to have to put up with it.








.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Comrade Joe

You are correct, there is a lot of drug crime in the U.S. But I don't think the occasional drug crime (and this is
vastly overblown by the media over here) is good reason enough to just give up the battle on harmful dope.

Is the answer legalization of drugs? Here is an analogy: You, your parents, or grandparents, living in England,
during the early 1940s, would have been subjected to intense bombing from the Nazis. This was a clear and
present danger to your country. Now, what if your countrymen would have just "given up" the defense of your
homeland, and essentially "legalized" the Nazis? What would have been the outcome of that? And where would
your "freedom" have gone?

And what would legalization of drugs do to a country? That is the conundrum.



:laugh:

People choose to take drugs they did not choose to be blown up.

[Il Medico]

:laugh:

People choose to take drugs they did not choose to be blown up.
Joe, hey if your interested there is another thread on this specifically. So, this thread can get back on topic, post there.

[Klaatu]

Comrade Joe

Prove
Drugs would be less expensive if legalized.

Hint
Why not check the commercial prices of narcotic painkillers Vicodin and Oxycontin for example, and calculate the price per dosage. (cost per milligram) Good luck with that. So much for "cheap" drugs...

Suggestion
Show empirical evidence to back up your claims, not rants and cuss words. We are not impressed with your limited vocabulary.

[Klaatu]

Comrade Joe

Good rebuttal, but too bad you missed the point on the Nazis.

Don't you get it that: addiction = lack of choice?

That was my point.
_________________________________________

It is soooo cold. can't fight the urge to sleep... got to sleep... just sleep...

I'm under water... can't breathe... got to breathe... just breathe...

_________________________________________

DO YOU "GET" THE CONCEPT OF ADDICTION???

Apparently not...

YOU WILL FIND OUT SOMEDAY.

If you can survive the life-threatening effect of heroin addiction...

You obviously know nothing about this.

[Black Sheep]

It is a violation of freedom - a trivial one, compared to the gigantic ones of our time,so the conclusion here should be that the EU is protrayed as 'the good guys,caring for the citizens' health and stuff', while creating false dilemmas (ban smoking or you'll die from second hand smoking lung cancer) , once again BANNING the problem and punishing those who suffer from it instead of helping them.

And i think that is the punchline, and where we should focus when talking with people about the subject.

Also, why do the cappies ban smoking? i had made a thread about it in learning

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-do-cappies-t107596/index.html?t=107596&highlight=smoking

[Klaatu]

Hi bulk sheep

I think it is absolutely wrong to punish the addict. He is the victim.

It is the capitalist pig dope seller / maker who I must attack.

These people put profit above human rights.

[Invader Zim]

the smoking ban means that a policeman now has the power to come into a pub and arrest a working man or woman for doing nothing other than smoking a cigarette.

Or alternatively enter a pub and arrest a working man (because only men work, right?) because they are slowly poisoning the kid on minimum wage behind the bar?


Secondly, the 'problem' of indoor smoke is not unsolvable. The installation of better ventilation systems, for example, is something that can significantly affect it. The fact that the state was not at all interested in such alternatives indicates that the ban was much more than about supposed attempts at making life easier for people who work in bars.I can tell you from experience that ventilation systems don't work hugely well, they take the sharpest edge off the problem but they are not a solution.

As for those here who say that second hand smoke doesn't harm people, you are talking shit (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/passivesmoking/).

As with those who want to indulge in drugs, smoking is an activity best suited to the home, or alternatively to specific licenced premises.

[ComradeOm]

It is a violation of freedom - a trivial one, compared to the gigantic ones of our time,so the conclusion here should be that the EU is protrayed as 'the good guys,caring for the citizens' health and stuff', while creating false dilemmas (ban smoking or you'll die from second hand smoking lung cancer) , once again BANNING the problem and punishing those who suffer from it instead of helping them.

And i think that is the punchline, and where we should focus when talking with people about the subjectAnd that would be the focus if socialists were primarily concerned about personal liberties. However the reason that the smoking ban (in Ireland at least) enjoys support from bar workers and relevant unions is that it has produced a very welcome improvement in working conditions for those employed in the hospitality industry. That, and not some abstract infringement of rights, is the crux of the matter


Also, why do the cappies ban smoking? i had made a thread about it in learningHegemony implies a degree of 'give and take' from the ruling class. That is, it has no trouble in conceding ground on unimportant issues that do not threaten its political-economic supremacy yet bolster the legitimacy of the state in the eyes of the population. To quote Gramsci, a "certain balance of compromises is formed"

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Comrade Joe

Good rebuttal, but too bad you missed the point on the Nazis.

Don't you get it that: addiction = lack of choice?

That was my point.

And a shit point it is. Yes its damageing your health , yes it can be sorted but even if it made your eyes fall on the floor and then have shit come out of your skull I would still supports Leagalization. Because its your choice to take it and risk addiction.


_________________________________________

It is soooo cold. can't fight the urge to sleep... got to sleep... just sleep...

I'm under water... can't breathe... got to breathe... just breathe...

_________________________________________



I take it you are or at one point were an art student.


DO YOU "GET" THE CONCEPT OF ADDICTION???

Apparently not...

No of course not. Is it a type of combine harvester?





YOU WILL FIND OUT SOMEDAY.

If you can survive the life-threatening effect of heroin addiction...

You obviously know nothing about this.

I dont wish to take heroin and still wouldn't if it was legal because I am aware of the health risks and have summed up that its not worth it for me. (However I respect other people's right to fuck themselves up).

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Comrade Joe

Prove
Drugs would be less expensive if legalized.


See price of coffee shop weed in Amsterdam compared to that of Street prices.

Comrade Joe
Hint
Why not check the commercial prices of narcotic painkillers Vicodin and Oxycontin for example, and calculate the price per dosage. (cost per milligram) Good luck with that. So much for "cheap" drugs...


How much is it on the street market?, also pain killers are not a widespred recreational drug like Cannabis so the set prices would be different.



Comrade Joe
Suggestion
Show empirical evidence to back up your claims, not rants and cuss words. We are not impressed with your limited vocabulary.



Since when did you have a split personality?

Is your other side a intelligent forward thinking Communist because the only side that I seem to be seeing is a backward idiotic hack.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Hi bulk sheep

I think it is absolutely wrong to punish the addict. He is the victim.

It is the capitalist pig dope seller / maker who I must attack.

These people put profit above human rights.

Our objection to Capitalists is not with the products that means of production under their control produce (although often Capitalism means that smaller quantities and lower quality products are put out). Our objection to the Capitalists is that they exploit their employees and have the power whilst the workers do not. We are Communists not liberals.

I would be quite happy to see Worker run Cannabis farms under Communism.

[Klaatu]

Joe, I am not a communist. I am a socialist. There is a difference.



"How much is it on the street market?, also pain killers are not a widespred recreational drug like Cannabis so the set prices would be different."

Wrong again. Legal painkillers are one of the most-used "highs" in the U.S.

A "forward-thinking" (your words) Communist or Socialist is all about dedication to the welfare of the community and individual moral behavior, not anything goes.

When a friend dies of downers+alcohol; when two of your friends die in their car after being hit head-on by a drunk driver, when a member of your family suffers a drug-related seizure and nearly dies; when several of your relatives succumb to sickness and death from tobacco, then, you may think differently.

From your profile, I can see that you are only fifteen years old. I hope you will never have to deal with such tragedies in your life as I have.

[Chambered Word]

Our objection to Capitalists is not with the products that means of production under their control produce (although often Capitalism means that smaller quantities and lower quality products are put out). Our objection to the Capitalists is that they exploit their employees and have the power whilst the workers do not. We are Communists not liberals.

I would be quite happy to see Worker run Cannabis farms under Communism.

Uh huh.

So it's fine to exploit the people and piss their health up the walls (and cost the healthcare system), but not the workers? In a communist country the people are supposed to be the workers. You'll have a group of workers exploiting the rest of the workers, if you like.

But whatever, as I've said before you can enjoy your smoker's revolution on your own and bathe the country in the gloriously foul smell of tobacco for all of the working class to enjoy.

[Jazzratt]

A "forward-thinking" (your words) Communist or Socialist is all about dedication to the welfare of the community and individual moral behavior, not anything goes.

Bullshit. The job of the socialist or communist is to provide a maximum material abundance for the working class without exploitation. To give the greatest amount to the greatest number of people for the longest time. It is not, and let me make this absolutely clear, the job of anyone much less people who claim to be "socialist/communist" to enforce standards of morality, people can sort that out for themselves thank you very much.


When a friend dies of downers+alcohol; when two of your friends die in their car after being hit head-on by a drunk driver, when a member of your family suffers a drug-related seizure and nearly dies; when several of your relatives succumb to sickness and death from tobacco, then, you may think differently.

So, when someone dies because they didn't respect the drugs they were taking and makes a terminally fatal mistake, when two of his mates die because someone does something prohibited anyway, when something unfortunate happens to a family member and several of hisrelatives get the expected outcome out of smoking comrade joe is going to give up his critical faculties? Not everyone who has had negative experiences with drugs joins the DEA cheerleading squad like you did.

[The Feral Underclass]

Bullshit. The job of the socialist or communist is to provide a maximum material abundance for the working class

Surely it's the job of the working class to provide for themselves...

[Chambered Word]

Bullshit. The job of the socialist or communist is to provide a maximum material abundance for the working class without exploitation. To give the greatest amount to the greatest number of people for the longest time. It is not, and let me make this absolutely clear, the job of anyone much less people who claim to be "socialist/communist" to enforce standards of morality, people can sort that out for themselves thank you very much.

I'm sure paedophiles and rapists have sorted their moral standards out for themselves, thank you very much.

Smoking remains a communist issue because it involves the destruction of health for profit. Even if the tobacco companies are owned by the workers they will still be exploiting others for profit and running up healthcare bills.

Communism has nothing to do with whining about how the 'fascists' want to take away your smokes. The working class has to breathe that toxic shit in as well.

[Killfacer]

Joe, I am not a communist. I am a socialist. There is a difference.



Wrong again. Legal painkillers are one of the most-used "highs" in the U.S.

A "forward-thinking" (your words) Communist or Socialist is all about dedication to the welfare of the community and individual moral behavior, not anything goes.

When a friend dies of downers+alcohol; when two of your friends die in their car after being hit head-on by a drunk driver, when a member of your family suffers a drug-related seizure and nearly dies; when several of your relatives succumb to sickness and death from tobacco, then, you may think differently.

From your profile, I can see that you are only fifteen years old. I hope you will never have to deal with such tragedies in your life as I have.

Oh boo fucking hoo. How bad for you, i feel so sorry for you.

I don't think we should base laws on your bloody sop story.

Anyway, loads of drug related deaths wouldn't occur if they were legal. So many heroine related deaths are due to the impurity of the drug. Perhaps if they were made in proper labs, which were properly scrutinised, then many deaths would be avoided.

Not only that but all these seizures and shit would be less likely. People would know what they could and couldn't take. You wouldn't buy esctasy only to find out it's 2cb or some other stronger replacement.

[Jazzratt]

Surely it's the job of the working class to provide for themselves...

Do you have a thing for reapting precisely what I'm saying?


I'm sure paedophiles and rapists have sorted their moral standards out for themselves, thank you very much.

OH GOD, WOULD *SOMEONE* PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!


Smoking remains a communist issue because it involves the destruction of health for profit. Even if the tobacco companies are owned by the workers they will still be exploiting others for profit and running up healthcare bills.

So after the revolution there will be no one that runs "greasy spoon" diners? They are, after all, bad for health and likely to run up healthcare bills. And of course I take it that you support a DEA-style ban on all drugs that aren't cough medicine because obviously people will "abuse" them and you have the power to stop them - it is behaviour you disapprove of after all!


Communism has nothing to do with whining about how the 'fascists' want to take away your smokes. The working class has to breathe that toxic shit in as well.

I've nothing to do with attacking people as being fascist for attacking my right to smoke. My interest lies with people like "Former"Reaganite that are attacking drugs in general. Although I still reserve "fascist" for corpratist regimes like 1930s Italy & Germany.

[The Watcher]

Smoking is an addiction with no positive effects and tremendous amount of negative effects.
The UK shows enlightenment by banning smoking. Every country should.
It's bad for everyone, it is a tool of capitalism, it is disgusting.

It's just a fine example how the government can interfere in the lives of everyday's men, in order to protect them.

Smoking itself is neither against or with communism, it's simply a bad habit everyone should stop.
To become something more, as a species.
How advanced you are when you let yourself into the hands of smoking death while destroying others near you as well?

[Klaatu]

"Bullshit. The job of the socialist or communist is to provide a maximum material abundance for
the working class without exploitation. To give the greatest amount to the greatest number of
people for the longest time. It is not, and let me make this absolutely clear, the job of anyone
much less people who claim to be "socialist/communist" to enforce standards of morality,
people can sort that out for themselves thank you very much."
Your assignment for today is: go back and carefully study Marx.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________


"Anyway, loads of drug related deaths wouldn't occur if they were legal."

Nice try. Prove your statement.


Oh boo fucking hoo. How bad for you, i feel so sorry for you.

I don't think we should base laws on your bloody sop story.

Thanks for pissing on my friends' graves, Mister "One bad ass mother fucker."

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Smoking is an addiction with no positive effects and tremendous amount of negative effects.

Its fun for some people. But even if it left a taste like shit in your mouth (which in my opinion it does - cannabis is probably the only thing I smoke) I would still allow it for the sake of trusting those who do like the taste to weigh that up against the health risks.


The UK shows enlightenment by banning smoking. Every country should.
It's bad for everyone, it is a tool of capitalism, it is disgusting.


No its not a tool of capitalism its a product of the capitalist way of organizing things. I hope we get cigarettes that are produced by workers under Communism.


It's just a fine example how the government can interfere in the lives of everyday's men, in order to protect them.

Fuck off :laugh:

This is the first time im worried that someone i know in real life will follow the facebook link on my homepage and read this, fuck thats embarrassing to read by myself.



To become something more, as a species.
How advanced you are when you let yourself into the hands of smoking death while destroying others near you as well?


Pretty damn advanced.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Your assignment for today is: go back and carefully study Marx.

Sorry "read a book lulz" is not an argument.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________


Nice try. Prove your statement.

Take a look at the amount of shit inside various street drugs put in to make them weigh more and how that could be stopped though inspection in labs.


Thanks for pissing on my friends' graves, Mr "One bad ass mother fucker."


He's not visiting the graveyard wang in hand he's simply pointing out that Emotionalism is not a substitute for rational thought.

[Klaatu]

"Take a look at the amount of shit inside various street drugs put in to make them weigh more and how
that could be stopped though inspection in labs."

They usually use inert additives.


"...Emotionalism is not a substitute for rational thought."

Not a "substitute," rather, a reciprocity.

[Klaatu]

Originally Posted by The Watcher
It's just a fine example how the government can interfere in the lives of everyday's men, in order to protect them.

Fuck off

WOW! That's the best argument I've ever heard. WOW I didn't even know that I could WIN AN ARGUMENT
by telling my opponent to "fuck off" THANKS FOR THE TIP!

[The Feral Underclass]

Do you have a thing for reapting precisely what I'm saying?

No. I'd have to repeat things you'd say for me to have a thing. Weirdo.

If you don't mean what you say, say something different...Or say it better.

[The Watcher]

Does it not protect them? Extended and healthier life. People generally are dumb.
What do you think why did they pass the ban? Tobacco has always been a steady source of tax income.
The government gives up money and people have a harder time killing themselves and people around them.
Please tell me where exactly is the part where the government is evil.
And if you are bragging about rights of smokers, what about the rights of non-smokers? Those who can't stand it, or allergic, or little children?
So go back to your pit crying "BAWWWWWWWWWWWWW I can't legally fuck myself up", my dear foolish-little-hippie-punk.

The government of Germany recently forbade people from going to solariums under the age of 18.
Why? Because it drastically increases the chance of skin cancer.
What's the difference between the two? Why don't you whine about this one too?

[Invader Zim]

So after the revolution there will be no one that runs "greasy spoon" diners? They are, after all, bad for health and likely to run up healthcare bills. And of course I take it that you support a DEA-style ban on all drugs that aren't cough medicine because obviously people will "abuse" them and you have the power to stop them - it is behaviour you disapprove of after all!

However, indulging in unhealthy foods has the potential to harm the individual who chooses to eat them. Smoking has the potential to harm everyone in the immidiate vicinity, including the worker behind the bar.

How do we justify self indulgence that harms other people?

As stated, I see no problem with smoking, or any other drug for that matter, provided people do it in a suitably private environment.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Does it not protect them? Extended and healthier life.

Whats the point of living to a hundred fit as a pornstar if your life and what you do it controlled.


People generally are dumb.

Speak for yourself.





What do you think why did they pass the ban? Tobacco has always been a steady source of tax income.
The government gives up money and people have a harder time killing themselves and people around them.

Well obviously people should be stopped form damaging the health of those around them although respecting someones bodily autonomy is also pretty fucking important.


Please tell me where exactly is the part where the government is evil.
And if you are bragging about rights of smokers, what about the rights of non-smokers? Those who can't stand it, or allergic, or little children?

I think people should ask before they light a fag in a crowded area.



So go back to your pit crying "BAWWWWWWWWWWWWW I can't legally fuck myself up", my dear foolish-little-hippie-punk.


This is not a argument but the whine of a sexually frustrated nerd.



The government of Germany recently forbade people from going to solariums under the age of 18.
Why? Because it drastically increases the chance of skin cancer.
What's the difference between the two? Why don't you whine about this one too?


Because one is an age restriction of sunbeds in a country i have only visited once and drugs restrictions is outright neo puritanism.

[Killfacer]

Nice try. Prove your statement.

Thanks for pissing on my friends' graves, Mister "One bad ass mother fucker."

haha yeah thats me. I am pretty bad ass.

Mate i don't wish to piss on anyones grave, but bringing shit like that up on an internet forum is stupid. Not only your personel experiance irrelevant to the actualy thread, but half the people on the internet make up shit and have bullshit sop stories. You're asking for it.

[Jazzratt]

However, indulging in unhealthy foods has the potential to harm the individual who chooses to eat them. Smoking has the potential to harm everyone in the immidiate vicinity, including the worker behind the bar.

How do we justify self indulgence that harms other people?

As stated, I see no problem with smoking, or any other drug for that matter, provided people do it in a suitably private environment.

Look, I agree with you basically. My point hasn't been that you should be able to smoke or take drugs anywhere simply that you should be able to take whatever drugs you feel like. If they affect others then you should obviously take that into account and either take the drug in private or in an area where everyone either takes the drug themselves or has agreed to be around it (e.g a smoking pub. Although obviously these would only exist with any kind of fairness after a revolution).

[Invader Zim]

My point hasn't been that you should be able to smoke or take drugs anywhere simply that you should be able to take whatever drugs you feel like.

Well that is the smoking ban as it relates to tobacco. The ban isn’t stopping people from making the idiotic decision to poison themselves; it is about preventing selfish assholes from forcing other people to share their poison.

[Klaatu]

"Mate i don't wish to piss on anyones grave, but bringing shit like that up on an internet forum is stupid. Not only your personel experiance irrelevant to the actualy thread, but half the people on the internet make up shit and have bullshit sop stories. You're asking for it."

I'm not in that "half" that makes things up. And it is not for your entertainment. If you don't like my anecdotes, please don't read them. You do believe in free speech, don't you? Or is free speech only valid for you and not others?


Most laws that we have on the books have originated from the "sob-stories" of aggrieved citizens. (Why not give that idea some deep thought.)


"Emotionalism is not a substitute for rational thought."
Completely "separating" emotion from rational thought is a very difficult thing to do, unless you happen to be Mister Spock. In fact, some of the writers on this thread have demonstrated this truism for us already. (Name-calling, cussing, ranting, and a general disrespect for other's point of view.) And you talk of how we must "separate" emotion from rational thought. A fine example you are.

[Killfacer]

I'm not in that "half" that makes things up. And it is not for your entertainment. If you don't like my anecdotes, please don't read them. You do believe in free speech, don't you? Or is free speech only valid for you and not others?


Most laws that we have on the books have originated from the "sob-stories" of aggrieved citizens. (Why not give that idea some deep thought.)


I don't think anyone enjoys your anecdotes, particuarly when they're used in an attempt to justify archaic laws.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Most laws that we have on the books have originated from the "sob-stories" of aggrieved citizens. (Why not give that idea some deep thought.)

No laws are made because they suit the ruling class.


Completely "separating" emotion from rational thought is a very difficult thing to do, unless you happen to be Mister Spock. In fact, some of the writers on this thread have demonstrated this truism for us already. (Name-calling, cussing, ranting, and a general disrespect for other's point of view.) And you talk of how we must "separate" emotion from rational thought. A fine example you are.

No I disagree with your ideas because they are harmful to working class communities and disrespect the bodily autonomy of working class people. My observation that you are a **** is not supposed to defeat your argument.

[Klaatu]

Killfacer


"I don't think anyone enjoys your anecdotes, particuarly when they're used in an attempt to justify archaic laws."

Wrong again. I have people thanking me for my posts, too. (Check it out for yourself)

The word "archaic" as is used here is an entirely subjective opinion. And you certainly do have the right to
express your sentiments. Just consider that it is only your own point of view, not everyone's.

Comrade Joe


"No laws are made because they suit the ruling class."
Again, an opinion. Joe, you seem to believe that your opinions are actually fact, when they are really just opinion.

Laws are made by the "ruling class" to suit the betterment of a society, not to massage the ego of the lawmaker,
nor to suit the whim of a tyrant, at least not in a democratic society. And isn't the "ruling class" the "the people?"



"My observation that you are a **** is not supposed to defeat your argument."
Maybe not, but you do defeat yourself. By calling your opponent a name, you defeat your reputation.
Haven't you learned this in debating class, or critical-writing class?

You can do what you want, of course, since you believe so strongly in freedom, but ask yourself a pertinent
question: "Am I really just making an ass of myself?"

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Heckling from the peanut gallery...


Maybe not, but you do defeat yourself. By calling your opponent a name, you defeat your reputation.

Maybe he's got more important things to worry about than what some stranger thinks about him on the internet?


Haven't you learned this in debating class, or critical-writing class?

Haven't you noticed that this isn't a debating/critical writing class, and nobody is handing out marks?


You can do what you want, of course, since you believe so strongly in freedom, but ask yourself a pertinent
question: "Am I really just making an ass of myself?"

Nope, I think he's being imminently sensible.

[welshboy]

If someone starts smoking in a pub I'm in is it OK for me to take direct action to protect both myself and my community by repeatedly stabbing them in the lungs?

[Jazzratt]

If someone starts smoking in a pub I'm in is it OK for me to take direct action to protect both myself and my community by repeatedly stabbing them in the lungs?

No. Of course it isn't. Had you and the community agreed to pevent people smoking in that particular pub then you'd be well within your rights to take away the cigarette and/or eject the smoker.

[Trystan]

The obvious solution is for us smokers to turn our homes into pubs and allow smokers only inside. The moralising of these anti-smokers pollutes and offends me.

[ls]

Ideally I think that formerreaganite should be forced to smoke the ashes of ronald reagan.

[Klaatu]

NoXion
__________________________________________
"Maybe he's got more important things to worry about than what some stranger thinks about him on the internet?"

Honestly, I don't think much of him at all. He needs to do a lot of growing up.
__________________________________________
"Haven't you noticed that this isn't a debating/critical writing class, and nobody is handing out marks?"

Where did I say that THIS is critical writing class???
__________________________________________
"Nope, I think he's being imminently sensible."

Seriously?

[welshboy]

No. Of course it isn't. Had you and the community agreed to pevent people smoking in that particular pub then you'd be well within your rights to take away the cigarette and/or eject the smoker.
So if the community agrees it's ok for someone to try and kill me I'm not allowed to defend my self?

[The Feral Underclass]

Come on Welshboy, I think it's plainly obvious what Jazzratt is saying. The point is particularly complex.

[Chambered Word]

Does it not protect them? Extended and healthier life. People generally are dumb.
What do you think why did they pass the ban? Tobacco has always been a steady source of tax income.
The government gives up money and people have a harder time killing themselves and people around them.
Please tell me where exactly is the part where the government is evil.
And if you are bragging about rights of smokers, what about the rights of non-smokers? Those who can't stand it, or allergic, or little children?
So go back to your pit crying "BAWWWWWWWWWWWWW I can't legally fuck myself up", my dear foolish-little-hippie-punk.

The government of Germany recently forbade people from going to solariums under the age of 18.
Why? Because it drastically increases the chance of skin cancer.
What's the difference between the two? Why don't you whine about this one too?

Frigging excellent post. Exactly what I was thinking.


Do you have a thing for reapting precisely what I'm saying?



OH GOD, WOULD *SOMEONE* PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!



So after the revolution there will be no one that runs "greasy spoon" diners? They are, after all, bad for health and likely to run up healthcare bills. And of course I take it that you support a DEA-style ban on all drugs that aren't cough medicine because obviously people will "abuse" them and you have the power to stop them - it is behaviour you disapprove of after all!



I've nothing to do with attacking people as being fascist for attacking my right to smoke. My interest lies with people like "Former"Reaganite that are attacking drugs in general. Although I still reserve "fascist" for corpratist regimes like 1930s Italy & Germany.

Someone please think of the children? Stupid quotes from The Simpsons don't make an argument. The fact is there must be moral standards - preferably some based on scientific evidence and concern for the community as a whole. As someone said before we're commies, not liberals. We're supposed to have a backbone.

There isn't an especially addictive ingredient of greasy food that tobacco contains, but I'd also like to see some slightly tougher regulations on shitty food. Then again I'm no prude myself...:lol: As for the ban on drugs that aren't cough medicine, I don't see why I would support that. There's more to gain by selling those meds than to lose.

Replying to the last point you made, I was referring to the angry hippies who oppose the ban because 'HURR FASCIST TAKIN AWAY MY CIGARETTE'. As for drugs, in Australia atleast they're usually made by bikies who do no useful work for society but sit around and make drugs to sell, fuck up society with it and make massive profits while the rest of us have to work to earn our money. I just see the drug trade as a form of capitalism which has been illegalized. The drug dealers and tobacco companies are no comrades of mine.

-L :)

[Sam_b]

I see that FormerReaganite has adopted Mr Reagan's patrionising and condescending tonw then, eh?

[Klaatu]

If I saw Sam and Joe smoking a rock or shooting up, I would not turn them in, because it is not my business what they do with their spare time. I am attacking the manufacturers and sellers, not users
(who are unfortunate victims.)

And if I sound condescending or patriarchal, it is not intentional.

Really though, there is no sense in fighting about this. Sam and Joe have made quite valid points.
It's just that they can't seem to resist the urge to throw an insult in there too. That's childish.

Why not just agree to disagree, and let it go at that.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I am attacking the manufacturers and sellers, not users
(who are unfortunate victims.)


Yet again we oppose the capitlist class for their dominence of the working class and the means of production - not the product made.



Why not just agree to disagree, and let it go at that.

Because this is a debating forum.

[Invader Zim]

Because this is a debating forum.

What, because this is an online discussion forum all topics in dispute must be flogged death? It doesn't help that your arguments are about as appealing walking on broken glass.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

What, because this is an online discussion forum all topics in dispute must be flogged death? It doesn't help that your arguments are about as appealing walking on broken glass.

Thank you for this helpful contribution.

[Invader Zim]

Thank you for this helpful contribution.


It is no more, or less, helpful than the past half dozen of yours, which include gems such as: -

"My observation that you are a **** is not supposed to defeat your argument."

and

"This is not a argument but the whine of a sexually frustrated nerd"

You are keeping this one sided flame fest going for no reason. You aren't going to convince anyone and you aren't going to be convinced; I suggest you put the shovel down and cease digging.

[Jazzratt]

Someone please think of the children? Stupid quotes from The Simpsons don't make an argument.

No, but they illustrate exactly the kind of attitude you and the rest of the cluthcy-throat crowd take toward things like this. As soon there is any behaviour you don't like you immediatly draw parralells between it and something that is actually considerably harmful (usually to children). I'm not really aware of the phrase having originated with the simpons - every day is a school day.


The fact is there must be moral standards - preferably some based on scientific evidence and concern for the community as a whole. As someone said before we're commies, not liberals. We're supposed to have a backbone.

You can't base moral standards on scientific evidence because momorality is not a science dipshit. Being a communist is not automatically liscence to be as authoritarian as possible with the excuse that it's "having a backbone". Worker control of the means of production and distribution of material abundance are what communism are about, if you want to force your morality down others' throats why not go with theocracy?


There isn't an especially addictive ingredient of greasy food that tobacco contains,

A lot of greasy foods are spicy and capscicin is addictive. It is also quite habit-forming and difficult to give up if you have met anyone that wishes to give up.


but I'd also like to see some slightly tougher regulations on shitty food.

Why? I like greasy, salty, fatty and horrifically unhealthy food. I think it's great. People who do not like it or do not want the side-effects can simply not eat it? If anything needs to be regulated about it it's the advertising.


As for the ban on drugs that aren't cough medicine, I don't see why I would support that. There's more to gain by selling those meds than to lose.

Sorry, by "cough medicine" I meant medication in general. Basically because your apparent belief that people are morons with no agency at all means it seems likely you would go the whole hog and ban any given drugs (speed, ecstasy, cannabis or whatever) on the grounds that people may "abuse" them.


Replying to the last point you made, I was referring to the angry hippies who oppose the ban because 'HURR FASCIST TAKIN AWAY MY CIGARETTE'.

No one is saying that. That is absurd.


As for drugs, in Australia atleast they're usually made by bikies who do no useful work for society but sit around and make drugs to sell, fuck up society with it and make massive profits while the rest of us have to work to earn our money.

1) What the fuck is a bikie?

2) The work they are doing is making and selling luxury items. Luxury items which are quite often hard to make.


I just see the drug trade as a form of capitalism which has been illegalized. The drug dealers and tobacco companies are no comrades of mine.

I didn't say they were comrades, did I? I still buy things from them for the same reason I buy shit from everyone else - that is how capitalism works and I don't feel it would be useful to drop out of society and live in a barn weaving all my own clothes.

welshboy


So if the community agrees it's ok for someone to try and kill me I'm not allowed to defend my self?

Proportionate defence ringing any bells at all?

[welshboy]

Proportionate defence ringing any bells at all?
So stabbing them in the lungs is cool? Seems pretty proportionate to me with regards giving someone cancer...

[Jazzratt]

So stabbing them in the lungs is cool? Seems pretty proportionate to me with regards giving someone cancer...

:rolleyes: No, not even by your criteria. The increment by which they are giving you cancer is negligble compared to the increments by which they are giving themselves cancer. Any punishment based on a like-for-like vengence is therefore already disproportionate. Not to mention like-for-like vengence being a stupid basis for any kind of civilised behaviour.

I suspect (hope?) you already new this and are deliberately making an incredibly poor argument in order to rile everyone up.

[welshboy]

I've not got a problem with folk poisoning themselves, nor have I got a problem with them locking themselves in a wee room and choking to death on their noxious fumes whilst serving one another drinks.
I do however think that they should be socially castigated and prevented from lighting up anywhere they have not got the explicit permission of everyone present and who may become present, not just the landlord. If children are present then there should be recourse to aforementioned lung perforation.
It's also not THAT extreme a response as their attack upon my lungs isn't just against my lungs but against those of all present.
I don't defend peoples 'right' to smoke crack, smack or be so fucked up that they have to get mind bendingly drunk on the weekend. So why should I defend peoples right to smoke?
When is a freedom not a freedom? When the illusion of choice is taken away, as it is with addictions.

[Chambered Word]

No, but they illustrate exactly the kind of attitude you and the rest of the cluthcy-throat crowd take toward things like this. As soon there is any behaviour you don't like you immediatly draw parralells between it and something that is actually considerably harmful (usually to children). I'm not really aware of the phrase having originated with the simpons - every day is a school day.

I'm sure it was popularized by the Simpsons. Anyway, I just don't like having to breathe in your toxic shit. Most others don't either. We've had enough of it. It's become clear that smoking is harmful. If you don't like it you can have your smoker's revolution.



You can't base moral standards on scientific evidence because momorality is not a science dipshit. Being a communist is not automatically liscence to be as authoritarian as possible with the excuse that it's "having a backbone". Worker control of the means of production and distribution of material abundance are what communism are about, if you want to force your morality down others' throats why not go with theocracy?

I'll agree it was stupid of me to put it as 'scientifically based' or so. Too tired at the moment to say any more on that.

Since when was banning a practise that is harmful to public health 'authoritarian'? Take your libertarian crap elsewhere, you can have as many rights as you like so long as you don't dick about with mine, or those of any other non-smokers to begin with. We don't appreciate having our health pissed up the wall because of your stupid habits.



A lot of greasy foods are spicy and capscicin is addictive. It is also quite habit-forming and difficult to give up if you have met anyone that wishes to give up.

'A lot'?


Why? I like greasy, salty, fatty and horrifically unhealthy food. I think it's great. People who do not like it or do not want the side-effects can simply not eat it? If anything needs to be regulated about it it's the advertising.

True and I admit I like it as well, but I think for example food in schools shouldn't be too greasy. The obesity statistics in Australia are obviously bullshit, but I object to kids eating horribly fatty food as an only option.


Sorry, by "cough medicine" I meant medication in general. Basically because your apparent belief that people are morons with no agency at all means it seems likely you would go the whole hog and ban any given drugs (speed, ecstasy, cannabis or whatever) on the grounds that people may "abuse" them.

So there's a way to use speed, ecstasy and cannabis without 'abusing' it? Sorry but I find this retarded, most elicit drugs are even more harmful than cigarettes. Also there are alot of people in the populace who are indeed morons, which is why they're influenced by political party campaigns so strongly.



No one is saying that. That is absurd.

Alot of people are saying that here. That's what the whole thread is about. Angry hippies screaming 'HURR FASCIST TEIK AWAY MAH CIGARETTEZ' while not realizing that cigarettes are just another tool of capitalist exploitation. There aren't that many other 'legitimate' businesses to my knowledge that damage public health for profit as badly as the tobacco companies do, whether they're being owned by the workers or not.


1) What the fuck is a bikie?

facepalm.jpg

A motorcycle gang member. There.


2) The work they are doing is making and selling luxury items. Luxury items which are quite often hard to make.

No, they're exploiting people using highly addictive drugs for quick profit and using strongarm tactics against anyone who opposes them while the rest of us actually have to work for our money (and get screwed over when some junkie breaks into our homes for heroin money). In short, they're fucking leeches.


I didn't say they were comrades, did I? I still buy things from them for the same reason I buy shit from everyone else - that is how capitalism works and I don't feel it would be useful to drop out of society and live in a barn weaving all my own clothes.

I didn't say that you said they were. If you believe they're a legitimate 'neccessary evil' of capitalism then you're missing one or more portions of your brain.

[Klaatu]

"...and capscicin is addictive. It is also quite habit-forming and difficult to give up if you have met anyone that wishes to give up."

Huh?

[Patchd]

Sorry, I know I'm coming into this late again (had stuff going on), but wanted to respond to your reply to my last post.


If you don't support the NHS then you're more an academic than an anarchist.

What the hell does this even mean? Do I support a state-run National Health Service that, with all it's benefits in the here and now, has so many flaws too? Nope, I would defend it, but seek to extend it. The NHS is specifically state-run, why would I support a state-run institution?


I thought we were fighting capital greed, not letting the capitalists make profits from fucking up everyone's health.

Enjoy your smokers' revolution. :rolleyes:

Let's call for the abolishment of pubs then? Perhaps get rid of cars too, they pollute the environment, and help to damage our health ... not only that, but they profit Capitalism!!!11111oneoneleeventy-one (a bit like everything else in this Capitalist world no?)

I don't understand what part of my position people don't understand. Simply, well ventilated (separate from the rest of the building) smoking rooms are possible, although due to profit loss from the cost of installing a well ventilated smoking room, many institutions won't go ahead with it. Not only will a well ventilated smoking room benefit non-smokers in other areas (indoors), but it will also benefit the smokers in the sense that they don't have to leave a building just to have a fag, Capitalism doesn't accommodate for both sides.

[Chambered Word]

Let's call for the abolishment of pubs then? Perhaps get rid of cars too, they pollute the environment, and help to damage our health ... not only that, but they profit Capitalism!!!11111oneoneleeventy-one (a bit like everything else in this Capitalist world no?)



Pubs? There's a such thing as responsible drinking. And responsible smoking, which can be practised by not doing it in public or the very young. Cars? I'd like to see some more efficient or even electric cars, but they're a very necessary evil we have to contend with.

[Jazzratt]

I've not got a problem with folk poisoning themselves, nor have I got a problem with them locking themselves in a wee room and choking to death on their noxious fumes whilst serving one another drinks.

You're the one talking about stabbing them in the lungs. Who are you trying to reassure?


I do however think that they should be socially castigated and prevented from lighting up anywhere they have not got the explicit permission of everyone present and who may become present, not just the landlord. If children are present then there should be recourse to aforementioned lung perforation.I love you're justice system. It's wonderfully simplistic. Anyone doing anything you don't like? Stab the fucker in the lungs!


It's also not THAT extreme a response as their attack upon my lungs isn't just against my lungs but against those of all present.Again the attack on your lungs is relatively minor compared to the attack on their own lungs which is why retributive punishment makes absolutely no fucking sense.


I don't defend peoples 'right' to smoke crack, smack or be so fucked up that they have to get mind bendingly drunk on the weekend.And yet seem to be pretending to be an anarchist.


So why should I defend peoples right to smoke?Because you're not a dick?


When is a freedom not a freedom? When the illusion of choice is taken away, as it is with addictions.Yeah, smokers are born addicted to cigarettes. No one ever chooses to start smoking ever.


Anyway, I just don't like having to breathe in your toxic shit. Most others don't either. We've had enough of it. It's become clear that smoking is harmful. If you don't like it you can have your smoker's revolution.

These "most others" have absolutely failed to turn up in my local boozer. Most have been sitting outside the place smoking in fact. You're the one who mentions the fucking "smokers revolutiuon" in near enough every fucking post on this thread by the way, most of the smokers and anti-ban nonsmokers are simply calling for less of a kneejerk reaction.


Since when was banning a practise that is harmful to public health 'authoritarian'? Since you appointed yourself the grand arbiter of what is and is not harmful to the public health and for as long as people have such arbiters.


Take your libertarian crap elsewhere, you can have as many rights as you like so long as you don't dick about with mine, or those of any other non-smokers to begin with. We don't appreciate having our health pissed up the wall because of your stupid habits.Generally I feel much mor ready to give ground to people who aren't such fuckwits about the whole affair. Drop the hyperbole for fuck's sake. You sound more like you're making a speech than trying to convince anyone of your point of view.


'A lot'? The stuff I eat is.


True and I admit I like it as well, but I think for example food in schools shouldn't be too greasy. The obesity statistics in Australia are obviously bullshit, but I object to kids eating horribly fatty food as an only option.That's fair enough. I'm always wary, though, of the peddlers of the "healthy" lifestyles. They've got the biggest fear in the world to play on, after all: an early death.


So there's a way to use speed, ecstasy and cannabis without 'abusing' it? Yes. What you do is you take the drug recreationally. This is called "using" it. I find the idea that simply using a recreational drug recreationally constitutes some kind of abuse absolutely silly.


Sorry but I find this retarded, most elicit drugs are even more harmful than cigarettes.As backed up by the world renowed research institute of your colon.


Also there are alot of people in the populace who are indeed morons, which is why they're influenced by political party campaigns so strongly."The people are idiots that need saving from their own stupidity"? Treating everyone like an incapable moron simply because you think "alot" of the people in the populace are is no way to base legislature.


Alot of people are saying that here. That's what the whole thread is about. Angry hippies screaming 'HURR FASCIST TEIK AWAY MAH CIGARETTEZ' while not realizing that cigarettes are just another tool of capitalist exploitation.Are you illiterate? Or just incapable of bringing up an interesting point?

Incidentally "capitalist exploitation" is the bosses making workers produce things (goods, services, information) and giving them less than the full worth of their labour. It's not just something you can call anything you don't like.


There aren't that many other 'legitimate' businesses to my knowledge that damage public health for profit as badly as the tobacco companies do, whether they're being owned by the workers or not.I'm so glad you're hear to give your stamp of approval and disapproval to businesses. Where would the working class be without you? Making choices for themselves perhaps :ohmy: ?


facepalm.jpg

A motorcycle gang member. There.Ah, of course, it's facepalm worthy of me not to know your fucking slang. Because everyone was born and raised just down the road from you because it turns out that you are the center of the bloody universe and the sun does shine out of your arsehole.


No, they're exploiting people using highly addictive drugs for quick profit and using strongarm tactics against anyone who opposes them while the rest of us actually have to work for our money (and get screwed over when some junkie breaks into our homes for heroin money). In short, they're fucking leeches. Yes everyone that works in a drugs lab, including the technicians and people packaging the drugs, goes and robs your house. These gangs have no heirarchy and they're all scum. At the same time the job you work at is so much better because the owners of the company you work for aren't a bunch of bourgeois parasites at all.


I didn't say that you said they were. If you believe they're a legitimate 'neccessary evil' of capitalism then you're missing one or more portions of your brain.They are necessary evil because there are absolutely no other ways of acquiring some drugs. They are "evil" for (some) of the reasons you outlined and they are "necessary" if you want the product they sell.

Oh for fuck's sake:


Pubs? There's a such thing as responsible drinking. And responsible smoking, which can be practised by not doing it in public or the very young. Cars? I'd like to see some more efficient or even electric cars, but they're a very necessary evil we have to contend with.

You're insane. Actually grade-A certifiable Doolally. A genuine loony.

I mean fucking hell.

[welshboy]

You're the one talking about stabbing them in the lungs. Who are you trying to reassure?

I love you're justice system. It's wonderfully simplistic. Anyone doing anything you don't like? Stab the fucker in the lungs!
No that's a specific case, you really don't want to know my ideas on how we deal with hippies...


Again the attack on your lungs is relatively minor compared to the attack on their own lungs which is why retributive punishment makes absolutely no fucking sense.
How is giving me cancer and consigning me to a slow painful death minor compared to a relatively quick death due to lung perforation?


Because you're not a dick?
You've obviously never met me. :D


Yeah, smokers are born addicted to cigarettes. No one ever chooses to start smoking ever.
i never implied that people were born addicted to cigarettes and you're smart enough to know that.
I'm talking about social conditioning that makes smoking appealing to younger people, especially when their elder peers smoke. When people 'choose' to smoke they are victims of many different forces, not least being capitalist media influencing them.
Then we have the irony that otherwise intelligent people believe that they 'want' to smoke when the addiction has hold of them. Does the crack head who mugs someone 'want' to do this or are they acting in a manner driven by forces outwith their control, i.e their addiction?
Unless you're talking about grown adults opting to start smoking then i think that they're morons and should just save resources and take a long walk off a short pier.