Scotland set to become smoke-free

[Janus]

BBC News

Prison trucks, ambulances and vehicles carrying police reinforcements were spotted down nearby side streets before the rally began.

As the protest grew, with many chanting "Shame" and "Long Live Belarus", security forces began hemming them into groups and pushing them away from the square.

At one point some protesters stopped the traffic but were quickly swooped on by the police.

Hundreds of marchers later moved on to a jail where several hundred of their fellow protesters are being held after their arrest in October Square on Friday.

Despite being confronted by police they stood their ground, shouting slogans and waving flags.

There were unconfirmed reports that tear gas was used to disperse the crowd.

One woman was filmed being beaten by several officers, while another protestor was left almost unconscious and bleeding on the ground, says the BBC's Emma Simpson in Minsk.

The authorities said in a statement that stones and unidentified explosive devices had been thrown at the police and that eight of them had been injured.

Witnesses said Mr Kozulin - who was a runner-up in the presidential election - and several members of his family were pulled from the crowd by police.

There were initial reports that Mr Milinkevich had also been arrested, but his officials later confirmed it was one of his aides who had been detained.

'Targeted sanctions'

Russia has not criticised the election and accused the OCSE, which monitored the vote, of inflaming tensions.

White House press spokesman Scott McClellan said on Friday that the Bush administration would apply additional "targeted sanctions" against some governmental officials.

No time frame was given, but the sanctions are expected to take the form of travel restrictions and some financial penalties.

Earlier, EU leaders issued a declaration saying that the bloc would "take restrictive measures against those responsible for the violation of international electoral standards".

The measures have yet to be agreed, but EU officials said they would probably include a travel ban against Mr Lukashenko.

Dr Peter Terry, chairman of BMA Scotland, said the day would be remembered as "the time Scotland took a bold and politically courageous step".

He added: "On behalf of doctors across Scotland, I thank the Scottish Parliament for introducing this legislation that will help save lives which, for too long, have been cut short by the deadly weed that is tobacco."

Smokers' groups, however, have condemned the Scottish Executive, accusing ministers of misleading the public over the health impact and economic costs of the ban.

The Scottish Licensed Trade Association (SLTA), which had called for a partial ban, fears 140 pubs could close and 2,500 jobs may be lost.
Meanwhile Neil Rafferty, Scottish spokesman for the smokers' lobby group Forest, said Scotland would be a "poorer place".

He added: "Politicians and health campaigners have unprecedented power over our lives.

"The ban will do nothing to improve the health of the nation, but it will give a warm glow to those who enjoy telling others what to do.

"The anti-smoking fanatics will use the ban to victimise and stigmatise smokers even further.

"They have used abusive and dishonest methods to make smokers feel bad about themselves, even comparing smokers to heroin addicts."

Exempt from the ban are designated rooms in some workplaces, including in adult care homes, hospices, offshore installations and submarines.

Smoking will also be allowed in police detention or interview rooms and in designated hotel bedrooms.

Almost 300 business across Scotland have lodged planning applications this year alone for shelters, canopies or beer gardens to make last-minute alterations in the run-up to the ban.

Individuals who flout the legislation face a fixed penalty of £50.

The manager or person in control of any no-smoking premises can be fined a fixed penalty of £200 for either allowing others to smoke there, or failing to display warning notices.

Refusal or failure to pay the fine may result in prosecution and a fine of up to £2,500.

Hurry and get those last puffs in while you're still in those public places :( . Now you can't smoke in public areas on both sides of the border. I hope this doesn't give some people in the US some ideas :( .

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I hope this doesn't give some people in the US some ideas

Uh.. you are aware that smoking has been banned in public places in alot of US cities for some time right?

[Janus]

Uh.. you are aware that smoking has been banned in public places in alot of US cities for some time right?
Yeah, I'm aware of that. In fact, the last city that I lived in banned it in public places. I meant politicians getting ideas on banning it at a national level.

[FULL METAL JACKET]

"The anti-smoking fanatics will use the ban to victimise and stigmatise smokers even further.

"They have used abusive and dishonest methods to make smokers feel bad about themselves, even comparing smokers to heroin addicts."
That's definitely true. Smokers are being treated like lepers in every major city in the U.S.

[dislatino]

That's definitely true. Smokers are being treated like lepers in every major city in the U.S.

Are you serious, lol, it goes that deep then? :blink:

[Janus]

Are you serious, lol, it goes that deep then
That's somewhat of an exaggeration though it may hold true for certain cities. Some US cities and states have banned it outright in indoor public areas or public places in general while others just simply require smokers to put out their cigarettes if someone asks them to.

[FULL METAL JACKET]

I don't think it's a exaggeration. Speaking from nyc, this city has passed tough anti-smoking laws. People from here don't want anything to do with someone who smokes. It's pretty strange.

[Janus]

I don't think it's a exaggeration.
I understand though some cities are relatively lax on it. Cali. has some of the toughest anti-smoking policies.

[FULL METAL JACKET]

^ Yeah cali is tough on smoking. Smoking is bad for the health but don't you think these local governments are being far too agressive?

[Janus]

Smoking is bad for the health but don't you think these local governments are being far too agressive?
Yes, the local and state governments are basically trying to dictate people's lifestyle choices for them. I think that it is wrong and unnecessary.

[вор в законе]

I don't quite understand why this event is considered by some leftists so tragic. The multinational companies are earning billions of dollars from cigarettes.

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 03:36 AM

Smoking is bad for the health but don't you think these local governments are being far too agressive?
Yes, the local and state governments are basically trying to dictate people's lifestyle choices for them. I think that it is wrong and unnecessary.
Forcing you to take your dumbass outside so you dont give anyone second hand cancer is not dictating lifestyle choices.
It is for public safety, and if there is socialzed medicine in a certain jurisdiction then the state is well within their right to place restrictions on smoking and correct to clamp down hard on the merchants of death - tobacco corporations.

The dumbass comment is directed at anyone over the age of 5 who starts smoking.
You should know better.
My friend went to Scotland and was disgusted at how many people smoked. Laws will encourage quitting...it is a good thing.

http://www.tobaccofacts.org/

[Janus]

Forcing you to take your dumbass outside so you dont give anyone second hand cancer is not dictating lifestyle choices.
First, you need to stop with the flaming. Second, why isn't it?


It is for public safety, and if there is socialzed medicine in a certain jurisdiction then the state is well within their right to place restrictions on smoking and correct to clamp down hard on the merchants of death - tobacco corporations.
What about the other harmful products out there such as car exhaust? Should we ban those as well for the sake of public safety.


The dumbass comment is directed at anyone over the age of 5 who starts smoking.
You should know better.
And you should drop your neo-puritan attitude. If you don't want to be harmed by second hand smoke, all you have to do is ask someone to put it out or just avoid those places alltogether. Drinking harms our health as well, would you like to call for the banning of that as well?

[FULL METAL JACKET]

Originally posted by Eoin [email protected] 25 2006, 11:02 PM
Forcing you to take your dumbass outside so you dont give anyone second hand cancer is not dictating lifestyle choices. It is for public safety
Are you serious? People go to bars and pubs to smoke and drink.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Eoin Dubh
Forcing you to take your dumbass outside...

Oh dear, yet another neo-puritan is with us.

Neo-Puritanism (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1141370560&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[вор в законе]

What about the other harmful products out there such as car exhaust? Should we ban those as well for the sake of public safety.

Your premise reminds me of some rednecks who are defending their right to bear arms by stating ''cars kill more than guns in the us''.

No offence by the way.


People go to bars and pubs to smoke and drink.

That is subjective.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Leftists fully support the right to bare arms, and if they're right that cars do kill more people than guns, what makes their argument wrong?


Are you serious? People go to bars and pubs to smoke and drink.

Sure. People go to bars to undress women with their eyes. People also go to playground to fantasize about the kids there. Unless you're trying to say ALL people go to bars to smoke and drink (in which case you'd be wrong, since I've gone to bars and done neither), your argument fails.

[Janus]

Your premise reminds me of some rednecks who are defending their right to bear arms by stating ''cars kill more than guns in the us''.
You want to take away guns as well?

No, they aren't similar. Governments are banning smoking because they consider that it is best for the individual's health. With this arguement, then you could extend it to any harmful substance. This has nothing to do with the analogy that you put up.


That is subjective.
Most of the anti-smoking policies are directed against indoor places like restaurants and bars. Not everyone goes to one and if non-smokers are worried about their health, then they should avoid those places as well.

[Eoin Dubh]

Ha ha ha!
"Neo puritan" the new buzz word around Rev-Left. :rolleyes:


First, you need to stop with the flaming. Second, why isn't it?
Scroll down on my post......it wasn't directed at you. Why isn't it? Uh.........Cancer? Hello? You do realize long term exposure to second hand smoke causes cancer, right?
People who smoke are stupid. Thats my opinion, not a flame, Janus.


What about the other harmful products out there such as car exhaust? Should we ban those as well for the sake of public safety.
I don't know where you live, but I have yet to see a car parked in a bar, pub or restaurant with all windows and doors shut and the engine running so people can get a nice lung full of exhaust. :lol:


And you should drop your neo-puritan attitude.
And you should take your lazy ass outside.

If you don't want to be harmed by second hand smoke, all you have to do is ask someone to put it out or just avoid those places alltogether.
OK "non-puritans", what gives the tobacco addicts more right for freedom of movement than non smokers?



Drinking harms our health as well, would you like to call for the banning of that as well? Well, if you force me to chug alcohol against my will, then obviously yes!

[вор в законе]

Leftists fully support the right to bare arms, and if they're right that cars do kill more people than guns, what makes their argument wrong?

I support the right to bear arms if those who bear the arms are communists.

[FULL METAL JACKET]

Sure. People go to bars to undress women with their eyes.
;) No offense, it's probably you doing that. Never heard of this one. Go to a pub in Manchester of wherever in the UK on matchday. Will they be thinking about undressing women?


That is subjective.
How is that subjective?


Unless you're trying to say ALL people go to bars to smoke and drink
Not saying all, but many do.

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by FULL METAL JACKET+Mar 26 2006, 04:20 AM--> (FULL METAL JACKET @ Mar 26 2006, 04:20 AM)
Eoin [email protected] 25 2006, 11:02 PM
Forcing you to take your dumbass outside so you dont give anyone second hand cancer is not dictating lifestyle choices. It is for public safety
Are you serious? People go to bars and pubs to smoke and drink. [/b]
UH....no. People go to Pubs and bars to drink.

You are free to slowly kill yourself outside. Get a warmer jacket.

[вор в законе]

Governments are banning smoking because they consider that it is best for the individual's health. With this arguement, then you could extend it to any harmful substance. This has nothing to do with the analogy that you put up.

I am not really interested about the opinion of the bourgeois government. What matters is that this law will discourage people buying cigarettes and this means that the multinational corporates will earn less money.

You can smoke as much as you want anywhere you want when we establish socialism and the tobaco fields are controled by the workers. :lol:

[вор в законе]

How is that subjective?

Because i go to bars in order to undress women with my eyes. :D

[Janus]

You do realize long term exposure to second hand smoke causes cancer, right?
Yeah, I know that. But long-term exposure to any harmful substance can cause cancer so what's your point?


People who smoke are stupid.
OK, but why do you want to force your views on others by banning smoking?


doors shut and the engine running so people can get a nice lung full of exhaust.
And I don't see people wear gas masks in order to concentrate second-hand smoke. I was simply pointing out that there are other health concerns as well. Again, what's your point?


And you should take your lazy ass outside.
You don't consider that flaming?


Well, if you force me to chug alcohol against my will, then obviously yes!
You're the one who wants to ban things because it harms our personal health. You're essentially forcing those views on others.

[FULL METAL JACKET]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 25 2006, 11:43 PM

How is that subjective?

Because i go to bars in order to undress women with my eyes. :D
:lol: good one

[Janus]

I am not really interested about the opinion of the bourgeois government. What matters is that this law will discourage people buying cigarettes and this means that the multinational corporates will earn less money.

You can smoke as much as you want anywhere you want when we establish socialism and the tobaco fields are controled by the workers.
OK, you could've said that earlier rather than use strange analogies. Ok, so why don't we stop purchasing products from all big businesses period?

[Janus]

Why've already had this debate. Has anyone even bothered to look at the link http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46525 that redstar gave?

[вор в законе]

OK, you could've said that earlier rather than use strange analogies. Ok, so why don't we stop purchasing products from all big businesses period?

Doesn't sound like a bad idea.

[violencia.Proletariat]

You do realize long term exposure to second hand smoke causes cancer, right?

Well if that causes cancer, living in a large city should kill you within 30 days from all the pollution you inhale :rolleyes:


but I have yet to see a car parked in a bar, pub or restaurant with all windows and doors shut and the engine running so people can get a nice lung full of exhaust. :lol:

I have never been in a room with a smoker that is completely closed so air can not penetrate, have you?


And you should take your lazy ass outside.

Or you can go live in the forest. :lol: Ventilation is the key!


what gives the tobacco addicts more right for freedom of movement than non smokers?

What gives you more freedom than a tobacco smoker?

[Eoin Dubh]

But long-term exposure to any harmful substance can cause cancer so what's your point? Do I really need to answer this one?
OK, you smoke next to me in the pub. I, against my will, have to breathe your vile noxious fumes. Is that clear?


OK, but why do you want to force your views on others by banning smoking? You having to get up, put on your coat, and exit the pub to satisfy your addiction to cigarettes, is not banning smoking.



And I don't see people wear gas masks in order to concentrate second-hand smoke. I was simply pointing out that there are other health concerns as well. Again, what's your point?
Janus, as a champion of the workers, surely you have heard of non smokers who have cancer as a result of long term exposure to tobacco smoke while on the job?
Is it just T.S. for them, I guess?


And you should take your lazy ass outside.


You don't consider that flaming?
No I don't. IMO a smoker is a lazy ass, go outside. Smearing me with "Neo Puritan", could that be considered flaming? No of course not. Why? Because it's your opinion.


You're the one who wants to ban things because it harms our personal health. You're essentially forcing those views on others.
Restriction of second hand smoke is not a ban. Making you take it outside, is no where near as bad as you forcing second hand smoke onto others.

[Eoin Dubh]

Well if that causes cancer, living in a large city should kill you within 30 days from all the pollution you inhale Uh.. yeah...sure. :lol:


I have never been in a room with a smoker that is completely closed so air can not penetrate, have you?
Well, gee, how can I argue against that? I have been in a room with smokers and had my eyes burn, my throat hurt, my nose sear with pain, my hair and clothes smell like filth, and blown blackish snot into a kleenex as a result. I was still alive so there must have been some oxygen, somewhere, in the room.


Or you can go live in the forest. Ventilation is the key!
I should live in the forest, because you cant be bothered to get up and go outside to light up? Glad you have got my back comrade.


What gives you more freedom than a tobacco smoker?
Please clarify.

[Janus]

OK, you smoke next to me in the pub. I, against my will, have to breathe your vile noxious fumes.
Same goes for automobiles, planes, power plants, etc.


You having to get up, put on your coat, and exit the pub to satisfy your addiction to cigarettes, is not banning smoking.
We were discussing banning smoking in general. Asking someone to put it out is something that you should do if you're worried about it. Still,, this ban is targeted against public places rather than just indoor areas. For indoor areas, then that is really the owner's choice.


Janus, as a champion of the workers, surely you have heard of non smokers who have cancer as a result of long term exposure to tobacco smoke while on the job?

Yeah, there are also people who have developed cancer due to exposure to other products as well. Cigarette smoke isn't solely to blame.


No I don't. IMO a smoker is a lazy ass, go outside. Smearing me with "Neo Puritan", could that be considered flaming? No of course not. Why? Because it's your opinion.
Calling someone an insulting name is flaming and it doesn't help one's arguements at all. Stating that someone's attitude is similar to that of neo-puritans is not.


Restriction of second hand smoke is not a ban. Making you take it outside, is no where near as bad as you forcing second hand smoke onto others.
If there are smokers in an area then you should just avoid that place. If you were concerned about your health, you would've never visited those areas anyways but now you just want to take them back? Once again, I think that we're miunderstanding each other here. The arguement seems to have moved from smoking in indoor places to smoking in general then back.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Uh.. yeah...sure. :lol:

I really hope you know what sarcasm is


I have been in a room with smokers and had my eyes burn, my throat hurt, my nose sear with pain, my hair and clothes smell like filth, and blown blackish snot into a kleenex as a result.

Maybe you should see a doctor about that, I've never had that problem nor has any non-smoker I know. But this is all subjective. What really needs to happen is some independent (of tobacco and anti-smoking influences) scientific research, until then your proof isnt gonna cut it.


Please clarify.

I'm saying it's unfair for either side to tell the other to leave a certain area, we can make it tolerable for both.

[Janus]

I have been in a room with smokers and had my eyes burn, my throat hurt, my nose sear with pain, my hair and clothes smell like filth, and blown blackish snot into a kleenex as a result. I was still alive so there must have been some oxygen, somewhere, in the room.
Why didn't you just leave? If I were experiencing symptoms like that, I would've.

[Eoin Dubh]

Why didn't you just leave? If I were experiencing symptoms like that, I would've.
I was in a pub visiting with my cousin and old mates I had not seen in 2 years, I put up with it that day because my friend wanted to be there.
Now though, the laws have changed and I am free to go out to pubs and bars because cigarette smokers must take it outside, just like marijuana smokers have always had to do. I think it is great.

Look, I feel really strongly about this, most likely I pissed some one off...i apologize.
I had a bit of fun, not much to a discussion if all parties agree, right?

I must digress though, as I am heading off to work.....I work in asbestos abatement!! :lol: Lol.

[Janus]

I think it is great.
I agree with you that one shouldn't necessarily have to be exposed to second hand smoke. Still that doesn't give states the right to just ban smoking in and outside and dictate other's lifestyles. I don't see the problem with staying away from a smoker or just asking him to put it our if you have no other choice.


Look, I feel really strongly about this, most likely I pissed some one off...i apologize.
I had a bit of fun, not much to a discussion if all parties agree, right?
I'm not pisses off. You should just try not to call other members names in the future. Like I said it doesn't help your arguement or the board but I accept your apology.

[Redeye]

Governments may pass laws to restrict where you can smoke, but I doubt any would totally ban it as they earn too many tax dollars from the sale of cigarettes. That's the case in Australia anyway.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You're the one who wants to ban things because it harms our personal health. You're essentially forcing those views on others.

No more than the smoker who forces others to breathe his toxic fumes if they want to eat at a resturaunt.

[LoneRed]

Originally posted by Eoin [email protected] 26 2006, 04:02 AM
Forcing you to take your dumbass outside so you dont give anyone second hand cancer is not dictating lifestyle choices.
It is for public safety, and if there is socialzed medicine in a certain jurisdiction then the state is well within their right to place restrictions on smoking and correct to clamp down hard on the merchants of death - tobacco corporations.

The dumbass comment is directed at anyone over the age of 5 who starts smoking.
You should know better.
My friend went to Scotland and was disgusted at how many people smoked. Laws will encourage quitting...it is a good thing.

http://www.tobaccofacts.org/
thank you for calling me and many others dumbasses, its much appreciated.

its not an issue of banning smoking, the companies just dont want more costs, so they make the citizen pay, in restaurants there should be well defined smoking and non-smoking areas. and in bars, pubs and clubs, people smoke non smokers need to deal with that.


also they arent Tobacco corporations. they dont grow tobacco or anything of the sort. they buy it from others. they are ciggarrette companies. many would agree that the corporate/packaged cig tobacco is quite shitty, and worse for you than the roll your own tobacco

listen up Kid, you may not like smoking, no one cares, its not up to you to dictate whether people smoke or not just becase you dont like it. I agree that shit needs to be down to separate the whiners from the smokers, but in terms of smoking overall, get over yourself

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:14 AM

listen up Kid, you may not like smoking, no one cares, its not up to you to dictate whether people smoke or not just becase you dont like it. I agree that shit needs to be down to separate the whiners from the smokers, but in terms of smoking overall, get over yourself
Kid? I am 31 years old.
You seem to have been personally offended, so please allow me to clarify as I also was a "dumbass"...I smoked tobacco for almost 10 years.

Get over myself? You are really upset, eh pal?
Traditional aboriginal people respect and revere tobacco, the faithkeepers say it is not meant to be abused as it is by settlers.
Chill out and have a smoke, seems like your nic fit is making you grumpy. :D
Thanks, E.D.

[Quills]

I have a serious lung condition, which was not caused by second hand smoke, but being around smokers could kill me. And it's all very well saying just don't go to clubs/bars/whatever (which I can't anyway, they're often badly ventilated) but smokers are everywhere. I have to take breathing equipment with me where ever I go, incase I breath in second hand smoke, so I welcome these new laws.

You can call me a 'neo-puritan' if you want, although as far as I can see it's just a word being tossed around to immediatally invalidate people's arguments without having to bother answer their points. But I don't see why these smokers (who are selfish by definition) think it's worse for them to go outside for ten minutes than for other people to have to breath in their fumes. I see nothing 'neo-puritan' about trying to avoid getting a condition like mine, and having to life this half-life.

I'm not trying to infringe on people's rights, smokers are trying to infringe on mine.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 11:30 AM
I'm not trying to infringe on people's rights, smokers are trying to infringe on mine.
Exactly!

As a Scottish citizen, I welcome the new laws.

[monkeydust]

Good news for the Scots!

[piet11111]

then start a non smoking bar if you cant stand smoke !
if you cant find one tough shit its up the the owner if he/she allows smoking or not.

these whiners are getting under my skin i used to be ashtmatic (spelling?) but i know if i go into a bar that there will be smokers but im not going to be that whiner that demands everyone to quit smoking.

living in some city's the air is equivalent of smoking a pack of cigarettes a day.
i doubt its smoking that causes all the cancer its all the other crap we breathe in and eat
every day.

as we live longer because of medical science we increase the statistical chances of dieing of cancer.
i know poeple that where all healthy and stuff that die of cancer before reaching 50 and chain smokers that die of natural causes at the age of 90.

the effects of smoking on health are under capitalism too damn biased by financial interrests and politics to be worth the paper its printed on.

(on the topic of cancer virologists believe that certain ordinary virusses are able to cure cancer)