Freedom v Bansturbators

[InsaneApache]

I've been following the events in Stony Stratford and I have to say, I'm on the side of liberty.


I can't work out what the British public is most wedded to – civil liberties, private enterprise or fags. Paul Bartlett, a Tory councillor in Stony Stratford, Buckinghamshire, has introduced a motion to ban smoking in all public places. Even outside. If it succeeds, Stony Stratford will have the first smoke-free high street in the UK.

"Everybody who lives in Stony, everybody who shops in Stony, truly loves Stony," Susi Whittaker told me from the gallery she runs in the high street. "Hence the bunting, baskets and flowers. Everybody wants to keep this a thriving market town. Nobody supports him. People who don't smoke don't support him. People who have kids and don't smoke don't support him."

Bartlett is well known for his zero tolerance views. He's a kind of mayor Giuliani for Milton Keynes or to put it another way "a total twat". So said Stony resident Gina Sherwood. "I think it's absurd. There are too many people against it. I don't know one person who is for it."

Bartlett's rationale is that walking up any high street you get smoke in your face which harms you and your children. It's an argument that has already worked in some part of America. The first city to go nuclear on the issue was Calabasas, California, which has had a ban on smoking outdoors since 2006. New York banned smoking from its parks and beaches last month, around the same time it legalised same-sex marriage. But such legislation sticks in the nicotined craw of British smokers, who point out that when you're outdoors there's a proliferation of fresh air.

Resistance is not limited to smokers, however. Whittaker doesn't smoke nor does Zoe Bridgewood, who also ticks the parent box. She said: "This is just victimising people. Can't we just be non-smokers? Why do we have to be anti-smokers?"

Matthew, who works in an estate agency in the town, said: "It's quite la-di-da around here. Not many people smoke. So it might send house prices up a bit. But they're too high anyway. I think it's a bit silly."

Though none of the people against the ban had ever met anybody who was in favour of it, I did find one. Helaine Whiteside said: "I think it would be good. Because of the nature of the town the pubs don't have gardens. Many are old coaching inns so the outside space is filled with the coaching houses, which people live in. So smokers have to stand on the street and they don't clean up after themselves."

This is a pub-centric and strangely familiar place, partly because it features the famous Cock and Bull pubs, from which the phrase "a cock and bull story" derives, and also because this is where the film A Cock and Bull Story was shot. It's also where Withnail and I was filmed, and everyone here seems extremely proud of this.

The town represents a dichotomy of two very distinct strands of Britishness – the Victor Meldrewish tendency to find everybody else annoying, especially when they're doing something noisy or smelly, and the Withnail Britishness of drinking until you're sick and finding it really amusing.

The purity of this war makes everybody's position more robust, and as certain as the local councillors are of success – many from both parties support the ban – so the opponents are sure they will overturn it, if necessary, with sheer attitude.

Tim, a 62-year-old smoker, said: "There's a groundswell of outrage about this suggestion." But will this be enough? What does a groundswell even look like? "Petitions have already gone around. We'll go on Tuesday and protest outside the meeting."

It's hard to say at this point how the division looks, whether all the people in favour of the ban are are councillors, and will have a vote on it, while all those opposed are outside the process, with only as much sway as a banner and a sense of outrage can provide.

Perhaps this is what such decisions looked like in America; the non-smokers on one side of the process – possibly having better access to the corridors of power because they don't waste time standing around outside smoking – and a load of baffled onlookers, wondering what just happened.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2011/jul/15/smoke-free-high-street-proposal-inflames-residents

So, are you with me? Or are you a closet bansturbator? :inquisitive:

[rory_20_uk]

I'm personally against smoking, as yes, others are affected.

Chewing tobacco? Fine - just don't spit on the pavement.
Cocaine? Fine.
Heroin? Fine.
Crack? No - again there are fumes
Opium pipes? No, fumes.

One should have all liberties as long as they do not impinge on the liberties of others.

Smoke at home. Smoke whatever the hell you like.
Do cocaine off a prostitute's backside. I really don't care.
There is a very different discussion on then who picks up the tab for cocaine-induced heart attacks... but McDonald's induced ones are apparently fine as is cigarette induced COPD. Best just tax the lot and deal with it that way.

I no more want to inhale smoke in town than I want to listen to preachers of any religion with a megaphone blasting their stunted understanding of their dogma.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have to say, running the "smoky gauntlet" on a narrow pavement outside a pub is really quite unpleasent. So I don't know, I'm sure it will be banned eventually anyway and it's a measure that would do more to cut the number of smokers than anything else.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm personally against smoking, as yes, others are affected.

Chewing tobacco? Fine - just don't spit on the pavement.
Cocaine? Fine.
Heroin? Fine.
Crack? No - again there are fumes
Opium pipes? No, fumes.

One should have all liberties as long as they do not impinge on the liberties of others.

Smoke at home. Smoke whatever the hell you like.
Do cocaine off a prostitute's backside. I really don't care.
There is a very different discussion on then who picks up the tab for cocaine-induced heart attacks... but McDonald's induced ones are apparently fine as is cigarette induced COPD. Best just tax the lot and deal with it that way.

I no more want to inhale smoke in town than I want to listen to preachers of any religion with a megaphone blasting their stunted understanding of their dogma.

~:smoking:Will you ban cars, anything with an exhaust pipe?


As for health hazards, I think I run a much greater risk health risk from people drinking alcohol. I've never had to run for smokers roaming the streets with foam on their mouths and madness in their eyes, looking to pick a fight. Let's ban alcohol first of all drugs, this killer that turns our streets into a zombie apocalypse-like war zone every weekend.

[Furunculus]

I've been following the events in Stony Stratford and I have to say, I'm on the side of liberty.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2011/jul/15/smoke-free-high-street-proposal-inflames-residents

So, are you with me? Or are you a closet bansturbator? :inquisitive:

it comes down to how you interpret this phrase:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mrs_Patrick_Campbell

Understand this phrase and understand the english!

"Does it really matter what these affectionate people do — so long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses!"

It is not YOUR business to curb the liberty of another englishmen, regardless of your opinion on its moral value or otherwise, unless it represents a serious intrusion into your own life.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Will you ban cars, anything with an exhaust pipe?


As for health hazards, I think I run a much greater risk health risk from people drinking alcohol. I've never had to run for smokers roaming the streets with foam on their mouths and madness in their eyes, looking to pick a fight. Let's ban alcohol first of all drugs, this killer that turns our streets into a zombie apocalypse-like war zone every weekend.

Spot on!

The "your liberty ends where anothers begins" line of thought should not be abused. I think banning outdoor smoking is an example of such abuse, since the harm to others is pretty much negligible.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Unless they're celebrities, or it's about sex. In which case the Englishmen feel very much that it is their business to know and pass it on.

[Adrian II]

All these calls for bans come from people who lead useless lives and who have ****-all to do all day but complain. Anyone want to live in Rory's exhaust-free, barbecue-free, deodorant-free world? Id rather go and hang myself.

AII

[Greyblades]

Hrm... I'm all for liberties normaly but I realy hate the smell of ol' baccy.

Personally I think we should go with George Carlin's method; You should have the right to blow smoke in my face, but I should have the right to kick you in the nuts, steal yer lighter and set fire to yer pants if I dont like it.

[InsaneApache]

It not about tobacco.

[Greyblades]

Its about smoking right? its tabbacco being smoked. I'm not sure but I assume it's the tabbacco that gave the the smoke its smell.

[Kralizec]

As a tribute to freedom, I'm going to light a cigarette right now.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Shouldn't guvmint swear off collecting & spending tobacco taxes seeing that it's blood money? Think of the children.

[rory_20_uk]

All these calls for bans come from people who lead useless lives and who have ****-all to do all day but complain. Anyone want to live in Rory's exhaust-free, barbecue-free, deodorant-free world? Id rather go and hang myself.

AII

Ever thought of writing for the News Of The World? They could do with your ability to make **** up. If you confuse the utility of a car with a cigarette, perhaps hanging yourself would be doing the world a favour.

~:smoking:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ever thought of writing for the News Of The World? They could do with your ability to make **** up. If you confuse the utility of a car with a cigarette, perhaps hanging yourself would be doing the world a favour.

~:smoking:

Or maybe you could learn to not obscure things by picking up on petty points when they don't really have any major impact on the argument.

[Subotan]

Hrm... I'm all for liberties normaly but I realy hate the smell of ol' baccy. .
Alternatively, this could be written as "Hrm...I'm all for liberties normally, but I really hate fags."

[InsaneApache]

Its about smoking right? its tabbacco being smoked. I'm not sure but I assume it's the tabbacco that gave the the smoke its smell.

No.

It's about tyranny.

[Husar]

So what about pooping in public, is that allowed? If not, why not?
Why restrict my freedom to poop and urinate wherever I want?
Animals do it, too and it doesn't harm them!

There's a law here that requires people to remove their dog's excrement from sidewalks, is that a restriction of their freedom?

I find the smell just as repulsive as that of cigarettes so I think it's a valid comparison.

And while we're at it, what about anti-littering laws?

[Rhyfelwyr]

So what about pooping in public, is that allowed? If not, why not?
Why restrict my freedom to poop and urinate wherever I want?

Because it is extremely unhygienic.

[Husar]

Because it is extremely unhygienic.

But does it harm anyone? People have allergies because they're too hygienic so it may actually be good for them.

[Greyblades]

Alternatively, this could be written as "Hrm...I'm all for liberties normally, but I really hate fags."
5 points,
I also would have accepted "smokes", "butt", "square", "cigs", "ciggies", "stogs", "stogies", "stokes", "snouts", "tabs", "loosey", "backwards", "bogeys", "boges", "gorts", "ciggy wiggy dilly's", "darts", "refries", "straights", "dugans", "hairy rags", "hausersticks", "jacks", "joes", "grits", "grants", and "tailies"

No.

It's about tyranny.
Oh in that case all I can say is: Thats an exageration, it isn't that bad. There are countries where you are executed for making rude remarks about a fat man in square glasses and military fatigues, places where there are armed guards that will shoot you for being outdoors after 9 PM. I sat through several those films and documentaries in school and college telling me how crappy lives some people of the world have like in North korea and Burma and how lucky we are to live in a country that lets us talk crap on any person we like and even get paid to publish it daily.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But does it harm anyone? People have allergies because they're too hygienic so it may actually be good for them.

Well, it can if you toach it then don't wash your hands, and its at ground level. So it's a child hazard.

Smoking is more unpleasent than anything else, but people smoking on the street is only slightly less oppressive than people smoking in pubs - we banned that and banning pavement smoking seems like a next step that will happen, regardless of the rights and wrongs.

[InsaneApache]

To all the poo-poo-ers and the naysayers, They got booze up for next. My bet is minimum pricing.*

*As a precuser to a selective ban.

[Greyblades]

And for those of us who don't either smoke nor drink booze?

[InsaneApache]

Fancy a curry?

[Proletariat]

Ever thought of writing for the News Of The World? They could do with your ability to make **** up. If you confuse the utility of a car with a cigarette, perhaps hanging yourself would be doing the world a favour.

~:smoking:

If you're so confused you think heroin use and cocaine is fine as long as it isn't being smoked because that would emit fumes, maybe you should go hang. ...your medical degree on the wall for something we normal people can use for a dartboard, you quack.

[Tratorix]

And for those of us who don't either smoke nor drink booze?

You have my sympathies. :wiseguy:

[Fisherking]

IA and the OP is right it is more about tyranny than smoking.

Busy Body nanny state anyone?

Just because you don’t like something does not make it a good idea to ban it.

There is absolutely nothing that someone doesn’t like and would like to see banned.

If government can establish more control over your life and likes they have a tendency to do that.

Second hand smoke is a red herring anyway. Next they can ban it indoors and install cameras to insure that no illegal activities are taking place.

I think it is disgusting putting milk in tea. Why not ban tea. Then no one could put milk in it.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Some rather intemperate posts here are pushing the boundaries of the acceptable. Please tone it down.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[Strike For The South]

Private bars should decide wether or not they should allow smoking

We have bigger problems than ending the night with a fag

[Husar]

Well, it can if you toach it then don't wash your hands, and its at ground level. So it's a child hazard.

Smoking is a child hazard as well, especially during pregnancy it seems.


Smoking is more unpleasent than anything else, but people smoking on the street is only slightly less oppressive than people smoking in pubs - we banned that and banning pavement smoking seems like a next step that will happen, regardless of the rights and wrongs.

Well, outside it's not pleasant, but somewhat bearable. I'm not supportive of a complete ban, some people think they need it to keep their calm, so, give them their expensive hobby. :shrug:

[Hosakawa Tito]

Being offended and wanting to micro-manage everyone else's lives seems to be a lifestyle for some. Don't tread on me.

[Vladimir]

Private bars should decide wether or not they should allow smoking

We have bigger problems than ending the night with a fag

You don't. That's how you try to end every Friday night. :drummer:

[Kralizec]

But does it harm anyone? People have allergies because they're too hygienic so it may actually be good for them.

Oh, please. Tell me one thing: what would you like less, a guy puffing a wiff of smoke into your face or a guy urinating against your legs? What about 5 wiffs of smoke, and 1 time of urinating against your leggs?


Private bars should decide wether or not they should allow smoking

We have bigger problems than ending the night with a fag

Indeed, that's what it should be like.

Over here smoking in bars has been banned under the pretext of protecting employees. The catch is that bars have been exempt for years from the employment space ban; and everyone who works there now doesn't care about it. In fact, from what I've seen the vast majority of people who work in such places are smokers themselves.

So it's pretty common that after a certain hour, when they're fairly sure that there will be no inspections, everybody lights up a cigarette. Including the bar employees.

[Husar]

Oh, please. Tell me one thing: what would you like less, a guy puffing a wiff of smoke into your face or a guy urinating against your legs? What about 5 wiffs of smoke, and 1 time of urinating against your leggs?

I find urinating against a leg is more comparable to pushing a lit cigarette against skin or clothes, a puff of smoke is more comparable with the smell of urinating somewhere close.
And apparently it's not about what I like but about what others are free to do and what not. Urinating against me or pushing a cigarette against me both affect me directly and do physical or financial harm to me, both are not allowed.

I agree that a private business should be free to decide, but in public places that are shared and relatively tight etc. like subway stations, town halls etc. it's perfectly fine not to allow it.
Sidewalks I'm not sure, it does seem a bit over the top but if it's a crowded area where I can't avoid the smoke I'd probably feel the need to urinate on the smoker's leg, it's not my fault, the smoke does that to me.

[InsaneApache]

Is there a collective conspiracy about missing the point?

Jeez talk about 'groupthink'

[a completely inoffensive name]

All I know is that when the government does something I don't agree with it is tyranny.

[Strike For The South]

All I know is that when the government does something I don't agree with it is tyranny.

LOLZ

Motorcycle helmets and smoking are the first steps toward facism

But the unyeilding yoke that is corpratism turns out to be Con-Sti-Tution-Al

At this point, I'm just here for the ride