Smoking ban........

[entwisi]

I believe the definition needed to be not 'enclosed' is that three sides must be open to the atmosphere for a minimum depth of 18" unfortunately for annie teh arcade is only open on two hence its classed as enclosed.

[***Mr D***]

Im sure I read (from my childs school) that if you are waiting in your car in a school car park you arnt allowed to smoke in the car.

Shouldnt really smoke when kids are in the car but whilst waiting seems a bit OTT to me.

[jambutty]

It has always been the case that the owner of any property could decide to allow smoking or not. In years gone by there were some pubs that didn’t allow smoking in the ‘Lounge’ and only in the ‘Vault’ or ‘Tap Room’. For years now shops and stores have had no smoking signs displayed. Buses used to have no smoking on the lower deck or the front part of the bus for single deckers. Some taxis and private hire vehicles have displayed no smoking signs, whilst others have not. In other words it was recognised that the owner of the property had the final say about smoking.

So this new law has taken away a human right. To decide for yourself whether you allow smoking on your property by visitors to it.

Now it seems that everyone is jumping on the bandwagon and extending the law to include outdoor property like car parks. I’m sure I read somewhere that Blackburn Council intends to ban smoking in public parks. Or was it a nightmare?

What is going to be next? Social housing landlords refusing to let a new property to those prospective tenants who admit to being a smoker? How long before this will be extended to existing tenants? Some private landlords already have a no smoking clause in the tenancy agreement. It is their right.

How long before some local authority will decide that as it owns the land on which roads are built and declares them a no smoking zone? They can do, it’s their property. Of course in the meantime vehicles chuck out their poison with carefree abandon.

These gloating anti smoking brigadiers don’t know what they have unleashed and the precedent that it has established in law will come back to bite them too.

The next target is going to be the private motor vehicle. Under the guise of creating a healthier atmosphere (one child in four develops asthma before it can walk, run and talk properly) and reducing the carbon footprint, older vehicles (first less than 10 years old, then less than 5 years old) will be banned. Such a move will kill three birds with one stone. Get millions onto public transport, unclog the public highways, reduce atmospheric pollution. It probably won’t happen in my motoring lifetime but it will come because the government is committed to making it happen.

Having pushed the majority of the citizens into the “you will live a life style dictated by the government” corner, the government of the day won’t be able to resist.

[Royboy39]

Originally Posted by jambutty

It has always been the case that the owner of any property could decide to allow smoking or not. In years gone by there were some pubs that didn’t allow smoking in the ‘Lounge’ and only in the ‘Vault’ or ‘Tap Room’. For years now shops and stores have had no smoking signs displayed. Buses used to have no smoking on the lower deck or the front part of the bus for single deckers. Some taxis and private hire vehicles have displayed no smoking signs, whilst others have not. In other words it was recognised that the owner of the property had the final say about smoking.

So this new law has taken away a human right. To decide for yourself whether you allow smoking on your property by visitors to it.

Now it seems that everyone is jumping on the bandwagon and extending the law to include outdoor property like car parks. I’m sure I read somewhere that Blackburn Council intends to ban smoking in public parks. Or was it a nightmare?

What is going to be next? Social housing landlords refusing to let a new property to those prospective tenants who admit to being a smoker? How long before this will be extended to existing tenants? Some private landlords already have a no smoking clause in the tenancy agreement. It is their right.

How long before some local authority will decide that as it owns the land on which roads are built and declares them a no smoking zone? They can do, it’s their property. Of course in the meantime vehicles chuck out their poison with carefree abandon.

These gloating anti smoking brigadiers don’t know what they have unleashed and the precedent that it has established in law will come back to bite them too.

The next target is going to be the private motor vehicle. Under the guise of creating a healthier atmosphere (one child in four develops asthma before it can walk, run and talk properly) and reducing the carbon footprint, older vehicles (first less than 10 years old, then less than 5 years old) will be banned. Such a move will kill three birds with one stone. Get millions onto public transport, unclog the public highways, reduce atmospheric pollution. It probably won’t happen in my motoring lifetime but it will come because the government is committed to making it happen.

Having pushed the majority of the citizens into the “you will live a life style dictated by the government” corner, the government of the day won’t be able to resist.

That is a hell of a post Jim.
I think as part of the anorak brigade as they call us that we have brought up to stand against these clowns who have nothing better to do than make life miserable for all members of the community no matter what age.

[MargaretR]

Cuba looks a nice place to live - no anti smoking law - high membership of trade unions - nationalised industries - a good health service - ie all things we used to have.

[Royboy39]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Cuba looks a nice place to live - no anti smoking law - high membership of trade unions - nationalised industries - a good health service - ie all things we used to have.

There is no rational answer to that one.
They are ruled by a communist dictator........Is that better than we have got?
You dont need a health service there, if you disagree with the government - you get shot.

[MargaretR]

Originally Posted by Royboy39

There is no rational answer to that one.
They are ruled by a communist dictator........Is that better than we have got?
You dont need a health service there, if you disagree with the government - you get shot.

I read an enormously long entry in Wikipedia on Cuba - doesn't seem THAT bad.

[Royboy39]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

I read an enormously long entry in Wikipedia on Cuba - doesn't seem THAT bad.

Not for me thanks

[garinda]

"Cuba's achievements in social development are impressive given the size of its gross domestic product per capita. As the human development index of the United Nations makes clear year after year, Cuba should be the envy of many other nations, ostensibly far richer. [Cuba] demonstrates how much nations can do with the resources they have if they focus on the right priorities - health, education, and literacy."
-- Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, April 11, 2000

[cashman]

Originally Posted by mick

Well for the residents its classed as there home so they can smoke but to the staff its a work place so they cant smoke
its stupid i know and where Anne works he is not sorting a shelter out all he has done is screwed a ashtray to the wall outside.

right fair enough, that raises this question, if the powers that be are talking about NO SMOKING for council house residents for 1 hour before a workman comes, cos then your home will become his/her workplace, WHATS the Differance?HYPOCRACY In its Highest Form.

[Lilly]

Originally Posted by cashman

right fair enough, that raises this question, if the powers that be are talking about NO SMOKING for council house residents for 1 hour before a workman comes, cos then your home will become his/her workplace, WHATS the Differance?

Good point,there's no difference.That's what's so annoying about this stupid legislation.They've taken things way too far and in some instances,like the one you've pointed out,it doesn't even make any sense.

[MargaretR]

There is a 25% chance that the workman is a smoker - as I found recently during central heating work. If only one workman is on your premises I found that they are glad of the chance to smoke with you in your home. If there is more than one workman they tend to decline the offer (afraid of being 'shopped' by the other?).
I have been websearching again (my hobby ) and found that smokeasy s are widespread in nations with anti smoking laws - we will have them here soon, if not already, but news of their location has to be spread by word of mouth only (of course). This law is criminalising 25% of the population when the original option of private club's exclusion from the law would have been an acceptable compromise.

[cashman]

Smokeasys, like that idea margaret,PM me if you get addy of a local one.

[West Ender]

I've got this mental image of a Smokeasy in a police raid. In the Speakeasies, during Prohibition in the US, they used to drink gin out of teacups. I see the Smokeasy clients drawing on fags, artfully concealed inside Mars bars, with huge smoke extractors whirring away in the ceilings. Think of a panatella tucked away inside a sausage roll or baguettes full of Havana cigars. Ooh, the possibilities are endless.

[MargaretR]

Originally Posted by West Ender

I've got this mental image of a Smokeasy in a police raid. In the Speakeasies, during Prohibition in the US, they used to drink gin out of teacups. I see the Smokeasy clients drawing on fags, artfully concealed inside Mars bars, with huge smoke extractors whirring away in the ceilings. Think of a panatella tucked away inside a sausage roll or baguettes full of Havana cigars. Ooh, the possibilities are endless.

Ashtrays have been replaced by teacups of water in such places - ingenuity will find a way