On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:59:40 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

T i m wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:01:35 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:


An excellent article which all RASF's should read.

I'm pretty sure I'm not a RASF but this is my 3dth Dave (in the hope
that it might help you see it from 'the other side' but not saying
that you are a worst case smoker etc).[1]

BIG SNIP

Not a RASF Tim, a reasoned & well written post, for which I thank you, after
the hysterical rantings of others.

Thanks. I have long since lost the energy to defend my rights for such
issues. Luckily I don't have to do it so much now. ;-)

I'm actually in favour of legislation to ensure that venues who choose to
become no smoking have enforcement.

I fear that legislation is sometimes the only way to force some people
to respect other peoples rights. I suspect the main reason it was
allowed to go through 'blanket' was not to protect the rights of the
majority but to minimize the potential liability from health related
issues from the staff (in any employment role).

Perhaps it could be similar to a
license to sell alcohol.

I'm all for any legislation (that 'works') that forces the
inconsiderate minority to curtail their anti-social activities for the
benefit of the majority (in the absence of 'good citizenship /
respect' etc). I used to take our daughter over onto some 'waste land'
(Technically unused private property) for her to run her little Yamaha
PW50 motocrosser. I made a point of ensuring 1) The exhaust was
working properly (as in noise reduction), 2) the nearby houses
couldn't here it (I checked with some of them) and 3) whenever we came
across any dog walkers or other folk (also unofficially) using the
area we either went up the other end or stopped running the bike till
they left. We also used to use a public track but that facility was
closed due to 'environmental reasons' (which was bs) because of the
noise levels of a minority of the bikes. As always, we all lose out
because of the ignorant or arrogant actions of a minority.

I fully appreciate that many people dislike cigarette smoke and see no
reason why they should have to put up with it.

And I appreciate and respect your right to whatever you like, as long
as it doesn't negatively impact everyday folk, especially
for_no_reason (like knocking out a dented panel on your car is 'a
genuine reason', banging a old bath in the garden with a hammer
isn't). Most 'smokers' use the car pollution as a counter argument to
their public pollution whist (in most cases) being drivers themselves.
(I was always told two wrongs don't make a right g). The other
example they give is alcohol and whilst I agree 'all things in
moderation' we (these days) generally all need to drive (or be driven
or have our goods delivered etc) and all need to drink (something /
liquid) .. but *need* to smoke? Now, what could have saved the day
for the smokers was if the companies who make billions producing the
cigarettes spent some of that money developing one (or a suitable
gadget) that restricted that smell / smoke (and we can ignore medical
risks if you like) to the user. Similar if you like, to the fact we
are all expected to maintain a certain level of hygiene and use
anti-perspirant etc.

It would be very simple to allow choice & apply legislation to enforce it.

Agreed, but as mentioned elsewhere that might be difficult to manage
as at least now all smokers knows 'everywhere' (covered area etc) is
off limits (possibly for the legal reasons mentioned above).

My beef is that the current blanket ban doesn't allow any choice and the
alleged health scares have been deliberately used to support a campaign to
demonise & punish smokers without any scientific basis.

Whilst I agree any tax gained by the government from smokers can be
used to treat them, I personally would rather pay the shortfall in my
taxes and not have (had) to endure the outfall of other people habits
on such a regular and often confrontational basis. [1]

If you want to smoke in your own house and as you as you have the
honest and un-assumed permission of all you share it with [2] then
that I guess is fine. Even step out onto the pavement and light up,
you will never know how many people you offend who have done nothing
whatsoever ever to you (and I appreciate *you* may be considerate to
your family etc).

All the best ..

T i m


[1] I gave up trying to reason with folk who would insist on lighting
up in front of the 6' long 'No Smoking' signs, no matter how politely
anyone asked. Similar I guess as those who park in disable / mother
child bays or across my side gates.

Me: "Excuse me mate, could you not park there (white line, large
'Please do not obstruct these gates' sign etc) as I'm going out now
..."

Them: "Sorry mate, I'll only be 5 mins" walks off .. WTF ???

(the Police were called on rare occasions and the vehicle *was*
removed)

[2] If there are any babies or pets in the house who can't have their
say then I think the assumed answer should be NO.