As of 2007, no smoking in UK clubs...

thc · Post by **thc** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:27 pm

well you didnt really say anything that hadnt already been said.

i dont believe people have the right to "poison" others witht their smoke.

i do believe in the right of club owners to be able to decide what they think their customers want.

if the clubs you want to go to allow smoking, then you and all the other anti-smoking people should get together and protest outside these clubs and maybe the club owners will change their mind. there seems to be a lot more non-smokers than smokers so it should be effective. but it seems you'd rather have the government enforce your will upon everyone.

RickyRicardo wrote:However, I don't think I could ever bring myself to embrace a system of laissez-faire libertarianism, which is what you seem to be endorsing

why not?

rickyricardo · Post by **rickyricardo** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:42 pm

OK, I've done something a little crazy...and have actually read some of the bill:

It looks like "clubs"...as in nightclubs...are largely exempt from the smoking ban:

3 Exemptions
(1) The appropriate national authority may make regulations providing for
specified descriptions of premises, or specified areas of them, not to be smokefree
despite section 2.
(2) Examples of descriptions of premises which may be specified are the
following, or any subset of the followingÂ—
(a) premises where a person has his home, or is living whether
permanently or temporarily (including hotels, care homes and prisons
and other places where a person may be detained),
(b) licensed premises,
(c) premises in respect of which a club premises certificate is in force.
(3) The regulations may provide that premises or areas of premises are not smokefree
in specified circumstances, if specified conditions are satisfied, or at
specified times (or any combination of those).
(4) The conditions may includeÂ—
(a) in the case of licensed premises, conditions about what else (apart from
alcohol) is or is not sold, offered for consumption or consumed there,
(b) in the case of any premises, conditions requiring the designation in
accordance with the regulations, by the person in charge of the
premises, of any rooms in which smoking is to be permitted.
In this sectionÂ—
Â“club premises certificateÂ” has the meaning given by section 60 of the
Licensing Act 2003 (c. 17),
Â“licensed premisesÂ” means premises in respect of which there is in force a
premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003 authorising the
consumption of alcohol on the premises.

Assuming that nightclubs have to be licensed in the UK the same way they are licensed here, that basically means they are exempt from the ban since they are not considered "publically accessable". So, a ban on smoking is largely up to the proprieter at that point.

What this ban mostly seems aimed at is smoking in public, enclosed areas...such as public transportation, grocery stores, cinemas, and other places attended by "the general public"

Here's the full bill in case anyone else wants to look:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/P ... thbill.pdf

rickyricardo · Post by **rickyricardo** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:44 pm

thc wrote:
RickyRicardo wrote:However, I don't think I could ever bring myself to embrace a system of laissez-faire libertarianism, which is what you seem to be endorsing
why not?

In short....I don't have that much faith in capitalism.

I will try to clarify when I get home, but right now it's quitting time

thc · Post by **thc** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:56 pm

well if all club owners have to do is get a license, then i guess it's okay. i guess it also depends on how much this license costs.

i dont agree with all aspects of libertarianism, but i do agree with a lot of it.

i dont have much faith in capitalism either. being for "free trade" is one of the libertarian views i am against.

jim beats · Post by **jim beats** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:58 pm

thc wrote:i dont believe people have the right to "poison" others witht their smoke.

Isn't that EXACTLY what the government is saying with this law?

thc · Post by **thc** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:04 pm

Jim Beats wrote:
thc wrote:i dont believe people have the right to "poison" others witht their smoke.
Isn't that EXACTLY what the government is saying with this law?

please read my entire post.

jim beats · Post by **jim beats** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:07 pm

I did. The government is enshrining part of your post in law, what's the problem?

thc · Post by **thc** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:09 pm

they way in which they're acheiving it.

jim beats · Post by **jim beats** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:26 pm

I can't really see how the government can acheive anything without making laws. How else are they gonna get anything done? You want them to go round sayng 'pretty please people, don't force your smoke on others'? Why do you think that would have any effect? Any pub or club can ban smoking on its premises right now, but none of them do. So the government is taking pregmatic action to protect the rights of the non-smoker. Isn't that what governments are supposed to do - protect peoples rights?

As for the suggestion that anti-smokers lobby pubs and clubs to ban smoking on an individual basis - they already went one better, they lobbied the government to ban smoking in all of them. Don't go thinking this law came from the government - it happened because the majority of the UK wants it. Of those that don't, I reckon in 5 years time they'll either support the ban, or they won't give a shit. If enough people are still bothered, we can always repeal it...

Peace and out - I can't be bothered to argue the point any more. Like I say, in a few years time no-one will give a shit.......

thc · Post by **thc** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:41 pm

you people fail to see my point or just arent reading what i say. i'm tired of repeating myself over and over.

i give up on you people.

be complacent and let the government take your rights away.

peripheral · Post by **peripheral** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:02 am

thc wrote:you people fail to see my point or just arent reading what i say. i'm tired of repeating myself over and over.

i give up on you people.

be complacent and let the government take your rights away.

ok

showguns · Post by **showguns** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:09 am

in california club owners are allowed to let smoking in their clubs as long as it is a completely family owned and operated establishment. seeing as family owned and operated clubs are extremely few and far between you don't see too much of this. i think if given a choice a lot of people that worked at clubs would agree to a no smoking policy as well. it is a law designed to protect the people that work at these places as much as it is the people who own and attend them.

i see your point in allowing club owners to decide wether their establishment is smoking or not, but where do you draw the line for exceptions? have the owners petition/apply for a smoking license? that might work. i dunno. it seems easier to say "ok, smoking has been proven to be potentially harmful for the smoking and the non-smoking patron as well as the employees of the club/restaraunt so smoking will only be allowed in designated areas. no exceptions." end ramble.

boomnoise · Post by **boomnoise** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:27 am

i haven't read this thread from the start but what i will say is that
ultimately the market should decide. and not the goverment who have presented a very confused case for the ban. there has been no clarity in the argument.

john reid hasn't exactly been a pilar of knowledge on the subject. only the free vote has resulted in this outcome and i doubt very much it would have had the same outcome with a three line whip - it's a very confusing issue and i think the ban will ultimately be revoked, just as with weed.

the ban attacks labours heartland and where this core electorate aren't as importnant as they once were, this will serve to further a feeling of alienation between them and the labour party. ie. a bad idea for labour.

labour is policy mongering as an excerise of power and a very self indulgant exercise at that. liberty seems alien to blair at the moment as with the terroism legislation.

i'm pissed off as a smoker, yes. but i'm even more pissed of a member of a democracy. blair is on the way out and he knows it, and all this is him trying to make a mark. it stinks. more than the cigarettes.

amen-ra · Post by **amen-ra** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:20 am

Yo thc,

I think our differences jus come from a difference of philosophy. But we both agree the government iz shady and therefore useless to us (in its current state) and pretty much against us

People can do as they please but they should also be informed well enough to make decisions that donÂ’t hurt others or themselves. By telling club owners to decide the best atmosphere to club in (in terms of smoking or non-smoking) is giving up your right to choose intelligently. If the club owners want more sales at the bar he's gonna have to say yes to the smoking (someone said earlier that beer and snouts go hand in hand)- not once did he consider me or you when making his decision mr thc (jus like the government). Ultimately the choice is yours innit, if ciggies were made illegally you'd still have a choice of gettin them on the underground market. But the debate about the effects of cigs doesnt truly relate to the bigger issue here

The government can help by education but our governments seem to be more interested in power, status, wealth (mainly for themselves)- this is why people are now suspicious of every movement the government makes. But consider this; the more suspicious we get of the government, the more suspicious they get of us (Â“What the fuck are u doing?Â” Â“What the fuck am I doing? What the fuck are YOU doing?Â”). Robot-wars

Seek within

But in terms of the whole smoking ting- youÂ’re defending the undefendable- thereÂ’s bare evidence to suggest smoking iz extremely harmful. So this is one Â“freedomÂ” that we can all agree is not good to indulge in, especially as we all know, it violates another man/womanÂ’s freedom as well as ours. I totally agree with you thc that the government should not be allowed to define us, but this does not belong in a debate about smoking. The government have done a sensible ting if u look at it purely from a social perspective i.e the effects of smoking on society. But they have not been very sensible in making smoking acceptable by marketing it to the people, makin them addicted to it and then trying to take it away from them- that's some stupid shit. the government and companies in general seem to make all their money from gettin us addicted to tings!!!

But I can now also understand that u view this smoking ting as not a problem in itself and not a big issue but a signifier of things to come (our civil liberties being taken away from us). This type of Â“crackdownÂ” on us rowdy citizens was always on the cards by a government that has no REAL control anymore as theyÂ’ve lost respect.

Identity cards are comin- thatÂ’s why mi naa look for rights and justice in the legislation.

Anyone else heard that we only use about 10% of our brain power? ThereÂ’s another 90% to be unlocked still- imagine that. I donÂ’t think watchin the government is gonna help me unlock that if IÂ’m honest.

I hope we can agree on some things thc, I read over the posts and realized there was points of unity. Let me know what u think

One

luke.envoy · Post by **luke.envoy** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:26 am

i dont smoke cigarettes but it will make it less easy to blaze green in clubs

thc · Post by **thc** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:33 am

amen-ra

thc wrote:you people fail to see my point or just arent reading what i say. i'm tired of repeating myself over and over.

i give up on you people.

be complacent and let the government take your rights away.

you dont make any sense anyway.

amen-ra · Post by **amen-ra** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:42 am

Cool. U make perfect sense to me though man serious

It's all good anyway- good luck with your battle.

melody · Post by **melody** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:09 am

personally i'm of the impression that if you smoke you can wait a few hours to have a cigarette. there are people dancing around you.

can't you go outside if you want a ciggie that much? it's not like, hard, is it?

doomstep · Post by **doomstep** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:25 am

... they just don't get it.

Edited for clarity ...

peripheral · Post by **peripheral** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:09 am

Melody wrote:personally i'm of the impression that if you smoke you can wait a few hours to have a cigarette. there are people dancing around you.

can't you go outside if you want a ciggie that much? it's not like, hard, is it?

dun know.

plus doomstep, thc - smoking is not a right (see rickyricardo). ppl have only been smoking in the west since lovely walter raleigh brought back tobacco - so a few centuries. smoking is a historical phenomena, and if you take a wider view you'll be able to see that. the fact that passive smoking etc has been discovered relatively recently doesn't make it any less real, and society has to incorporate this knowledge into how it deals with smoking.

when the govt decide I can't move around freely, work where I like, write what I like etc etc, then I'll be concerned about civil liberties. it's a trueness that in a few years no-one will give a monkeys bout smoking in public laws anyway. but any1 who thinks this particular law - which was a free vote in parliament without a whip and so not specifically tailored by the govt to encroach on liberties - is a real threat to their rights/signal of the advent of state control has been watching too much xfiles.

and actually, amen-ra, you kind of started off making sense but tbh you've lost me....

As of 2007, no smoking in UK clubs...

Who is online