Comments on: Labour will always decide what’s best (Smoking in public)

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 13:20:10 +0000

“What? I said, still incredulous. Next thing, I said, you’ll be wanting to ban drink in order to remove any temptation to get drunk, or ban cars, to avoid ever being tempted to drive too fast…”

Just a quick excerpt – I can find plenty more of this rubbish logic throughout your post Boris and some of the comments that follow (some decent points true, but some absolute idiots post on here).

The obvious difference between banning smoking in public places and banning drinking or driving is this:

Driving too fast is not inherent in the idea of driving. Driving too fast is something one can do while driving, but it is not fundamental to it. Drinking too much is not fundamental to the idea of drinking. HOWEVER: passive smoke IS fundamental to the idea of smoking in public places. There is no possible way one can smoke in a public place without inflicting passive smoke on others, without (in an ironically perverse twist) banning all non-smokers.

Please make sane points and then stop, don’t use arguments which wash with the Daily Mail readers and no one else…*

* Apologies to all Daily Mail readers who read it for laughs and who get the manipulative rubbish that is written, I am not referring to you!

Rate This: 0 0

By: Phil

Phil — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:20:50 +0000

Mags – I’m not sure the railway is up to it, as yet. It’s not just the state of what’s there, but in a lot of places double lines have been cut down to single track over the last 10 years or so, which massively reduces the potential capacity. It would take a long time and a lot of money to restore that capacity, but if the political will was there, I’m sure it could be found. If we were a poorer country we’d be able to get the EU to pay for it… and if we managed public expenditure properly we could probably afford it out of general taxation.

Rate This: 0 0

By: melissa

melissa — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:57:40 +0000

..at least you’re disarmingly honest Barry – we’ll forgive you!

Rate This: 0 0

By: Barry Dorrans

Barry Dorrans — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 04:51:28 +0000

Dear god, a fan club? I’m making no attempt to give up. I’ve already given up all my other vices I have to keep one going, at least for another couple of years!

Rate This: 0 0

By: Mat

Mat — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:22:58 +0000

Of course it is in our interest to have a stable democracy in Iraq- any fool can see that. It doesnt make it easier to get that situation when people continually carp on about it all the time mainly to score points off Tonys lot.
On the smoking issue it has to be said that people drinking alcohol near me does not mean I have to ingest the same drink but people smoking near me means that I am inflicted with the disgusting smell. It ages me prematurely and hurts my poor eyes. Now smokers will have to join me outside and keep me company while I smoke my weed.
Boris you are far better off away from Michael Howard. The man is patently unelectable- you on the other hand will fight another day. If I were you I would resign from the Spectator and go and see for yourself the situation in the Middle East and Africa. Really get out to these places and spend some time out there. Too many Tories are products of Britain and have very narrow views. You are the only Tory who gives me and my friends hope but you really need to get out there and get a first hand experience of the rest of the world. We are far too interconnected these days for you not to have a deep meaningful understanding of exactly why the Aids situation in Botswana (for instance) has repurcussions for us all. You are a bright fellow- dont waste it,

Rate This: 0 0

By: Mags

Mags — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:14:38 +0000

Phil – anything that moves road traffic towards rail traffic would be good. Perhaps someone could have a word with the Royal Mail about restarting the mail trains?

I’d suggest reprivatising the railway but that just gives away my leftish position totally!

Rate This: 0 0

By: Katherine

Katherine — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:48:58 +0000

I am a social smoker and have thought long and hard about this issue, changing my mind several times. Don’t assume that all people for a ban (for that is where I am now) have leapt to that conclusion based on a desire to control people’s lives.

As a liberal, I believe in the right of people to do what they like to themselves. I am therefore in favour of legalising, licensing and otherwise controlling, for example, marijuana. I do not think that tobacco and alcohol should be illegal, but then nor should other drugs.

However, the right to swing one’s fist, as the saying goes, ends where the other person’s nose begins. And this is where the smoking ban comes in. This isn’t a ban on smoking tobacco, and I would not agree with that, but banning smoking in certain areas where non-smokers do not have a choice as to whether they are assailed with smoke is a different kettle of fish.

As I said, I am a social smoker so I am precisely the kind of person that this would impact upon. I do not consider myself a selfish person however and am prepared to give up a small pleasure that is incredibly damaging to me anyway for the ske of other’s comfort. I think that’s only fair. What I would really like would be a licensing system, whereby certain bars or pubs could apply for a licence to be smoking, with licensing controls.

So stop leaping to the conclusion that this is about control. There are limits to personal freedoms – traffic laws, for example, prevent you from driving on whichever side of the road you wish and so on – try arguing that that is a function of the nanny state and see where that gets you.

People seem just to resist change. A good example – the casinos. They are tightly and very strictly controlled, but suggest liberalising the rules and the people up in arms about ‘letting’ people have access to all that lovely fun (and potential abuse) are precisely the same people who are up in arms about the ‘nanny state’. Get your arguments in order, because at the moment you are just coming across as whingers who are knee jerking at everything that comes out of this government (of which I am emphatically not a fan, by the way.)

Rate This: 0 0

By: Phil

Phil — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:51:10 +0000

In respnse to Mags – modern cars in my experience are the most environmentally friendly vehicles on the road, and the reduction in pollution per car far outstrips the increase in the number of cars. Most buses and lorries seem to chuck out loads of soot, even the new ones. IMO, the solution is not to try to get more people to use public transport that doesn’t exist, but to move more freight onto the railways and off the back of lorries. This won’t go down very well with the lorry drivers but many will still be needed to move goods from railhead to warehouse, and surely the rest can be taught to drive the new trains? This would solve loads of problems, from reducing pollution, by having fewer lorries and less congestion, to reducing roadworks (which also reduces pollution by further cutting down on queuing).

Rate This: 0 0

By: Derek Irwin

Derek Irwin — Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:20:07 +0000

Dr Reid’s hospitals are killing more people from MRSA than deaths from passive smoking. Passive smoking can be unpleasant but it is a minor public health issue. The Government should focus on the major issues, particularly those for which it has a responsibility. This Government is wide open to ridicule, forget rational debate.

Rate This: 0 0

By: melissa

melissa — Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:23:16 +0000

C’mon Barry! where are you? keep us posted…

Rate This: 0 0