Smoking Ban – Let’s have a referendum!

Moderators – this thread is NOT the same is the other smoking threads, so please don't delete it!

It doesn't matter if you are for or against the smoking ban, what matters is that the public are asked what THEY think and want, through a fair referendum.

Let the public decide what should be done about the smoking ban and allow the government to follow the wishes of its electorate. No other decision is lawful or in any way appropriate if this country is, as it proclaims, a democracy.

The referendum could give 4 options to vote on:-

1. Keep and extend the current smoking ban, to include all public places.

2. Keep the existing smoking ban as it is, with no further changes.

3. Relax the smoking ban to allow private business' (pubs, clubs, cafe's and restaurants etc) to decide on their own smoking policy, or have inside separate ventilated smoking areas etc.

4. Reverse the smoking ban completely, i.e. to how it was in the 1970's.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Moderators – this thread is NOT the same is the other smoking threads, so please don't delete it!

It doesn't matter if you are for or against the smoking ban, what matters is that the public are asked what THEY think and want, through a fair referendum.

Let the public decide what should be done about the smoking ban and allow the government to follow the wishes of its electorate. No other decision is lawful or in any way appropriate if this country is, as it proclaims, a democracy.

The referendum could give 4 options to vote on:-

1. Keep and extend the current smoking ban, to include all public places.

2. Keep the existing smoking ban as it is, with no further changes.

3. Relax the smoking ban to allow private business' (pubs, clubs, cafe's and restaurants etc) to decide on their own smoking policy, or have inside separate ventilated smoking areas etc.

4. Reverse the smoking ban completely, i.e. to how it was in the 1970's.

 

 

 

Basic Human Rights for Smokers

The smoking ban has taken away the basic human rights of a huge percentage of adults in the UK.

The smoking ban was brought in on the false premise that it was to protect the workers in places such as pubs, clubs and restaurants from the "dangers" of second-hand smoke.

The "dangers" of second-hand smoke have never been scientifically proven.

The law was proposed by the Labour Government of the day in their manifesto as being a partial ban, only operational in places where food was being served. It was then changed without public consolation or any evidence from experts in the field to include all indoor public places.

Even the wording is wrong. A public place is exactly that, and does not mean a "private" place, such as a private member's club, which as we all now know, is also included in the ban.

People who wish to smoke should be entitled to the same basic human rights as those who do not wish to smoke. In other words, smokers should be entitled to separate venues, in which they can smoke, where the owner and staff agree to this.

In our country, and especially under a Conservative Government, the basic human rights of all groups and all people should be considered. Approximately 25% of the population of the UK smoke, to ignore them is to take away their basic human rights.

Why is this idea important?

The smoking ban has taken away the basic human rights of a huge percentage of adults in the UK.

The smoking ban was brought in on the false premise that it was to protect the workers in places such as pubs, clubs and restaurants from the "dangers" of second-hand smoke.

The "dangers" of second-hand smoke have never been scientifically proven.

The law was proposed by the Labour Government of the day in their manifesto as being a partial ban, only operational in places where food was being served. It was then changed without public consolation or any evidence from experts in the field to include all indoor public places.

Even the wording is wrong. A public place is exactly that, and does not mean a "private" place, such as a private member's club, which as we all now know, is also included in the ban.

People who wish to smoke should be entitled to the same basic human rights as those who do not wish to smoke. In other words, smokers should be entitled to separate venues, in which they can smoke, where the owner and staff agree to this.

In our country, and especially under a Conservative Government, the basic human rights of all groups and all people should be considered. Approximately 25% of the population of the UK smoke, to ignore them is to take away their basic human rights.

Let people smoke, let business decide where they cant

The government collects tax on smoking and then bleats at us telling us its wrong. How did we get to the situation where we have to watch rubbish all the time on TV saying how ill it will make us etc. For the love of god everybody knows smoking is not a valid health plan, people smoke because its relaxing, enjoyable and yes it is cool. Let people smoke where they want, if businesses are losing money because of smokers they will ban it themselves. Let the market decide. Stop spending umpteen £Millions telling us what we already know and let people live the way they want to.

I write this while smoking a roll-up.  It is tasty.

Why is this idea important?

The government collects tax on smoking and then bleats at us telling us its wrong. How did we get to the situation where we have to watch rubbish all the time on TV saying how ill it will make us etc. For the love of god everybody knows smoking is not a valid health plan, people smoke because its relaxing, enjoyable and yes it is cool. Let people smoke where they want, if businesses are losing money because of smokers they will ban it themselves. Let the market decide. Stop spending umpteen £Millions telling us what we already know and let people live the way they want to.

I write this while smoking a roll-up.  It is tasty.

Amend the Smoking Ban

The smoking ban is an infringement of the rights of a huge percentage of adults in the UK.

The smoking ban was brought in on the false premise that second hand smoke was a danger to those around it, who could possible inhale it. This has never been scientifically proven.

No law should be allowed to go into the statute books without absolute proof that the need for such a law can be substantiated both legally and scientifically.

When the Labour Government first proposed this law, it was in their manifesto that it should be a partial ban, only operational in places that served food. This proposal was suddenly changed to include "all" indoor public places. The reason given, was that staff needed protection from second hand smoke.

In the ex-Labour Government's dying throws, they started suggesting extending the smoking ban to outdoor areas as well as the enclosed areas that were already covered by the ban. If there was any truth at all in their doctrine that second-hand smoke kills or injures, and that is why they needed a smoking ban in the first instance, then why are there proposals still in force to try and extend the ban to outdoor areas?

Smokers should be entitled to separate venues, in which they can smoke, where the owner and staff agree to this. This would not impinge at all on those who do not wish to smoke or even smell smoke, as they too should be allowed their own smoke free places.

Why is this idea important?

The smoking ban is an infringement of the rights of a huge percentage of adults in the UK.

The smoking ban was brought in on the false premise that second hand smoke was a danger to those around it, who could possible inhale it. This has never been scientifically proven.

No law should be allowed to go into the statute books without absolute proof that the need for such a law can be substantiated both legally and scientifically.

When the Labour Government first proposed this law, it was in their manifesto that it should be a partial ban, only operational in places that served food. This proposal was suddenly changed to include "all" indoor public places. The reason given, was that staff needed protection from second hand smoke.

In the ex-Labour Government's dying throws, they started suggesting extending the smoking ban to outdoor areas as well as the enclosed areas that were already covered by the ban. If there was any truth at all in their doctrine that second-hand smoke kills or injures, and that is why they needed a smoking ban in the first instance, then why are there proposals still in force to try and extend the ban to outdoor areas?

Smokers should be entitled to separate venues, in which they can smoke, where the owner and staff agree to this. This would not impinge at all on those who do not wish to smoke or even smell smoke, as they too should be allowed their own smoke free places.