repeal the smoking ban

I believe that the main reason so many pubs and clubs have closed is the smoking ban and not the price of drinks. Thousands of smokers had their social lives ruined with the ban because for a smoker a drink without a cigarette is like an unsalted meal – bland and not worth the bother. I appreciate that some non-smokers find cigarette smoke unpleasant but a way can be found to keep all of us happy, Landlords could choose whether to run a smoking pub, a non-smoking pub or a pub which caters for both with designated areas for each. If this even-handed approach had been adopted from the outset we would not have seen so many people made miserable by taking away one of their main pleasures in life. Neither would there have been the closure of so many great traditional pubs which had been the mainstay of their local communities.

The type of smoker who has stayed away from the pubs since the ban is more often than not a hard-working taxpayer whose only vice is having a drink in one hand and a cigarette (or pipe or cigar) in the other – not a drug-raddled lunatic. We have lost so many of our beloved traditions in this country and I believe this ban is a step too close to a Big Brother society which hopefully no right-minded person wants.

Lastly, it has been a great relief to have the opportunity to voice the feelings of an ordinary person and believe it will be listened to. I think this sort of platform is a good way for the powers-that-be ascertain the feelings of the man-in the street.

Many thanks – and hopefully see you in the pub before very long!

 

Why is this idea important?

I believe that the main reason so many pubs and clubs have closed is the smoking ban and not the price of drinks. Thousands of smokers had their social lives ruined with the ban because for a smoker a drink without a cigarette is like an unsalted meal – bland and not worth the bother. I appreciate that some non-smokers find cigarette smoke unpleasant but a way can be found to keep all of us happy, Landlords could choose whether to run a smoking pub, a non-smoking pub or a pub which caters for both with designated areas for each. If this even-handed approach had been adopted from the outset we would not have seen so many people made miserable by taking away one of their main pleasures in life. Neither would there have been the closure of so many great traditional pubs which had been the mainstay of their local communities.

The type of smoker who has stayed away from the pubs since the ban is more often than not a hard-working taxpayer whose only vice is having a drink in one hand and a cigarette (or pipe or cigar) in the other – not a drug-raddled lunatic. We have lost so many of our beloved traditions in this country and I believe this ban is a step too close to a Big Brother society which hopefully no right-minded person wants.

Lastly, it has been a great relief to have the opportunity to voice the feelings of an ordinary person and believe it will be listened to. I think this sort of platform is a good way for the powers-that-be ascertain the feelings of the man-in the street.

Many thanks – and hopefully see you in the pub before very long!

 

MP’s should have to do the same as the rest of us

Reading through some idas on this site I've found two areas where MP's are treated differently to the rest of us.

1.  MP's don't have to have CRB checks even if their work brings them in contact with children.

2. MP's can choose to smoke inside Westminster licensed bars because of its 'palace' designation.

Are there any more examples of the civil liberties of MP's being more respected than the civil liberties of the rest of the population and where they are deemed above the law.

I think if we have to do it MP's have to do it too.

 

Why is this idea important?

Reading through some idas on this site I've found two areas where MP's are treated differently to the rest of us.

1.  MP's don't have to have CRB checks even if their work brings them in contact with children.

2. MP's can choose to smoke inside Westminster licensed bars because of its 'palace' designation.

Are there any more examples of the civil liberties of MP's being more respected than the civil liberties of the rest of the population and where they are deemed above the law.

I think if we have to do it MP's have to do it too.

 

Allow Designated Smoking rooms in pubs and clubs

Allow smoking in enclosed separate rooms with air extraction fitted and efficient separation from the rest of the establishment. The majority fot he establishment must still be dedicated to non smoking areas.

Why is this idea important?

Allow smoking in enclosed separate rooms with air extraction fitted and efficient separation from the rest of the establishment. The majority fot he establishment must still be dedicated to non smoking areas.

Time to review the libel laws.

On the 16th July The Chartered Institute For Environmental Health issued the following press release. "Pro-health campaign ASH has accused the tobacco industry of orchestrating pro-smoking comments on a website launched by deputy prime minister Nick Clegg in a move to get ‘unnecessary’ laws and regulations scrapped." This is patently untrue. Britain's 12 million smokers are not an adjunct to tobacco companies who are sycophantic, lick spittle lap dogs unable to express any opinion without reference to a third party.  Instead as a group deprived of the right of association, unable to enjoy a legal past time with the permission of the owner of private property, we exercised complete freewill and were only too pleased to contribute to the debate.
 

http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=31820

Why is this idea important?

On the 16th July The Chartered Institute For Environmental Health issued the following press release. "Pro-health campaign ASH has accused the tobacco industry of orchestrating pro-smoking comments on a website launched by deputy prime minister Nick Clegg in a move to get ‘unnecessary’ laws and regulations scrapped." This is patently untrue. Britain's 12 million smokers are not an adjunct to tobacco companies who are sycophantic, lick spittle lap dogs unable to express any opinion without reference to a third party.  Instead as a group deprived of the right of association, unable to enjoy a legal past time with the permission of the owner of private property, we exercised complete freewill and were only too pleased to contribute to the debate.
 

http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=31820

Don’t like the smoking ban? You know where the door is.

Other countries have much more freedom than Britain.

Clearly the government intends to ignore ideas submitted to this site.

So why not offer bursaries so that people can move abroad to enjoy more freedom:

1. Freedom to smoke: other European countries are much more relaxed about smoking.

2. Freedom to breathe: traffic pollution is much less severe in Europe and they allow smoking rooms so you can choose which smoke you want to be exposed to.

3. Freedom from tax: Britain now has the highest overall burden of tax in the western world.

4. Freedom to work: mass immigration and offshoring of jobs are much less prevalent in other countries.

5. Freedom to study: most other European countries offer student grants and waive tuition fees for poorer students.

6. Freedom to recover: Britain has some of the worst figures in Europe for recovery from cancer and other serious diseases.

7. Freedom to personal space: Britain is now the most densely populated country in Europe (supermarkets estimate, from the sale of staple items like bread and milk, that the population of Britain is around 95 million)

8. Freedom to own a home: it's almost impossible to enter the property market in Britain.

9. Freedom of movement: British people must now sign the e-borders register to take a holiday.

10. Freedom of assembly: in Britain is it illegal to dance to repetitive music, play live music unlicensed at a village fete and hold a political protest without permission from the police.

11. Freedom from noise: despite the previous point Britain offers no protection against neighbourhood noise unlike most other European countries.

12. Freedom from violence: Britain has the highest violent crime figures in Europe and most people are afraid to walk around their own communities after dark.

13. Freedom of the Internet: only Britain, China and North Korea will block Websites and imprison people whom contradict the will of the digital oligarchs.

14. Freedom to have a stake: in America one third of the population has two thirds of the wealth. However in Britain, comparable to a tin-pot dictatorship, just 5% of the population has 95% of the wealth.

I could go on but you get the picture.

Why is this idea important?

Other countries have much more freedom than Britain.

Clearly the government intends to ignore ideas submitted to this site.

So why not offer bursaries so that people can move abroad to enjoy more freedom:

1. Freedom to smoke: other European countries are much more relaxed about smoking.

2. Freedom to breathe: traffic pollution is much less severe in Europe and they allow smoking rooms so you can choose which smoke you want to be exposed to.

3. Freedom from tax: Britain now has the highest overall burden of tax in the western world.

4. Freedom to work: mass immigration and offshoring of jobs are much less prevalent in other countries.

5. Freedom to study: most other European countries offer student grants and waive tuition fees for poorer students.

6. Freedom to recover: Britain has some of the worst figures in Europe for recovery from cancer and other serious diseases.

7. Freedom to personal space: Britain is now the most densely populated country in Europe (supermarkets estimate, from the sale of staple items like bread and milk, that the population of Britain is around 95 million)

8. Freedom to own a home: it's almost impossible to enter the property market in Britain.

9. Freedom of movement: British people must now sign the e-borders register to take a holiday.

10. Freedom of assembly: in Britain is it illegal to dance to repetitive music, play live music unlicensed at a village fete and hold a political protest without permission from the police.

11. Freedom from noise: despite the previous point Britain offers no protection against neighbourhood noise unlike most other European countries.

12. Freedom from violence: Britain has the highest violent crime figures in Europe and most people are afraid to walk around their own communities after dark.

13. Freedom of the Internet: only Britain, China and North Korea will block Websites and imprison people whom contradict the will of the digital oligarchs.

14. Freedom to have a stake: in America one third of the population has two thirds of the wealth. However in Britain, comparable to a tin-pot dictatorship, just 5% of the population has 95% of the wealth.

I could go on but you get the picture.

Amend the Smoking Ban

If a group of people who are smokers wish to hire or use a licensed or unlicensed premises indoors for the purposes of recreation they should be allowed to do so. It is a basic human right of association.

I suggest that local authorities can have a quota of premises (dependant on the population of that local authority area) that can be granted conditional indoor smoking permits. Certain public houses that have met basic air quality conditions and are able to seperate non smokers from smokers (or be closed to non smokers) should be able to apply for such permits for certain advertised events organised by smokers.

I would recommend smokers had to pre-register and become members of such events to obtain admission to remove the risk that a non smoker inadvertantly entered such a venue or event.

Staff working at such a premises must sign a waiver wherein they confirm that they are either a smoker themselves or that they waive any right to protection under the public health act, much in the same way people can opt out of working time regulations designed to protect the health and wellbeing of workers at present.  

Why is this idea important?

If a group of people who are smokers wish to hire or use a licensed or unlicensed premises indoors for the purposes of recreation they should be allowed to do so. It is a basic human right of association.

I suggest that local authorities can have a quota of premises (dependant on the population of that local authority area) that can be granted conditional indoor smoking permits. Certain public houses that have met basic air quality conditions and are able to seperate non smokers from smokers (or be closed to non smokers) should be able to apply for such permits for certain advertised events organised by smokers.

I would recommend smokers had to pre-register and become members of such events to obtain admission to remove the risk that a non smoker inadvertantly entered such a venue or event.

Staff working at such a premises must sign a waiver wherein they confirm that they are either a smoker themselves or that they waive any right to protection under the public health act, much in the same way people can opt out of working time regulations designed to protect the health and wellbeing of workers at present.  

Smoking Pubs and Non-smoking Pubs ….simples

Some adults CHOOSE to smoke. Some adults CHOOSE not to smoke. We all unfortunately inhale second hand fumes and pollutants because of the car obsessed part of world we live in. However, if a publican and his/her staff are happy to allow smoking on their premises then they should be allowed to. Common sense, tongue in cheek and 21st century choices to make this a viable option are…

1) Compulsory and standardised air filtration systems fitted in smoking pubs to minimise or eliminate supposed (I say this because of the lack of real scientific evidence of passive smoking causing harm) passive smoking by non smokers who CHOOSE to attend these premises. In fact all publicans could have had one of these fitted 3 years ago instead of buying shelters, awnings, gazebos etc. to accommodate outdoor smoking.

2) Smoking Pub or Non-smoking Pub  signs to be clearly shown outside, so no anti-smokers or innocent children can accidentally stray into the building. Anti-smokers (please note these people are different from non-smokers) can enjoy smoke free moaning without the rest of us having to suffer second hand whinging.

3) Smoking Pubs to be for adults only so no child is exposed to even filtrated second hand smoke, not because I think it is dangerous but to stem the inevitable objections from anti-smokers that even if they were willing to risk this environment 'what about the children'.  Actually, this is win win for smokers, a quiet drink, smoke and a child free environment.  (By the way good air filters would provide a less polluted environment than being on the pavement next to any road so your child would be better off in the pub).

4) Selected pubs to be designated as palaces, then just as at Westminster all smokers rather than just MP's who are smokers can CHOOSE to smoke in a civilised adult environment.

5)  The enormous tax revenue from smokers to go straight to the NHS to cover almost 10 times the cost of smoking related illnesses . Or we could share it out between education and health then smokers would be helping save lives and improve the educational standards of the populace. The economy would boom due to our abundance of scientists, engineers and business whizz kids so we could all get self-cert super high mortgages again and kid ourselves that we are all one class now.  (This idea would mean that working smokers were paying tax twice toward these public services but we are an easy going bunch and wouldn't mind).

Smoking Pubs and Non-smoking pubs….simples.

Why is this idea important?

Some adults CHOOSE to smoke. Some adults CHOOSE not to smoke. We all unfortunately inhale second hand fumes and pollutants because of the car obsessed part of world we live in. However, if a publican and his/her staff are happy to allow smoking on their premises then they should be allowed to. Common sense, tongue in cheek and 21st century choices to make this a viable option are…

1) Compulsory and standardised air filtration systems fitted in smoking pubs to minimise or eliminate supposed (I say this because of the lack of real scientific evidence of passive smoking causing harm) passive smoking by non smokers who CHOOSE to attend these premises. In fact all publicans could have had one of these fitted 3 years ago instead of buying shelters, awnings, gazebos etc. to accommodate outdoor smoking.

2) Smoking Pub or Non-smoking Pub  signs to be clearly shown outside, so no anti-smokers or innocent children can accidentally stray into the building. Anti-smokers (please note these people are different from non-smokers) can enjoy smoke free moaning without the rest of us having to suffer second hand whinging.

3) Smoking Pubs to be for adults only so no child is exposed to even filtrated second hand smoke, not because I think it is dangerous but to stem the inevitable objections from anti-smokers that even if they were willing to risk this environment 'what about the children'.  Actually, this is win win for smokers, a quiet drink, smoke and a child free environment.  (By the way good air filters would provide a less polluted environment than being on the pavement next to any road so your child would be better off in the pub).

4) Selected pubs to be designated as palaces, then just as at Westminster all smokers rather than just MP's who are smokers can CHOOSE to smoke in a civilised adult environment.

5)  The enormous tax revenue from smokers to go straight to the NHS to cover almost 10 times the cost of smoking related illnesses . Or we could share it out between education and health then smokers would be helping save lives and improve the educational standards of the populace. The economy would boom due to our abundance of scientists, engineers and business whizz kids so we could all get self-cert super high mortgages again and kid ourselves that we are all one class now.  (This idea would mean that working smokers were paying tax twice toward these public services but we are an easy going bunch and wouldn't mind).

Smoking Pubs and Non-smoking pubs….simples.

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.

Pubs for Smokers

Publicans who wish to allow smoking should :-

Apply and pay for a licence, Display  adequate signs clearly showing  "Smokers Pub" and pay an annual fee. All regulations to be stated on licence ie  No person under age of 18, No restaurant etc     

Why is this idea important?

Publicans who wish to allow smoking should :-

Apply and pay for a licence, Display  adequate signs clearly showing  "Smokers Pub" and pay an annual fee. All regulations to be stated on licence ie  No person under age of 18, No restaurant etc     

Lets lift the smoking ban it’s killing England

PUBS CLOSING THE TRADE IS DYING. WE SHOULD HAVE A CHOICE US THE BRITISH PEOPLE NOT TO BE DICTATED TO AND TOLD WHAT WE CAN AND NOT DO FREEDOM OF CHOICE PLEASE. A FAG AND A PINT NOT STANDING IN THE COLD

Why is this idea important?

PUBS CLOSING THE TRADE IS DYING. WE SHOULD HAVE A CHOICE US THE BRITISH PEOPLE NOT TO BE DICTATED TO AND TOLD WHAT WE CAN AND NOT DO FREEDOM OF CHOICE PLEASE. A FAG AND A PINT NOT STANDING IN THE COLD

LIFT SMOKING BAN IN PUBS & CLUBS at management’s discretion

Let publicans decide whether to allow smoking in their establishments. Let CIU Clubs decide whether to lift the ban in their establishments. Give Pubs & Clubs, Bingo Halls, Betting Shops and other adult establishments the power to decide whether they want to lift the ban in adult over 18 establishments. Get rid of Nanny State Politics. Let the people decide.

Why is this idea important?

Let publicans decide whether to allow smoking in their establishments. Let CIU Clubs decide whether to lift the ban in their establishments. Give Pubs & Clubs, Bingo Halls, Betting Shops and other adult establishments the power to decide whether they want to lift the ban in adult over 18 establishments. Get rid of Nanny State Politics. Let the people decide.

Legalize Cannabis As The Lib Dem Manifesto States

I voted for Mr Clegg and the Liberal Democrats, in part due to their policy on legalizing cannabis.  We can drink alcohol which is proven to be damaging, with no restrictions whatsover if we are not driving, yet as informed adults we have been oppressed and refused acknowledgment on this issue which is important to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of UK citizens. 

During the election campaign, the Lib Dem manifesto clearly set out the idea that to cultivate cannabis and pass it around consenting adults should be de-criminalised.  This is their pledge, that is why I ticked their box.  If the coalition government is to work succesfully, compromise must be in evidence of course, however key policies which sway voters should be examined very carefully so as not to lose credibility with the electorate.

The taxation and employment generated by adopting this policy will go a long way to assisting the much needed recovery, growers, sellers, retail outlets will all generate a fair income for the chancellor while at the same time driving the criminal gangs out of business in this area.

Many cannabis users are law abiding citizens from all walks of life, Mr Clegg himself has all but admitted using recreational drugs in the past, I know personally a doctor and a civil judge who regularly enjoy a social smoke.  We are not criminls, we are affecting no one else with our pastime.  The nanny state shoul be eroded and freedom of choice through informed debate should be encouraged.

Why is this idea important?

I voted for Mr Clegg and the Liberal Democrats, in part due to their policy on legalizing cannabis.  We can drink alcohol which is proven to be damaging, with no restrictions whatsover if we are not driving, yet as informed adults we have been oppressed and refused acknowledgment on this issue which is important to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of UK citizens. 

During the election campaign, the Lib Dem manifesto clearly set out the idea that to cultivate cannabis and pass it around consenting adults should be de-criminalised.  This is their pledge, that is why I ticked their box.  If the coalition government is to work succesfully, compromise must be in evidence of course, however key policies which sway voters should be examined very carefully so as not to lose credibility with the electorate.

The taxation and employment generated by adopting this policy will go a long way to assisting the much needed recovery, growers, sellers, retail outlets will all generate a fair income for the chancellor while at the same time driving the criminal gangs out of business in this area.

Many cannabis users are law abiding citizens from all walks of life, Mr Clegg himself has all but admitted using recreational drugs in the past, I know personally a doctor and a civil judge who regularly enjoy a social smoke.  We are not criminls, we are affecting no one else with our pastime.  The nanny state shoul be eroded and freedom of choice through informed debate should be encouraged.

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.