Andy Pandy

"Prometheus" <Prometheus@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:g5BCLLEegTkGFw1y@newbrain.demon.co.uk...
> >> Since an action for child abuse or cruelty under existing
> >legislation
> >> might be difficult to show it might be made a specific offence.
> >
> >Yes - if smoking amongst consenting adults is illegal then it's
daft
> >not to.
>
> Given time...

They are doing it in the wrong order....

> >> I think you will find that JSA is not withheld if you do not
sign-up
> >to
> >> the armed services.
> >
> >Yes, that's why I said above the same could apply to someone who
> >refuses a job in a smoking environment.
> >
> >> >Perhaps children who live with smoking parents should work in
these
> >> >pubs, after all they'll be inhaling smoke anyway, so they may as
> >well
> >> >earn some money and do a job which poor vulnerable adults needs
> >nanny
> >> >state to protect them from.
> >>
> >> Now that is an idea; central heating means there are too few
> >chimneys to
> >> clean.
> >
> >Exactly. Same principle, adults don't want to breath in all that
dirty
> >soot do they?
>
> Besides there are far too many of the lower-order around anyway,
without
> the factories and wars what are we to do with them? There are not
enough
> places in youff fashion shops for them, and without an empire to
subdue
> with wars what is to happen when they are too old or dim for the
fashion
> shops.

So why not let them breath in other peoples' smoke if they want to
then?

> >What about recreational diving? Hardly essential, is it, yet it's
> >legal to be employed as a diving instructor, and have to wear
similar
> >breathing apparatus during the course of employment. Should
> >recreational diving courses be banned?
>
> You overlook that only the divers are exposed to risk, the
receptionist
> and office cleaner are not.

So? Is it OK for one employee to be exposed to the risk but not 3?
What about 2?

> >Yes, against the government hopefully, for leaving the home as
> >practically the only indoor place where people can legally smoke,
and
> >making billions of pounds out of them.
>
> Legally, yes; but maybe not sensibly. It should not be necessary for
the
> law to impose sense, unfortunately common sense is not very common,
and
> hence legislation is required.

Legislation that says adults must be protected from other peoples'
smoke in an environment they can easily avoid, but children are not
protected in an enviornment they can't avoid.

> As to making billions; it is a voluntary
> tax, you do not have to pay it, I do not.

That's what drug dealers say. And pimps. What's the phrase - "living
off immoral earnings". Profiting from other peoples' addiction and
weakness. But it pays for expensive wallpaper for Whitehall offices,
so that's OK.

--
Andy

David Taylor

On 2007-07-08, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> Whilst some councils have ruled that you may not smoke half (or perhaps
> one) hour before a council cleaner or carrier is due to call, and
> perhaps some private employers have like regulations, it is not against
> the law.

That's interesting, thank you.

> Perhaps you have not bothered to read the Health Act 2006.

Er, quite.

--
David Taylor

David Taylor

On 2007-07-08, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> In article <slrnf91fiv.vgm.davidt-news@outcold.yadt.co.uk>, David Taylor
><davidt-news@yadt.co.uk> writes
>>On 2007-07-08, Prometheus <Prometheus@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>> In article <5f9a1fF3c7391U1@mid.individual.net>, Ivor Jones
>>><ivor@despammed.invalid> writes
>>>
>>> I would not wish to go to a pub you are in. There were non-smoking pubs,
>>> and I preferred them, but not all friends could reach, or wanted to use,
>>> them, thus I had to damage my health or not meet them.
>>
>>If your friends preferred the smoking pubs and you preferred the non-smoking
>>pubs, the choice seems obvious. Rather than having your beliefs enforced
>>on your friends by removing the choice, you had already had a choice:
>>put up with it; don't meet your friends at a pub; or find some different
>>friends.
>
> How curious, you are saying I should lose friends rather than they are
> compelled to be considerate!

If you believe they are incosiderate, why be friends with them?

Similarly, if you believe you can compell them to do things, I don't
see why they'd be your friend!

> I was 'putting up with it', now they are required to 'put up with it'.

That was my point. You _chose_ to put with it. They now have no choice,
whether they find a less demanding friend or not.

--
David Taylor