Smokin,

[Jackrat]

No not two strokes,But smoking in hotels,bars ect.
How do you feel about this.
I have smoked for about thirty years an it don,t really bother me because I hardly ever go to these places anyway.
What does interest me is the feeling that differing personal freedoms are becoming more an more under threat.
The curve seems to be start on the eazy things, eg, smoking and before long it will be the turn of all them anti,social bikie,s.
Keeping in mind my dear old Ma,can,t tell the diff, between a Hells angel and a moped rider.
????????????????

[bluninja]

Point is Jackrat it's the smokers that have been inflicting themselves on other people often against their will. It's not about your freedom (right) to smoke, but about others right not to have your second hand smoke. But then as with smokers generally it's all about you.

And what it is with smokers who just drop their butt ends all over the place? Maybe the nicotine makes them think the butt will magically vanish upon contact with the ground. Just inconsiderate litter louts.....especially when they flick it out the window when driving.....obviously don't want to stink up the car by putting it in the ashtray.

Flame away. Just make sure I don't have to inhale the smoke.

TTFN

 

[jrandom]

Originally posted by bluninja
Flame away. Just make sure I don't have to inhale the smoke.

Wot 'e said. About the only sensible law the Gummint's passed so far this year.

How does the definition of a cigarette go? "Lump of dried leaves rolled in paper with a fire at one end and a fool at the other."

I for one have left pubs in disgust because I can't get away from the clouds of foul tobacco smoke. And I'm sick of not being able to spend an evening playing pool without having to wash the reek off my clothes when I come home.

If you want to smoke baccy (or dope or drop acid or do anything else to f*ck with your CNS for that matter), go for it with my blessing but not in the air I have to breathe.

Of course, banning ciggies in bars etc while doing nothing to address the air pollution caused by a bad transport system could be said to be hypocritical. I couldn't possibly comment, though.

[matthewt]

All this crap about personal freedom being taken away from smokers is BS. Smokers may winge on about how hard done by they are but they forget smoking is one of the few activities that can kill other people simply by doing it in their presence. I don't remember the figure for deaths by 2nd hand smoking but it's in the 1,000's each year in NZ.

I'm surprised that given how powerful OSH has become they haven't done this years ago.

I have friends who smoke and that's cool, it's entirely their choice to do that. I don't say anything to them about it, they are entitled to live how they want to. They know the dangers and if they continue it's on their head. BUT don't force that habit on other people who don't want it.

[Jackrat]

For christ sake The thread wasn,t about smokin,No wonder it is so eazy to pass laws in NZ,you lot are so bloody eazy to side track you don,t see the real point.Which was MY point in the first place,,Duhhh!
I was kind,a exspecting a comment like(fuck smokers)followed by a discusion on our legal system,,silly me

[bluninja]

Your point is that you want people to be sidetracked into linking stopping people suffering from other peoples smokes with an attack on civil liberties and freedoms. This isn't the thin of the wedge.....and considering how long this has taken I will never have to worry about them making a case for and reducing my anti social freedoms in my lifetime (or the next).

TTFN

 

[MikeL]

The problem about this debate is that both sides are right.
The issue of personal freedom is a very important one. I value my right to breathe pure air, and I generally avoid places where this is not possible. Unfortunately there are situations where I can't help breathing in second-hand smoke (including being on my bike behind a smoker in a cage) and then I resent the fact that my rights and freedom are being curtailed.
At the same time I dislike the idea of regulating personal behaviour by legislation. Whatever the merits of the Smoke-Free Workplaces Act in protecting bar workers etc., I can't help feeling that this is (a) a smokescreen (!) for implementing a wider anti-smoking policy, and (b) the thin end of the wedge for personal freedoms.
I would far prefer education and positive promotion of smoke-free lifestyle including heavily subsidized stop-smoking programmes. The fact that these have not worked spectacularly is entirely due to the relatively limited resources that governments have (or are willing to employ) compared to the vast promotional budgets of international tobacco companies whose success in getting their message across despite advertising bans (subtle product-placement and outright buying of Hollywood movie stars were utterly predictable) have ensured that smoking continues to be "cool" among younger people.
And without being too cynical, let's not forget that despite all the rhetoric, and the much-publicised health costs that smokers cause, it is not in our financial interest to reduce smoking. The tax on cigarettes I believe more than covers the medical costs of treating smoking-related diseases, and smokers die younger saving the taxpayer billions of dollars in pensions and other age-related health costs.
So light up, guys.
Only not near me, please.

[matthewt]

I see your point, in the end the govt is doing what they think is best for the greater number of people (ie, the 75% of people that don't smoke). The risk you're worried about of course is that who decides what is next for the "majority" of people.

You think they would listen to us if they really wanted to clamp down anyway ?? Look at how the US used Sep-11 to bowl all over civil liberties and put into law all sorts of things they would never of got away with a couple of years ago.

[Jackrat]

Blu,you are so far off the mark you have no idea what my point was,As to the smoking issue,as I pointed out in my first post,It dosen,t bother me,I in fact never smoke in the company of non smokers,But then thats not what this thread is really about is it??
Smoking was just a good example of how we are lead by the nose.As matt, pointed out 9/11 is a good example of the type of thing I,m on about.And no Matt, I already reailze the Gov,t won,t listen to us,I guess that is proven when we have national referendums that are totaly ignored,The will of the people dosen,t
seem to have much say in things.I think it comes down to things like international pressures,control and human nature.
Something I have always found odd is that history proves that citys don,t work,yet we continue to biuld an live in them,We humans don,t seem to be able to learn from past mistakes.
Going back to 9/11 as much as I feel for those that lost their lives ect,The USA created Saddam in the first place,They have armed Israel to the point they have now lost control,They are the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons against another nation,a nation that had already surrendered at that,Their record of theft and deceit is second to non,They have the largest collection of illegal weapons on the planet,yet they presume to tell others how to do things.
As a result we now have laws that can be abused against the common people.
The US is constantly pressuring NZ to accept it,s war ships into NZ ports,And looking at the way things are going they might just get their way in the near future.
BTW I am not anti, american this is just the way it is,And these people are our friends,GULP!!





,

[SpankMe]

More bloody laws to tell us what we can and can’t do. Every time some group gets its knickers in a twist, they pressure the government to make more laws. I’m sure individually they may make sense, but on the whole they just restrict our freedom of choice.

Originally posted by Jackrat
you don,t see the real point.Which was MY point in the first place

Maybe a different thread title would help.

[bluninja]

Jackrat, no not far off the mark Bro Got more reaction than if I'd waved at you 

TTFN

[Jackrat]

[Oscar]

MikeL is right on the mark.

The really shitty thing is - if I wanted to have a bar with a big sign over the door: "We allow smokers here, enter at your own risk" - this legislation forbids it.

This gummint is a bunch of academics with no real world experience, but that doesn't stop them from trying to tell us how to live our lives. How long is it until the focus goes on "dangerous" forms of transport? We've had the ACC shove it right up, what's next?

[Jackrat]

Yeah you got it there.
It seems obvious to me and I would guess most other bikers that a car with Radio going,air con running,tinted windows to avoid being apart of the world outside their own little cell phone useing,
eating,drinking,make up applying,map reading,Private lounge room on wheels would have to present more danger than a motorcycle that must be ridden in the elements,be somebody who must watch for other road users,road hazards,weather conditions,cats,dogs,birds an bugs just to stay alive.
Damn we got here first,It was only lazy buggers that were to unsafe on two wheels that buggered it up in the first place.
Come the revolution

[James Deuce]

This whole erosion of personal freedoms awareness started for me when the cops were gifted the ability to stop law abiding citizens going about their lawful duty without any indication that they had broken any law whatsoever.

I'm talking about Drink Driving checkpoints and random breath testing. It's in direct contravention of article 13 of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Well in regard to (1), WE don't anymore. And point (2) is in question because two admittedly big buildings got knocked over in another country.

Irrespective of the current usefulness of the UN, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a common sense document that our Govt doesn't subscribe to.

I've worked in bands for years and smoke is an occupational hazard. I don't smoke, I don't like it much but I find alcohol far more damaging than smoking in the personal and wider sense. But if they try to take my single malt whiskey away from me I REALLY WILL BLOODY FIGHT BACK -

Hang on a minute - how many smokers feel like that? Isn't banning another man's pleasure the thin end of a snowballing totalitarian fascist Govt? How about banning Winston Peter's immigration pamphlet?? How long 'til we start burning Hairy McLary from Donaldson's Dairy because of it's subversive message that it is OK to roam about in packs stealing stuff and knocking people over?

Jackrat is right - one thing history has taught me is that you can't teach people from history.