Posted on 02/14/2006 2:11:07 PM PST by neverdem
LONDON, Feb. 14 — After a tortured debate, Britain's Parliament voted overwhelmingly today for a total ban on smoking in public places — a move that seemed certain to end the time-hallowed traditions of the smoky British pub, where a pint of ale and a cigarette once defined the down time of generations.
The decision, by an unexpectedly high margin of 384 to 184, brought England into line with Ireland, which barred smoking in public places in March 2004, and with other parts of Britain, like Scotland and Northern Ireland, where bans are to come into force over the next 13 months. The local Parliament in Wales has also said it will seek a full ban. The English ban is expected to come into force next year.
The issue was seen as so divisive within the ranks of the ruling Labor Party that legislators were given what is called a free vote, enabling them to defy the party line if they wished.
Monday's ballot overturned the formal policy of Prime Minister Tony Blair's government, which had supported a partial ban permitting smoking in private members' clubs and pubs that do not serve food. The compromise would have permitted smokers to congregate in drinks-only pubs.
Opponents of that policy — including Patricia Hewitt, Mr. Blair's health secretary, and, according to the Press Association news agency, Mr. Blair himself, had said that passive smoking would damage the health of workers in any club or pub, whether food was served or not.
"This legislation is good news for tens of thousands of bar staff up and down the country," said Steve Webb, a legislator from the Liberal Democrat opposition. "The key issue has always been the health and safety of people who work in public places."
Ms. Hewitt said the arguments over banning...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Convey this concern to Jim Robinson, not EGPWS....
Me thinks Jim would better support your concern. ' )
Me thinks Jim will not support my concern..........in fact me knows Jim will not support my concern.
I will not discuss it beyond that on the public forum.
""My study is limited to the state of Maryland. We've calculated that, in a one-year time period, ... that $598 million is being spent, is being lost to society as a whole as a result of diseases that are directly caused by exposure to secondhand smoke," Waters said."
Unfortunately many of them reside right here on FR..........that is what bothers me the most.
Yep,it's been quite a week.
My hackles really go up when they accuse people who smoke around children of being abusive. God,where do they come from?
Where's the documentaion smoking harms the health of people employed in public places? Do non-smoking employees who work in public places in Great Britain suffer higher incidence of cancer and other smoking related diseases than non-smoking employees who do not work in public places?
The same thing that's wrong with the people in the USA.
They don't care enough to do the research and have drunk enough koolaid that they won't believe you even when you show them.
With fervor brought upon us by an instinct for freedom!
Yeah sure it's expensive, just look at all the states that have banned smoking, after they banned it with all the money they saved, all of them were able to cut taxes and spending. California for instance was one of the highest taxed states and now they are one of the lowest.
Yeah, and I'm a Chinese Jet pilot
Good little collectivists, God's most boring and dangerous creatures, never tire of repeating this in an endless loop.
Those who repeat it the most and the loudest are the ones who visualize themselves as the leaders of the flock, of course.
They get to vacation in the state-owned dachas and drive the Zils.
Smokers here in the US ought to be able to see that they need to change their selfish ways and become more polite smokers like their pipe and cigar cousins. The wave of nonsmoker anger is growing larger and larger each day.
Another reason for me to keep my green bills at home. No smoking on a 6-7 hour flight over the ocean. And now no smoking in the pubs.
Just another incentive for me to keep my money at home where I can put it to better use!
Why should the government get involved when they never had any hand in the financing of said business?!
"Prove it. How can passive smokers get all the health risks without any addiction to nicotine?"
If it were truly a risk, the air quality standards could be set in the same way that it is set for any other dangerous element. They would be able to measure it, then set an upper limit in the PPM of the toxin to air. They already have the PPM standard for many of the elements found in ETS, the nannies just want to ignore that.
If they were truly interested in zero tolerance of all the elements contained in passive smoke, they would be forced to shut down all of their manufacturing facilities. That is why we have MSDS sheets available to all employees.
These facts alone prove that it is nothing but an attack against a smell that the nannies don't like.
Gee I wonder how many pubs will be going out of business? Too bad.
Chip Franklin on WBAL in Baltimore is talking about this topic right now if your interested. You can listen online at
http://wbal.com/shows/franklin/
Thanks for the ping!
Hey SheLion...you must be one o'them thar FREE THINKERS!
Imagine...allowing a business owner to put up a ten-cent sign informing the public about the establishment's smoking policy ahead of time instead of whittling away at his freedom? What in the world would all the congresscritters have to do for fun anymore?
Best regards,
Jenny
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.