ORIGINAL: Bristol_Jonesey

so you start your assumption from the point of view that those disturbed by an unwanted immission are the ones who have to rely on the courtesy of the disturber? (smoke example)
id say the more logical aproach would be to let the smoker ask all the others if he annyos them in first place...

That's hardly practical - "do you mind if I smoke", "do you mind if I smoke", "do you mind if I smoke", "do you mind if I smoke", "do you mind if I smoke", "do you mind if I smoke", "do you mind if I smoke", "do you mind if I smoke".

It's not as though the smoker is doing something illegal (maybe if tobacco was only discovered today then it would be delcared illegal - but that's for a different thread)

I totally agree with gordonrussell76 - we seem to have lost the ability to resolve, fairly trivial issues by being practical and logical, certainly in the UK.

The issue over smoking in pubs could have been SO easy to deal with - the vast majority of pubs in this country (well the ones still open) have at least 2 bars - see where this is going? 1 smoking, 1 non-smoking. End of.

As for the staff - well, surely a simple wording like "you may be asked to work in a smoky environment" would be enough for them to make their OWN MIND UP about accepting employment or not yes?

All the legislation has done is put hundreds, if not thousands of pubs (and thuer staff) out of business. It has NOT reduced the rate of cigarette sales nationwide as smokers will now choose to stay in rather than go out.

The amount of money drained out of the economy in this way could lead to recession..................

actually i work in a pretty smoky envirionment and a hate it (and i will quite the job as soon as something better comes up) ...but today most people are not able to refuse a job because of health considerations - who can afford the luxury of saying no to a job today???
i just can repeat my very basic points: smoking is a known unhealthy and molesting habit - its not a human right of the addicted - its just a plague for those who are free of that problem...
i knew my example was a extreme one but what would you suggest: should i ask 300 times a day: "pleas dont smoke when i am around" thats the same thing just the other way round...
btw. in my counts people react almost violently when you ask them not to disturb...
they seem to ignore or deny that they ere the problem - not the non smoker...
also in my country i pay for the unhealthy with my social insurance ... feels great to pay for the alcos and lung cancer patients that just didnt give a damn - so they damage me twice...

To chip in here


Where do you stop legislating?

Stop fat kids eating?
Stop people picking their nose because you find it offence
make good table manners a legal requirement?

Why not go the the whole hog and ban black pepper? (Its an intoxicant)


This is about personal choice no more no less

I am aware that loud music damages my ears but i enjoy it, I am aware that drinking and smoking damages my health, i am aware that taking recreational chemicals damages my health. It's my health , i don't enforce my pleasures on anyone else, I dont harass people who don't want to do it.

Anyone that claims that they didnt know going to listen to loud bands wouldnt harm their hearing is an idiot-- take a straw poll of everyone you know and ask them that question, I'll bet 100% of people will agree.

Tom you mentioned society being run by some kind of "ubermensch" who will take charge. Do you really want that person to be the whining complainer who needs legislation to back them up? (besides the idea being dangerously close to fascism/totalitarianism).

when you go to a club you know exactly what you are going to get

Loud music
People drinking
People trying to cop off with the opposite sex.

Thats what clubs are if you don't like them don't go (Do you go to clubs? If you don't then you have no right to dictate what can go on in them)

personally I believe that everything should be legalised, making things illegal doesnt stop them and letting people make their own decisions right or wrong- you will find that most people will do the right thing. (yes that includes heroin, some of my close friends have died as a result of heroin, did the illegality of it save their lives? nope)

Forcing someone into doing things against their will of course should still be illegal but when WE decide that we want to see a band play loud then WE make a decision as adults that WE will accept the consequences.

PS Tom I originally posted because this is an issue for UK forumites who may not know about this, It affects both my livelhood and my enjoyment.




Andy

ORIGINAL: Bristol_Jonesey

Tom, if you abhor smoking then I agree, you shouldn't be forced to work in a smoky atmosphere - has Austria escaped the wave of legislation so far then?

But I agree, in principle with artsoul - legalise everything and let the people choose what they want to put into their bodies.

If I was to give everything up, I might live an extra 10 years (maybe), but hell, that 10 years would be at the end of my life anyway, and I'd have missed out on all that fun!!

I should have said that even though i am a smoker I agree with the smoking ban legislation-- it is something that me indulging in affects other people directly.

just as staff in loud clubs/venues should be issued with haering protection (then its their responsability should they choose to use it)

ORIGINAL: artsoul

To chip in here


Where do you stop legislating?

Stop fat kids eating?
Stop people picking their nose because you find it offence
make good table manners a legal requirement?

Why not go the the whole hog and ban black pepper? (Its an intoxicant)


This is about personal choice no more no less

I am aware that loud music damages my ears but i enjoy it, I am aware that drinking and smoking damages my health, i am aware that taking recreational chemicals damages my health. It's my health , i don't enforce my pleasures on anyone else, I dont harass people who don't want to do it.

Anyone that claims that they didnt know going to listen to loud bands wouldnt harm their hearing is an idiot-- take a straw poll of everyone you know and ask them that question, I'll bet 100% of people will agree.

Tom you mentioned society being run by some kind of "ubermensch" who will take charge. Do you really want that person to be the whining complainer who needs legislation to back them up? (besides the idea being dangerously close to fascism/totalitarianism).

when you go to a club you know exactly what you are going to get

Loud music
People drinking
People trying to cop off with the opposite sex.

Thats what clubs are if you don't like them don't go (Do you go to clubs? If you don't then you have no right to dictate what can go on in them)

personally I believe that everything should be legalised, making things illegal doesnt stop them and letting people make their own decisions right or wrong- you will find that most people will do the right thing. (yes that includes heroin, some of my close friends have died as a result of heroin, did the illegality of it save their lives? nope)

Forcing someone into doing things against their will of course should still be illegal but when WE decide that we want to see a band play loud then WE make a decision as adults that WE will accept the consequences.

PS Tom I originally posted because this is an issue for UK forumites who may not know about this, It affects both my livelhood and my enjoyment.

Andy

very generally spoken i agree with you - but you still consider the "personal chioce" argument to egoistically:
when you choose to smoke next to me i am affected - nothing to discuss about this..
if you drink and damage your health maybe a lot of people will be sad and others angry
if you use drugs you supprort criminals..
a lot of personal choices we make have a deep impact on our social environment - no one has to be a pure saint - but considering the "whole thiong" would be a good thing...(just to make another example: car accidents caused by drunken or druged people - how can you justify the death of uninvolved...)
its all not so easy claiming that "its just me myself and i"

sorry for hijacking this uk issue - but in the end its jaus an aspect of a problem that afflictas the wjhole world

cheers

I love it smokers are now as bad as drink drivers,

You assume that the smoker walked up and lit up next to you, now thats egotistical, you did not consider the fact that you may have walked up next to the smoker.

I was waiting for a bus yesterday, not in the bus stop mind, but outside of it so I could smoke. Another person started waiting for the bus, she came along afterwards, and asked me if I would mind not smoking.

Now I could take the view that its outside, that I am not in the bus stop, that I was there first, and a lot of people would potentially agree. As it was, she asked me very nicely and I put out the cigarette.

Its called manners and communication, people ought to try it every now and then, its often really effective.

G

ORIGINAL: gordonrussell76

I love it smokers are now as bad as drink drivers,

You assume that the smoker walked up and lit up next to you, now thats egotistical, you did not consider the fact that you may have walked up next to the smoker.

I was waiting for a bus yesterday, not in the bus stop mind, but outside of it so I could smoke. Another person started waiting for the bus, she came along afterwards, and asked me if I would mind not smoking.

Now I could take the view that its outside, that I am not in the bus stop, that I was there first, and a lot of people would potentially agree. As it was, she asked me very nicely and I put out the cigarette.

Its called manners and communication, people ought to try it every now and then, its often really effective.

G

Gordon consider your post agreed with


I occaisonally have people round and the music gets too loud, If someone complains it gets turned down with a heartflet apology

ORIGINAL: info@tomflair.com


you still consider the "personal chioce" argument to egoistically:
when you choose to smoke next to me i am affected - nothing to discuss about this..
if you drink and damage your health maybe a lot of people will be sad and others angry
if you use drugs you supprort criminals..
a lot of personal choices we make have a deep impact on our social environment - no one has to be a pure saint - but considering the "whole thiong" would be a good thing...(just to make another example: car accidents caused by drunken or druged people - how can you justify the death of uninvolved...)
its all not so easy claiming that "its just me myself and i"

Tom,I think your point is clear but with all due respect i also think its useless to try put "laws" to enforce:considerate persons,maturity,self-respect,social consciouseness,responsibility!! - cause that what you re really describing (in the bolded text) isnt it?

I am a smoker BUT I respect those who dont want to inhale MY smoke!In this context I see the smoking ban fair!Even though it will make me think twice before going out somewhere,well I SMOKE so its MY problem - NOT of the non-smoker!Why do I understand this?because of laws?No,because my mama and my pappa told me I must always respect those surrounding me!See where Im going with this?Laws is not the problem,the problem lies elsewhere.......

ban loud music in gigs?Oh come onnnnnnn,I know that deep inside you must see the ridicilousness in this! ;)

Where can I get the T-Shirt? -- Keep Your Hands and Your Laws Out of My Ears

Why is this upsetting us?

Here in the US, when hand held laser pointers became available, we had children and older miscreants who thought it might be funny to shine these in other person's eyes. Now, this can cause blindness, so the practice was quickly outlawed in most communities where problems arose.

Most people realize that exposure to loud noise will damage hearing. We already have laws that limit noise in the industrial venue.

We have legal controls on workplace hazards, we have laws that regulate food handling, we have anti-smoking legislation that has already been mentioned here. Most reasonable people will agree that provisions in law that protect the public health are a benefit of society and are considered by polysci types as "progressive" ideas. This thinking has its roots in the industrial revolution and the writings of people like John Locke and Ralph Waldo Emerson. From it we have many advantages of an enlightened society: the 40-hour work week, anti child-labour laws, workers compensation, product liability case law, etc.

This latest provision to regulate the sound level in public houses is viewed as another public health protection. So, why then do some of us have problems with what is considered positive legislation? Is it perhaps the fact that it might be our fingers is on the volume dial that is most upsetting?

Perhaps the question is really: who gets to set the level, but that's why we have institutions like the town council. They're supposed to represent all the people's combined interest, including club owners, musicians, djs, patrons, and the "little old lady" who lives next door.

ROFLMAO......... some hope. I see even a thread like this has been turned into some childish - I'm right..... No... No...No... you're wrong..... I'm right - argument. Some people apparently live extremely sad, sad lives.......... LOL

i dont know who you are refering to...actually i think that this is one of the most neurtral and polite threads (that has gone ot a bit - but is still pretty interesting)
if you have a problem with people sharing different views then i might assume that the one with the sad life is you...
again i agree that everyone should be free to act as he wanted - as long as he is the ONLY one to suffer the effects - and for many behaviours this just is an illusion - denying a sort of cumulative conscience of a society is a sad thing - we actually should all support the efforts made in order to protect children, weak, sick or old people (or only those who just dont do much things that affect others)
i have no problems with loud music - but can music ONLY be good if its so louzd that it hurts your ears?
what does this imply ? that some of you folks constantly work at 95 - 110 db in your studios?
...maybe this isnt the right place at all for trying to expose a respectful behaviour in a society...
i for my part a strict non smoker, non drinker, non drug user, does it make me a better person? well i feel well - and others just have to bear some little ticks, but at least i dont smell like a cigarette, nor will i steal my mothers money on order to get a fix or i wont kill someone cos i need crack...
there are so many examples of where humnanity evolves to when to little care or regulation is supplied...
as for the leviathan? its surely better to have a dictator that sticks to basic moral standards (as the 10 commandements for instance) than a pseudo democratically "legitimated" sovereign that is only a marionette of some pressure groups...
also what some here are praising as "freedom" is just exactly the opposite - addiction should be freedom? - wow thats a good one...
but i agree that everyone is free to not share my straightedge right views...

in order to eventually get a deeper feeling for what freedom stands for i reccomend reading jean jaqcues rousseau...fortunately there are so many philosophers of historical value that had all this duiscussions on a much much higher level thousands of times before - so i dont even feel a little bit defensive about my arguments here

ps: and sorry for being totally ot now - but i guess people here should be able to bear this - ot-reading is pretty harmless - i guess a million times less than passive smoking

Speaking as one who has had to leave WAY too many gigs that were good musically, but too LOUD, this seems pretty reasonable if you ask me. No refund, and, more importantly, no consideration of the waste of my time and my inconvenience. Sorry boys, can't sign. Not that I'm in UK either, mind you

Just to illustrate how far this can go: here in California there are actually CITIES that have banned smoking in public altogether. The next step, of course, is to ban it in the privacy of your own home as well.

On a more or less related note: in Colorado, a judge has begun to punish severely those who play their music too loud: he sentences the offending culprits to listen so many hours to music of the judge's choosing. For example, an hour of Barry Manilow for some metalhead who's blasted his neighbors. Melanie, remember her? (I got a brand new pair of roller skates) Or opera. If the criminals begin to nod off the bailiff wakes them: you still have 20 minutes of Minnie Ripperton.

Seems like the real issue is where the threshold is set. If the TH is high enough, the limiter won't kick in anyway.

ORIGINAL: Poco

Hmmm. From what I read, you live in a Socialist state. Since the government "pays" for your healthcare, the government says what you can and can't do with your body, and that includes listening to music that might damage your hearing, thus incurring more medical costs. Don't feel too bad, though. Obama will do the same here if we let him.

The government dosn't pay for our healthcare, the people - through NI contributions pays for their own healthcare. We also pay the wages of the individuals that have been employed
by us to run the country - something that has been forgotten by a lot of us, and never mentioned by most of them.

ORIGINAL: alree

We also pay the wages of the individuals that have been employed by us to run the country - something that has been forgotten by a lot of us, and never mentioned by most of them.

Good point, and so true.

ORIGINAL: mcourter

ORIGINAL: Poco

ORIGINAL: artsoul

did you sign though fog?

I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure we still live in a democracy

Hmmm. From what I read, you live in a Socialist state. Since the government "pays" for your healthcare, the government says what you can and can't do with your body, and that includes listening to music that might damage your hearing, thus incurring more medical costs. Don't feel too bad, though. Obama will do the same here if we let him.

There hasn't been a true democracy since ancient Greece, and even that was restricted to land-owning males. America is NOT a democracy, but an electoral republic, until we do away with the outmoded electoral college system. That was fine in the days of Pony Express, but is hardly relevant today.

Actually nobody here even voted for the current Prime Minister (or less likely even would have)....but everyone seems to put up with it.

So I guess that makes us the 'Republic of Apathy' which has a reek of the Ancient Greek about it, well it's certainly a tragedy especially when you see who the opposition has lined up for us in the event of an election...