Rank: Guest 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Leadbetter
Ian
I am not a lawyer so I find it difficult to read a right to smoke into the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as enshrined in our Human Rights Act; perhaps they do things differently in Norway. I look forward to finding out the reasoning behind the judgment.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sean Fraser
Interesting leader - starts off with the ever controversial smoking subject (Forum passim) and ends up with a warning about the costs of loss due to occupational illness, having wandered around harmful emmisions and exposures in general.
The message, as is typical in the media today, is lost. An attempt to use controversy as the leader in the perpetual quest for sensationalism has damaged the import of what they were attempting to convey.
A better headline would have been "Occupational Cancer Costs the EU economy £47bn per Year" (even if the figure is an estimate it wouldn't stop headline writers from stating it as if it was fact). But maybe that is too "boring" to encourage people to read it.
Interestingly, I took part in the poll (might as well) and only 9% of the 622 who had responded up to that point believed that smoking was a "human right". The remainder were split almost evenly between out and out banners and those who would simply keep 'em segrated. I really don't want to get involved in the debate - there have been many lines drawn on this forum in recent times and camps set up on hills overlooking Fortress Smoker - and time will eventually determine the 'winners'. Suffice it to say, the waters are deliberately muddied (by both sides) to the point where one is no longer convinced as the veracity of the statistics produced from any quarter. The truth, as in many cases, is ephemeral.
However, bear in mind the source of this decision. Norway, despite being a valued trade partner within a European area, is not part of the EU so their legal system decisions have as much relevance on ours as that of the USA or Thailand does. This report is of passing interest only - until a similar decision is reported from within the EU we can dismiss it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alec Wood
One could hardly call poisoning yourself a basic human right - ridiculous, and I'm a smoker! After all, suicide is illegal.
Maybe it's time we stopped thinking about smoke free areas and started thinking smoke allowed areas instead. Ban smoking, except in designated areas instead of defining non-smoking areas. Segregate the smoker rather than the non-smoker. Banning people from smoking in their own cars, while away from the workplace etc though is taking things a bit far. I know some would like to pull their jackboots on and stomp on all smokers, but the same could be said of drinkers, speeders, hunters, even anglers, some groups would like to stomp on all of them. In your own car, on your own, you are harming no-one but yourself, so interference to that extent is excessive.
Question is though, do we need to keep seeking to ban things through specific legislation. In this country, and many others, regulations similar to COSHH, HASAWA etc could be applied in this area could they not? A basic duty on the employer to protect his employees from harm and/or harmful substances. If we all agree cigarette smoke is harmful, then has the employer not got a basic duty in law to protect his non-smoking employees from exposure to this harmful agent? And doesn't that duty also apply to the employers of bar and restaurant staff and such like.
It's trendy at the moment to seek to legislate to ban things specifically and in most cases this is motivated by a failure on somone's part to apply exisiting legislation. More legislation is not needed, just more imaginatative and better use of the legislation we have already.
Controlled smoking through defined segregated areas allows the employer to retain control of smoking in the workplace and manage the risks to his property and non-smoking employees. It's difficult for someone who has never smoked to appreciate that banning it does not lead to no smoking, it just leads to uncontrolled smoking. Smokers will select their own area, likely to be tucked away somewhere quiet, and just the kind of place where a fire could start and get hold unnoticed.
Alternatively why not just completely ban everything harmful or which generates a risk of harm. Sounds good? Not to me it doesn't.
Alec Wood
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Never seen any case law where an individual has been prosecuted for committing suicide!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Eric Burt
Dave
Aiding and abetting a suicide is illegal.
Eric
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By brian mills
yes aiding and abetting sucides is illegal, they have even stopped potential sucides now from borrowing books about the subject from the Library, but this might be because they were not getting the books back.
regards
brian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd
"potential suicides"
So, how do they decide which borrower is a potential suicide ?
Do they go by the sex of the borrower ?
Maybe just trying to borrow a book about suicide is the decider ?
Now, killing yourself is no longer illegal in the uk...probably because of the ridiculous problems it caused....how do you prosecute a corpse ?
Neither is attempting to kill yourself. Unless you injure someone else during the attempt, but then, that's nothing to do with suicide...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.