Smoking Bans - Where will it end?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is 2008:

portugal.angloinfo.com...

Smoking - cigarettes, cigars and pipes - is banned in indoor public places in Portugal (as of 1 January 2008). The ban prohibits smoking in all government buildings as well as work places, public transport, schools and sports facilities, hospitals, museums, food and beverage establishments, covered car parks, theatres, libraries, and bars and restaurants where smoking is only allowed in designated smoking areas or venues. The Assembleia da República ratified the law on 28 June 2007. The Smoking Regulations Businesses of over 100m² (including bars and restaurants) must clearly designate smoking areas, which may not exceed 30m², and must have adequate ventilation Businesses under 100m² are permitted to choose whether they are a smoking or non-smoking venue; this must be clearly displayed and strictly adhered to. There must be ventilation units in smoking venues

This is 2014:

portugalresident.com...

Soon the only places smokers will be able to light up away from home will be in their cars and outdoors. A new law will be coming into force in 2014, as part of an EU directive, making it illegal to smoke in all bars, restaurants and nightclubs - irrespective of any ventilation systems that may have been installed. - See more at: portugalresident.com...


The international monetary fund does not lend money to any country that does not have a comprehensive smoking ban. Portugal is a poor country and needs money from the IMF

So you have either been mistaken or are deliberately misleading people about the state of anti-smoker bans in Portugal

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
The international monetary fund does not lend money to any country that does not have a comprehensive smoking ban. Portugal is a poor country and needs money from the IMF

So you have either been mistaken or are deliberately misleading people about the state of anti-smoker bans in Portugal

It's possible that I am mistaken about any new laws, as that's something I don't follow, but from what I could see about it you forgot a third possibility: the law hasn't been approved.

All the news articles I saw were from 2013, saying that the law was going to be approved in 2014, but I can't find the law anywhere (and all laws are published in the official journal).

So, instead of accusing me of deliberately misleading people, can you post the ID of that supposed law? Thanks in advance.

a reply to: ArMaP

whether or not the 2014 law has been approved - the 2008 law is certainly in place.

as for the 2014 law - it will be implemented in phases until 2022

Leal da Costa admitted, however, that establishments will need time to adapt, which is why the legislation comes with an eight-year moratorium. In other words, the full effect won't be felt before 2022. - See more at: portugalresident.com...

Tired of Control Freaks

Newspeak:

The aim of Newspeak is to remove all shades of meaning from language, leaving simple concepts (pleasure and pain, happiness and sadness, goodthink and crimethink) that reinforce the total dominance of the State. Newspeak root words serve as both nouns and verbs, further reducing the total number of words; for example, "think" is both a noun and verb, so the word thought is not required and can be abolished. The party also intends that Newspeak be spoken in staccato rhythms with syllables that are easy to pronounce. This will make speech more automatic and unconscious and reduce the likelihood of thought.

In addition, words with negative meanings are removed as redundant, so "bad" becomes "ungood". Words with comparative and superlative meanings are also simplified, so "better" becomes "gooder", and "best" becomes "goodest". Intensifiers can be added, so "great" became "plusgood", and "excellent" and "splendid" become "doubleplusgood". This ambiguity between comparative/superlative forms and intensified forms is one of the few examples of ambiguity in Newspeak.

Adjectives are formed by adding the suffix "-ful" to a root word (e.g., "goodthinkful" – orthodox in thought), and adverbs by adding "-wise" ("goodthinkwise" – in an orthodox manner).

This would, of course, not prevent heretical statements such as "Big Brother is ungood," but not only would this statement sound absurd in the ears of the politically orthodox, it would also be impossible to understand exactly what the statement means since all concepts and words that can be used to argue against Big Brother (i.e. liberty, rights, freedom, etc.) would be eradicated from the language.

Some of the constructions in Newspeak, such as "ungood", are characteristic of agglutinative languages, although foreign to English. It is possible that Orwell modeled aspects of Newspeak on Esperanto; for example, "ungood" is constructed similarly to the Esperanto word malbona. Orwell had been exposed to Esperanto in 1927 when living in Paris with his aunt Ellen Kate Limouzin and her husband Eugène Lanti, a prominent Esperantist. Esperanto was the language of the house, and Orwell was disadvantaged by not speaking it, which may account for some antipathy towards the language.

Newspeak

For the good of everyone.

a reply to: ArMaP

That's interesting about the IMF. not lending money to countries without anti smoking policies. Because the main reason the IMF. would lend money, is to get a return on said investment. So obviously smoking bans generate more money , in so many ways. They do this by increasing the flow of health revenue. So money is squeezed, out with the increase of medications that we have noticed in countries where the smoking bans have been working for a good many years. In fact a Tax.

In reality what does a person really need, a reasonable diet, a reasonable reward, and reasonable shelter. But these are the things that are getting targeted. Diets are crap, you cant afford a house, and you cant afford smokes. They have really done a good job.

a reply to: ArMaP

a neighbour from the building that faces my building (but some 50 metres away) came to my door asking us to close the blinds, so he could sleep. We asked him why didn't he close his blinds (he doesn't have them), but, as it was nothing special, since then, we close the blinds as soon as we turn the lights on.

Wow light affects him from 50 metres away..and he thinks he should leave his blinds UP and expecting you to put YOURS down. I'm flabbergasted. Look you said you get very sick from asthma, you life expectancy is probably lower than a non asthmatic...DO you not see the idiocy of you being forced to close your blind for some spurious excuse from 50 meters away..and that it DOES impact on your enjoyment and qaulity of life for the remainder of your years?

Do you not see that...and yet you acquiesce

a reply to: Krazysh0t

asthma...that it is a disability

Never knew that. Does that give you a disability permit to park in special parking spots?

a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

Thanks you ...but I think this will go over most peoples heads. They fail to see the lessons of the past let alone look for clues in classical literature..I'm glad I was forced to read Orwell in early high school.

a reply to: centhwevir1979

Mobile phone use in cars is banned where I live. Then again, 50% + of the drivers on the road here should not be qualified to even hold a driver license.

Banned here in Australia as well (can use hands free units in car).. But you miss the point. We dont parade texters as pariahs, we dont give them $20,000 fines like cigarette vendors selling to minors. We dont charge them with manslaughter if involved in an accident.

If we gonna let off "texters lightly" so Apple dont get too upset and withhold Political party funding and lobbying - i think smokers need a bit of a break, When was the last time you saw a smoker die or kill someone as a direct result of smoking on the road. And yet texters or even someone distracted by sauce from a burger dropping on their lap and they get off with a slap on the wrist

a reply to: rom12345

As a smoker, and regardless of any laws :
I think that it is inappropriate to smoke in your own home if you have children.
I also think it's polite, even in you own home, to ask those around you, if they would mind if you lit one up around them.
However, I am against any legislation to this effect.

1 Of course you dont give kids choice if you smoke in your own home.

2 [me] " scuse me 17 year old son...do you mind if I smoke around you..and by the way..can you turn the music down, I'm trying to watch TV and the latest "lack of facts" coming out of the middle east about the children being poisoned violently by our DU munitions by our coalition of the willing/operation enduring freedom"

[17 yo] " dad shut up..we were warned about your generation at school ...we have RIGHTS too..kicks me in the groin...steals my booze and goes and turns the music up louder

And as you as a smoker choose to ask permission in your own home then I'm sorry you gave your rights away a long time ago to allow such silliness as the Govt telling you you cant smoke in your home.

You are no different than the smoker in the basement a few posts up by the SUV smoke belching driver who yelled at him even though he was in a corner many meters from her. He stood there and was too meek to even answer back

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh I was just pointing out to the controlfreaks after posting all those stats on the results of prohibition that the war on drugs has all those same problems and you can't be against one ban, but for another.

This goes for prostitution and gambling as well.

Thanks

a reply to: Seamrog

We gave you smokers aquariums in airports. Isn't that enough?

You get a place to indulge you repulsive addiction, and we all get to stare and laugh at you.

Ah the true anti-human sentiments there in black and white for you. You have exposed yourself as to your inhumanity and revulsion. Meanwhile you get on that plane after being irradiated by scanners, breathing in Plane fumigants, breathing in VOCS, get Deep vein thrombosis...and yet you cant see past the aqaurium...such intelligence

Control freaks cant help themselves, they put their foot in their mouth sooner or later.

a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

Thank you - I understand your message but many, actually most don't!

Public Health as now grown in power and is actually in control of the government. Think about this. What trumps the constitution? You have the right to liberty without due process of law - unless your liberty threatens public health, then you can be put under quantine without due process of law.

Freedom of assembly - not if it affects public health!

Public Health used to mean because of an infectious disease. Now it mean, if there is a mere possibility of the increased risk of disease!

Public health used to mean the health of the general public. Now it means PRIVATE HEATH - what citizens choose to eat, to drink, to wear, to smell, to breath.

Did you know that under treaty that Canada has signed the Framework Treaty on Tobacco that no-one who has anything to do with tobacco may not even speak to the Government - not tobacco companies, not grocers and confectionary store owners, not the printers who make the packets for tobacco, not tobacco farmer and most certainly of all - not SMOKERS.

I am a private citizen but I am forbidden by foreign treaty to speak to my government, for them to consult with me or to listen to anyone who disagrees in any fashion with the treatment of smokers!

www.who.int...

he WHO FCTC was developed in response to the globalization of the tobacco epidemic and is an evidence-based treaty that reaffirms the right of all people to the highest standard of health. The Convention represents a milestone for the promotion of public health and provides new legal dimensions for international health cooperation.

The word again "epididemic" redefining tobacco as an infectious disease and as Godber said "every smoker recruits other smokers"

Then the protocols for implementing the FCTC:

www.who.int...

11. The broad array of strategies and tactics used by the tobacco industry to interfere with the setting and implementing of tobacco control mea sures, such as those that Parties to the Convention are required to implement, is documented by a vast body of evidence. The measures recommended in these guidelines aim at pro tecting against interference not only by the tobacco industry but also, as appropriate, by o rganizations and individuals that work to further the interests of the tobacco industry. 12.

As a smoker, I am unable to lobby the government on behalf of myself and other smokers, as we would be accused of furthering the interest s of the tobacco industry

You really have to start reading the FCTC and its guidelines to fully appeciate how public health is now in control with the government.

Now that the precedent has been established for smokers, a similar treaty is being developed for alcohol and sugar.

Sovereign governments mean nothing now. All must bow to the directions of their master PUBLIC HEALTH

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I thought being addicted was also considered a disability.

Why yes it is!

www.ohrc.on.ca...

Section 5(1) of the Code prohibits discrimination in employment on several grounds including "disability." The Code adopts an expansive definition of the term "disability" which encompasses physical, psychological and mental conditions. Severe substance abuse is classified as a form of substance dependence,[9] which has been recognized as a form of disability. Examples include alcoholism and the abuse of legal drugs (e.g. over the counter drugs) or illicit drugs. These types of abuse and dependence therefore constitute a disability within the meaning of the Code.

Since I am a drooling slave to nicotene, am I not entitled to the same considerations given to asthmatics?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I wonder....when the anti-smokers were convincing everybody to hate and despise smokers.....did they forget to mention that there was this treaty with the WHO, who is closely alligned with BIG PHARMA (many WHO committees are infiltrated by Big Pharma people)

That is its the world health organization that developed guidelines for how doctors will treat people with any specific disease and what drugs MUST be prescribed.

and that often - those guidelines are not very good at all

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
World Health Organization strong recommendations based on low-quality evidence (study quality) are frequent and often inconsistent with GRADE guidance.

RESULTS: The 33 eligible guidelines included 160 discordant recommendations, of which 98 (61.3%) addressed drug interventions and 132 (82.5%) provided some rationale (though not entirely explicit at times) for the strong recommendation. Of 160 discordant recommendations, 25 (15.6%) were judged consistent with one of the five paradigms for appropriate recommendations; 33 (21%) were based on evidence warranting moderate or high confidence in the estimates of effect; 29 (18%) were good practice statements; and 73 (46%) warranted a conditional, rather than a strong recommendation.

Uh yeah - see we have this guidelines that all countries must follow that flu vaccines must be provided free of charge to the public by the government. oh and all the vaccines must be provided by Big Pharma

You all are so blind with hatred of smokers that you cannot even see the trap you are falling into

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

and just so you don't think I am fooling about a Framework Convention on Alcohol

jech.bmj.com...

Spurred by the creation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, there have been increasing calls for the adoption of a similar agreement for alcohol, usually termed a “Framework Convention on Alcohol Control” (FCAC). The American Public Health Association and Indian Government have both explicitly called for such a convention, as have editorials and articles in leading medical journals.1 Furthermore, the World Medical Association has been broadly positive, as has the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Why are these influential groups calling for such a convention? On one level it is bec

And a Framework Convention on Obesity

www.thelancet.com...

The Joint Action and Learning Initiative on National and Global Responsibilities for Health is exploring a framework convention on global health to establish a post-Millennium- Development-Goals framework to reduce health inequities and streng- then global governance grounded in the human right to health. 3

Well that one will govern what we are allowed to eat and what obligatory exercise we must undertake

So anti-smokers - you fools - this is your future as well as mine. The JACKBOOT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ON YOUR FACE FOREVER

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Krazysh0t


When those things start giving people with asthma problems then we can address them too. But pointing out that other pollutants exist doesn't excuse YOUR responsibility as a smoker (again a 100% choice that YOU made, I didn't make a choice to have asthma) to not make life difficult for the people around you.

Well, air fresheners and perms will certainly make me wheeze, as will many perfumes, all incense sticks, and a great many laundry soaps, deodorants, etc with scents. Air fresheners are the worst.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
whether or not the 2014 law has been approved - the 2008 law is certainly in place.

The law from 2007 (not 2008, that was the when it started being applied) is the one I was talking about, as that's the only law I know, and I don't see it as a draconian law. Most smokers in Portugal don't see it as a draconian law either.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
Wow light affects him from 50 metres away..and he thinks he should leave his blinds UP and expecting you to put YOURS down. I'm flabbergasted. Look you said you get very sick from asthma, you life expectancy is probably lower than a non asthmatic...DO you not see the idiocy of you being forced to close your blind for some spurious excuse from 50 meters away..and that it DOES impact on your enjoyment and qaulity of life for the remainder of your years?

Do you not see that...and yet you acquiesce

I hope he dies before me.

Seriously, although it affects my quality of life, the changes it brought were minor. Having that neighbour complaining all the time would stress me more than having the blinds closed (something that he has no way of forcing me to do), so I chose the less negative path, as I always try to do.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
Public Health as now grown in power and is actually in control of the government. Think about this. What trumps the constitution? You have the right to liberty without due process of law - unless your liberty threatens public health, then you can be put under quantine without due process of law.

The more I read the more I see this as local (per country) instead of a global problem. In Portugal, when the last "health fashion" was avian flu, a woman that was thought to be infected refused to go to the hospital, and nobody had the power to force her to go to the hospital, as that's forbidden by the constitution.

Did you know that under treaty that Canada has signed the Framework Treaty on Tobacco that no-one who has anything to do with tobacco may not even speak to the Government - not tobacco companies, not grocers and confectionary store owners, not the printers who make the packets for tobacco, not tobacco farmer and most certainly of all - not SMOKERS.

I am a private citizen but I am forbidden by foreign treaty to speak to my government, for them to consult with me or to listen to anyone who disagrees in any fashion with the treatment of smokers!

As I said before, in Portugal, any group of citizens that can gather at least 4000 signatures can have any subject discussed on parliament. That petition right applies to all official governing powers (except courts, in that case there are already the usual legal petitions).

As a smoker, I am unable to lobby the government on behalf of myself and other smokers, as we would be accused of furthering the interest s of the tobacco industry

You just have to use other means besides lobbying (which is illegal in Portugal).