This is officially my last post in this thread...
These "tangents" you mention are not so: If you allow for random regulation, even if they do something that pleases you
today, who knows what sort of crap they'll come up with tomorrow. They might point the gun at you tomorrow.
I'm glad we agree, loopz, on the main issue. The main issue being 1) the right of adults to do to themselves what they want and 2) the right of children and bystanders to NOT be affected. I'm also glad you're not against people harming themselves, because some people are do-gooders who want to protect people from themselves, because they "know better."
I just think you're mistaken if you think that this act aims at protecting children. It aims at treating adults as children.
I agree that the government has the right to ban smoking in public spaces, like parks, streets, government officies and so on. I wish the ban would do this!
Under the proposed definition of a "public" space, restaurants don't have the right to "go smokey," because people "have the right" to a smoke-free environment, even if they choose to enter a private club that says "WARNING! LOTS OF SMOKE AND ALCOHOL INSIDE!". Not so. Not anymore than they have a right to hear Christian Rock at every music concert. This is ridiculous. If you don't like trance, don't go to an Oakenfold gig. Some people enjoy smokey places. These places are for them. In fact, music concerts and clubs should be banned much more readily than smoking in pubs, since music can be heard in the neighbourhood at night, whereas smoke fumes remain confined to the pub! Not only do the parents have the RIGHT to take kids to smoke-free places, they have the RESPONSIBILITY to do so, under the duress of law. This is already clear, no further legislation needed. Also the venue owners have the RESPONSIBILITY to be clear about their smoking policy: If they have second-hand smoke, it's obviously not suitable for kids, and they shouldn't advertise it as such - or face prosecution.
I think there should be a choice for consumers between "Fast Food With Fumes" (obviously not for kids - or sane people!) and "Fast Food Without Fumes." Many places, like McDonalds, many pizza joints and ethnic restaurants don't allow smoking inside. Nobody
forced them, thank goodness, to make it so. Actually, I wouldn't take my kids to McDonalds for other reasons - I think what they serve (and HOW they do it) is evil.
If at a Disney Ice Show people are smoking, even though they're not supposed to, then call the guards and have them thrown out. If, on the other hand, the place allows for smoking at certain places too close to the arena - well, complain about it, sign a petition, protest and shout. Boycott is also powerful. I think that you'd get smoke-free ice shows in about 30 minutes, if people only voiced their opinion. Of course, if the venue is owned by the government, full-on ban is advisable and possible.
But if you know there will be second-hand smoke in a place advertised for kids, that's a clear
felony - an attempted poisoning - and should be prosecuted. In fact, kids being around parents' tobacco smoke is a case of parental neglect, too, and thus subject to litigation. Any case of second-hand smoke at a public space (TRULY public, not a tittie bar or a pub) is subject to restrictions, litigations and/or total bans. In fact, people should demand this. At home, only child protection warrants litigation. At private venues, only if they lie about being smoke-free and/or for kids, should they be prosecuted.
There are many aspects of modern society that are troublesome. For example, traffic fumes (talk about smog!). EVERYBODY is affected by industrial fumes. Everybody's sucking in second-hand carcinogens. Now here's a REAL venue for regulation: Ban cars from public streets in downtown. This is allowed, since the roads are paid for by taxation! In fact, I support this.
Or if you want your tax money to be spent on things like government-owned smoke-free parks, pubs, soccer fields or even Mexican restaurants (!), then go ahead and propose that. That would be legit, at least.
But if three blokes in Brighton want to set up a private adults-only club called "Fish'n'Smokes", where sea food is served as the main food, and Cuban cigars as a kind of soothing aperitif, I wouldn't want to deny them the pleasure. Who would?
We are talking about smoking being banned in public places. Talk about tangents!
