As we all know, smoking has been banned in public places since Sunday right? Wrong, smoking has not been banned at all, what has been banned is the presence of smoke indoors. It's worth noting as well that this is not merely the presence of tobacco smoke indoors. What is banned is the presence of smoke, period.
There is no mention of tobacco in the regulations at all. Nor, incidentally, is there a definition of "smoking" either. So, what is actually banned in the "smoke-free" world is, presumably, the gaseous products of burning materials especially of organic origin made visible by the presence of small particles of carbon, or the more general notion of a suspension of particles in a gas.
So, what does this all mean? Well... joss sticks, open fireplaces, matches, nightclub smoke machines (possibly), the lighting of candles, burning food in a working kitchen, all of these things have been prohibited by the new "smoke-free" laws and regulations all because they appear to spent their time defining enclosed spaces whilst not defining what they mean by "smoke".
N.B. The above post is the accumulation of a conversation between myself and Croydonian.
23 comments:
the govt's smokefree website does define terms, and differently from this. are you suggesting therefore that their website is wrong about the law they've passed?
I'm saying that the regulations do not define smoke
But...
These regulations are made under powres given in the Health Act 2006 where smoking is defined in terms of tobacco, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/60028--b.htm#1
Sorry, smoking as an act is not clearly defined at all. Tell me, what does the act say "smoking" is? The defintion is assumed instead.
Nor is there a clear definition of smoke in resect of tobacco. Couple that with the unclear deifntion of smoking, and anything which emits smoke is included and if smokes is emitted it can be "smoked".
Does this mean Church Candles and Incense are banned too?
And how will New Labour cope now that the smoke has been banned from the mirrors?
this is why people like dizzy get four comments on their websites and aren't better known. there's nothing here. shame.
Were you and Croydonian drunk by any chance at the time? - If not that really is quite sad.
bored caroline
Anonymous said... this is why people like dizzy get four comments on their websites and aren't better known. there's nothing here. shame.
Indeed, I'm so shit and worthless that an anonymous person feels the need to post me and tell me how crap I am. Praise Al Gore for bringing us teh inter-roadwaysuperweb! I have arrived!
I was absolutely stone cold Caroline. I think Dizz is too.
I think it's quite an interesting question. I wonder if we can get a conclusive answer on this?
Nothing can be smoked in a workplace, eh?
How long before some overzealous goit takes this hits kippers and bacon with it?
"smoking includes being in possession of lit tobacco or of anything lit which contains tobacco"
'lit' doesn't seem to be defined either and so presumably covers illumination as well. So the lights have to be turned off and the blackout curtains drawn in any premises where you can see a packet of cigarettes.
New Labour in badly worded legislation shocker.
(Sorry for casting aspersions no your sobriety levels chaps!)
Strange thought dizzy if it were true ,surely people wouldn't be able to manually solder ,machine tools that cut steel and give of smoke couldn't be used the list goes on ,anyplace where there is a proper definition .
Take no notice of that anymong a blog can be just a popular without people leaving loads of comment.
They did't define 'Hunting' either, but they banned it and defined some exemptions instead. Result? - a dog's dinner where nobody knows precisely what is or is not illegal. For example, here's an interpretation by a Barrister who is also Chairman of the League Against Cruel Sports:
"If a hunt or a hunter goes out with the intent of hunting for sport and recreation, albeit in a manner which might be exempt under the schedules of exemptions from the Act, then that is a crime."
So there you have it. Legal exemptions don't count if you intend to enjoy yourself. So, everone just wears sack cloth and ashes instead of hunting pink and tries hard not to smile; problem solved. Strange world our puritanical New Labour masters inhabit eh? - we've even got a dour new Lord Protector that looks the part too.
o/t but I once sat through a discussion on whether there is such a thing as toy smoke.
The regulations do not define smoke, but the regulations are regulations under the Health Act 2006, which define smoking and say that "smoke" and related terms are to read in accordance with the definition of "smoking", i.e. "smoke" is something that is "smoked" for the purposes of the Act and the regulations. Pretty straight forward and not at all ambiguous.
I see, so like salmon and kippers. Not ambiguous at all.
His Grace is encouraging the mosques to take up incense burning.
That way, all 'places of worship' are bound to be granted an exemption, and the churches will be able to breathe easily...
So even in a bit of legislation I admire this government for bringing in, they show their rank ineptitude in managing law making. Plus ca change...
I didn't realise that it was smoke indoors which is banned rather than the actual "act" of smoking.
My office and the pub nearest my office both "suffer" from smoke from outside coming through open windows into the premises. Does that mean that both my employer and the pub are breaking the rules?
It isn't just indoors, either.
Smoke isn't allowed in a 'substantially enclosed' public space. What does this mean? Anything you like.
I work in a large building in the City. Around the building is a skirt of glass that is about 100ft in the air. The local authority (the City of London) has decided that this glass cover makes the area substantially enclosed - so there's now nowhere under cover for smokers to congregate.
Post a Comment