Here's an interesting concept, courtesy of Nick Margerrison* - should they ban smoking in council houses? This, as with the smoking ban on pubs in Ireland, would theoretically help reduce the number of people smoking. Many private landlords now request non-smokers due to the smell and increased fire-risk potential, so why shouldn't the council too?

Post your comments and be sure to vote on the poll above.


* You'll find Nick on Hallam FM 11-1am, Sun-Thurs ;)

what an idiotic idea.

but why stop there. no more than two pints a night (1.5 if you're female), a healthy diet with 3 veg a day, in bed by 10.30, no listening to music with 'parental advisory' stickers on, blah balh blah.

Can you add "Don't care" to the options ?

Originally posted by commie pig
what an idiotic idea.
Your reasoning isn't exactly 'genuis' either :hihi: :rolleyes:

Originally posted by nick2
Can you add "Don't care" to the options ?

Done :P

[sic]

i take it if this potty idea ever happend we would then ban chip pans deep fat fryers etc :loopy: :loopy: :loopy:

Do deep fat fryers (etc.) kill as many people or cost as much to the NHS to treat as smoking currently does? Next :rolleyes:

Interesting idea this one. After all the building doesn't belong to the tenant so if they are not prepared to make sure that the property has adequate insurance then they shouldn't be allowed to increase the possibility of a fire.

Not quite what I had in mind.

Perhaps you could change the description to

"I don't care what people do in their own homes, this may mean I dissagree with Geoff's views on smoking" ?

Just how exactly are they going to stop you,,,come in and check everyday,,
it's a stupid idea...

Originally posted by nick2
Not quite what I had in mind.

Perhaps you could change the description to

"I don't care what people do in their own homes, this may mean I dissagree with Geoff's views on smoking" ?

Yes, that would probably be fairer... but, then again I only want to know whether you're for or against it. I hate all this "don't care" and "don't know" business when it comes to polls. If you don't know or don't care then read another thread... :heyhey:

Ok, I vote NO, it's a stupid idea.

Glad to see I've stoked the Tuesday morning fires.

For those of you who keep replying that it's "stupid" or "idiotic" please give a reason, otherwise save yourself the effort of hitting that reply button.

Consider kitkat's reply, he/she managed to include a good reason why this idea might indeed be idiotic. As for working out who is smoking in their houses, I believe Nick mentioned the fact that law abiding residents would feel annoyed that their neighbour was flouting the law and therefore would 'shop' them.

Given that this is one of those 'good ideas' raised on a radio talk show perhaps we shouldn't get all exited about it, yes you panda and commie.

How do we police a ban such as this? Do we have sniffer dogs being taken round on a regular/random basis. What about the effect on these sniffer dogs? Do we, as a caring society, have the right to demand that these brave, self sacrificing creatures put their lives on the line to ensure the law is being followed?

How about surveillance vans which have sensitive sniffing capabilities? Do we give the operators enhanced health benefits to counter the greater risk of passive smoking?

Why stop at council houses? Why not ban smoking in those stately homes owned by the state? That way it would not be considered a class based law and will hit the unemployed at both ends of the spectrum.

That nick bloke clearly tries to anger people to add a little spice to his ring-in radio show....

ahem!!! - presuming that is where it came from -

Venger shrinks and waits for a bombardment of correction

There can be a stigma associated with council estates and cigarettes and personally doubt that he was looking much deeper than that.

This opinion is based on having tuned in several times in the past.




:gag:

There is a faction of the population that already smokes illegal substances at home/and away from....

The legal system has decrimalised this activity

So would an effective solution be to tighten the grip on the suppliers?

Let's keep this on-topic and not make it a "discuss Nick" thread.

I believe the whole topic was raised due to an article about the council in Birmingham asking council employees to report council residents who smoked when they went on home visits. The council is worried about the 'brave, self-sacrificing' (to quote Max) social workers (etc.) who put 'their lives on the line' (Max) to help people who then potentially return the favour by giving them lung cancer.

I believe this story led Nick to consider the fact it would be a good idea to ban smoking in council houses full stop. This would help to discourage people from smoking (which kills, in case some have forgotten) and would mean council employees who go to provide services/care, won't be exposed to the risks of passive smoking.

As for a class based law, the government has raised the price of cigarettes which has hit the lower classes disposal income, but no-one seems as concerned by that method...

Can we please have some real reasons this would be a bad idea. While I love dogs and those who work in detection vans, I don't think the cost of treating these people is comparative to the current situation.

I don't smoke, but I do walk to work quite often and I think the amount of carbon monoxide and lead I breath in during that walk is more dangerous for me than the amount I passivley smoke while I'm in the pub for a couple of hours, so how about we ban cars on my route to work ?

Mine and max`s comments were only 1 minute apart and did not see his views as I was typing my own, sorry about that.

The home visits that I regurlarly do as a product of the voluntry work that I am involved in has not raised this dilema in all honesty.

If it became an issue I would take it upon myself to find an agreeable solution to the problem.

I am a private lanlord and have had 1st-hand experience of a house fire only this year where 2 (2&4) children regretably did not last the night earlier in the year.

I will not go into great detail but was wondering as Max put forward, how would you police such a thing.

Whole can of worms when people are still rightly concerned about catching more burgalrs etc..

I don`t want anyone telling me what to do at home and would not impose such restrictions on others.

BAD IDEA

hey dont blame me geoff if you are incapable of reading between the lines to suss out a line of argument ;)

its an idiotic idea becauwse - a) as max pointed out it is totally discrimantory. the idea that it is to help poor social workers is nonsense - what about when they go into a private home! ridiculous. if you want to ban smoking, ban smoking. but that would never be allowed (tobacco companies making far too much money and that) so we get absurd idea's like this one.

And as it was you (I think) geoff who mentioned the increased costs to the NHS from smoking, obesity, and poor diet cost at least as much in the long-term, so why not insist on them being controlled in the same way.

Allowing Social Workers to insist that people don't smoke when they are being visited is absolutely fair enough. Anything else is an unacceptable intrusion by a nanny state.

Out of interest, does treating smokers actually cost more than they contribute to the treasury as tax on cigarettes ?

Nice to see that the fashionable trend of bashing the poor continues unabated on such *quality* radio shows that, with the utmost intellectual rigour, deconstruct all outdated, pre-conceived notions of equality and justice for all, and instead re-enforce widely held prejudices.

Hence the motion: poor people cannot be merely asked to act like *us* (they didn't go to school, see), so we'd better impose some fascistic and discriminatory laws to keep them under control.

Originally posted by commie pig
...obesity, and poor diet cost at least as much in the long-term, so why not insist on them being controlled in the same way.
Perhaps the person that mentioned banning deep fat fryers had a point :hihi: :D

I can think of 3 reasons for a ban... the obvious health arguement, the damage to the council property arguement (have you ever tried painting a ceiling in a council house where the previous tenants have smoked? You have to keep on adding more coats of paint as the stain comes through!) ... and the most important reason, a ban would free up hundreds of council houses for those people who desperately need them! :D

The one arguement against a ban would be that if smoking is legal, should the council ban it in council houses if it only the smokers who are going to suffer the consequences?

Originally posted by Patchy
and the most important reason, a ban would free up hundreds of council houses for those people who desperately need them! :D


Who would these people be, considering the rate the council are demolishing council houses sugests there is no demand for them ?

Go anywhere on Manor Park and you will see dozens of empty houses.

Originally posted by nick2
Who would these people be, considering the rate the council are demolishing council houses sugests there is no demand for them ?

Go anywhere on Manor Park and you will see dozens of empty houses.

Believe me, there is a shortage of 3 and 4 bedroom council houses. There are families who are bidding on houses all over the city who can't get one, and are having to live in overcrowded conditions in smaller houses or flats. Though I was jesting when I gave that as a reason to ban smoking in council houses, it would benefit some people lol

Originally posted by Patchy
I can think of 3 reasons for a ban... the obvious health arguement, the damage to the council property arguement (have you ever tried painting a ceiling in a council house where the previous tenants have smoked? You have to keep on adding more coats of paint as the stain comes through!) ... and the most important reason, a ban would free up hundreds of council houses for those people who desperately need them! :D

The one arguement against a ban would be that if smoking is legal, should the council ban it in council houses if it only the smokers who are going to suffer the consequences?

I've never smoked but a lot of members of my family did. My father smoked and we lived in a council house, and to be honest decorating was a nightmare - dad wasn't a big smoker but the smell and the staining persisted for years.

There are covenants on many properties that prevent the owner or tenant doing things that are legal - for example, there might be a covenant that prevents you from having an aerial on the hosue above a certain height, or from running any sort of business from the property, even if it wouldn't bother the neighbours.

So I guess the council would proabbly be on legally sound ground if they wanted to go that way.

If I were a private landlord I think I'd probably prefer non-smokers because of the smell, but basically say taht if you smoked I didn't want any evidence of it remaining when you left - and would consider trying to charge a larger deposit to cover cleaning bills if needed.

The hard part for a council would be the prrof - perhaps sensitive smoke detectors? Only partially kidding....;)

Joe

Originally posted by Patchy
Believe me, there is a shortage of 3 and 4 bedroom council houses. There are families who are bidding on houses all over the city who can't get one, and are having to live in overcrowded conditions in smaller houses or flats. Though I was jesting when I gave that as a reason to ban smoking in council houses, it would benefit some people lol

But you see loads of houses empty around Sheffield, the ones on Wybourn and Manor are 3 bedroom arn't they ?

I'm not having a go at you BTW, it just seems silly that there are people waiting for homes and homes stood empty but no-one has thought of putting the two together.

There do seem to be a lot of boarded up houses on Wybourn, but I think most of them are 2 bed ones, which don't seem to be in high demand. I think quite a few of the boarded up ones are waiting for repairs, and a few have very bad smoke damage... people really should be careful smoking in council houses....

the damage to the housing is the only argument the council can use.
They don't exist to interfere in peoples lives in whatever way they see fit (whether that be to benefit the people or society). A democracy is supposed to protect the rights of individuals, which means if people are stupid enough to smoke, then they should be allowed too.

As other people have pointed out, there are many other harmful habits which they are free to indulge in, will the council be looking for ways in which to 'encourage' people to stop these habits?

Originally posted by Patchy
There do seem to be a lot of boarded up houses on Wybourn, but I think most of them are 2 bed ones, which don't seem to be in high demand. I think quite a few of the boarded up ones are waiting for repairs, and a few have very bad smoke damage... people really should be careful smoking in council houses....

more likely to be chip pan fires I bet.

Originally posted by nick2
But you see loads of houses empty around Sheffield, the ones on Wybourn and Manor are 3 bedroom arn't they ?

I'm not having a go at you BTW, it just seems silly that there are people waiting for homes and homes stood empty but no-one has thought of putting the two together.

I asked this question once and the answer was that the then housing department stopped renovating houses until they had a firm commitment from someone to move in once it was complete. The reason being that if they were left empty for even a day some entrepreneur would liberate the new radiators, window frames, plumbing, boilers, etc., etc.

Originally posted by cyclone
the damage to the housing is the only argument the council can use.

One of the earlier posts suggested a ban may be to protect council employees who have to visit where they may be exposed to smoke. Surely they have a right to a smoke free 'working environment' too?

Interestingly the poll is currently split 50/50 (if you ignore the 1 don't care). It's also interesting to see that those in favour of the ban haven't really joined in this thread, whereas those who oppose it have.

I voted in favour of a ban, on the "damage to property" grounds.

Originally posted by kitkat
Just how exactly are they going to stop you,,,come in and check everyday,,
it's a stupid idea...

Agreed - should they come in with some machine and say "guilty get the hell outahere!" or "Not guilty - for now" - what could you do - do you have any rights or legal avenues?

Also with smoking - a reasonable percentage I would assume smokes so what about them - higher rent rates OR no-smoking ban AT ALL? Let me guess - registers as a non-smoker but on the balcony is subtle enough to "evade"?

Imagine this coming in FULLY in effect on any tennant/child/ect and you have a friend that has a smoking habit and has a quick-one every so often - could you be done for it?

maybe they should be issued with equipment to keep them safe in a hazardous environment.

You can't not put a condition in tenancy agreements just in case the tenant breaks it. Many private landlords ban smoking on their properties, and presumably there are some tenants who break the rules. In my opinion, the council should inspect all its properties for damage on a regular basis, say once a year, and if the walls and ceilings are getting stained then it is pretty obvious!

Actually yes, let's ban council tenants from smoking. While we're at it, let's ban them from owning motorised vehicles (they can't be expected to drive safely, what with all the Super Tennants they drink); stop them from owning satellite dishes (Living TV viewing figures will fall dramatically, but hey, **** happens); and maybe install CCTV into all council house kitchens (so that the powers that be can monitor how much junk food they consume - it's all they know how to cook, some of them!).

Perhaps electronic tagging can also be incorporated, so that there's no danger of them crossing the border and entering middle-class housing estates begging for small change. An exclusion zone, of sorts?

So would you do all those things to tenants of private landlords too? Many of them ban smoking in their properties.

Originally posted by Patchy
So would you do all those things to tenants of private landlords too? Many of them ban smoking in their properties.

It's not the question itself that bothers me, it's the ethos behind it.

Originally posted by Patchy
people really should be careful smoking in council houses....

have a word with yourself PLEASE!!!!!!!

I am quite enthused by the POLL percentages that Geoff kindly shared with us (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18830)

How about a compromise? -

If you're proven (definition may need some work) to smoke whilst in a council house, then your rent is upped by x% to cover extra redecoration and extra insurance for the council in case they get sued by any of their employees for having to enter an unsafe environment.

On a side note - any employee in any industry who knowlingly enters an environment they consider unhealthy and then sues for it gets zero sympathy from me. Actually, less than zero.

Originally posted by Greenback
Actually yes, let's ban council tenants from smoking. While we're at it, let's ban them from owning motorised vehicles (they can't be expected to drive safely, what with all the Super Tennants they drink); stop them from owning satellite dishes (Living TV viewing figures will fall dramatically, but hey, **** happens); and maybe install CCTV into all council house kitchens (so that the powers that be can monitor how much junk food they consume - it's all they know how to cook, some of them!).

Perhaps electronic tagging can also be incorporated, so that there's no danger of them crossing the border and entering middle-class housing estates begging for small change. An exclusion zone, of sorts?

And what on earth is the "ethos" behind this dreadful bile?

How dare you suggest that people who live on council estates are unable to drive because they're always drunk on Super Tennants? You should be deeply ashamed of this prejudice. We weren't all born in an ivory tower like you mate! Disgusting.

And where exactly do you get off suggesting most people who live in council houses cook junk food? Just because people are down on their luck does not mean you can come along and spit this sort of prejudice on them. I'm amazed you've got the nerve to come out with such RUBBISH on this massive website. Do you know the number of people who log onto this place nowadays? What sort of an example is this to set?

Unbelievable!

As regards the title of the string I'm pleasantly surprised you're finally supporting a measure which would:

1/ Improve the standard of living for these people who need our help.

2/ Reduce the damage to houses which are often taken for granted and not looked after these days.

3/ Decrease the disgusting tobacco trade in this country.

4/ Bring us closer to a smoke free Britain.

5/ Dramatically improve the image most people (including I see yourself) have of council estates.

6/ Reduce the strain on the NHS which smokers cause.

7/ Stop council estate kids from having to breathe in the smoke of their parents.

8/ Improve the bank balances of people who live in council estates. Fags cost a fortune these days mainly due to VAT and so forth. It's a poll tax and it's wrong.

9/ Cut down the ammount of littering on council estates.

10/ Encourage other people who are friends with folk who live on council estates to stop smoking.

---

OK halfwits. There's ten solid reasons why this is a great idea. I challenge you to give me 3 good reasons why it's a bad one. That's right THREE. I'm so convinced this is a great idea that I actually feel sorry for you if you're thick enough to argue against it. So I'm helping you out here. THREE reasons. That's all. Go for it.

PS - Best case scenario this string now sinks like a rock... reason being no one can argue against common sense.

everyone should be banned from smoking though? Not just counsil tennants.. everyone, everywhere. banned.

1, Health......Not ALL council tenants have kids to pollute.

2, Damage...Pets, in some cases, damage property and leave ingrained smells. Ban all large pets?

3, Image......The image of council estates has bugger all to do with smokers. I think you'll find that's yobs and crime.

Originally posted by markham
1, Health......Not ALL council tenants have kids to pollute.

2, Damage...Pets, in some cases, damage property and leave ingrained smells. Ban all large pets?

3, Image......The image of council estates has bugger all to do with smokers. I think you'll find that's yobs and crime.

Smoking causes far far more damage to council properties than pets do!

The government should make it illegal to smoke in an enclosed place where children are present... whether it is a council house or a private house. Surely giving children lung cancer is a serious form of child abuse?

Originally posted by Patchy


The government should make it illegal to smoke in an enclosed place where children are present... whether it is a council house or a private house. Surely giving children lung cancer is a serious form of child abuse?

As is giving children unhealthy meals 24/7.

As is keeping animals in the house when a kid suffers from asthma.

As is failing to keep the house clean and tidy.

Not all adults who smoke insist on smoking in the front room, I'm sure. Maybe most go to the back door and sit on the doorstep, making the three above examples a bigger health risk to the kids than smoking.

But I said in an enclosed space. That wouldn't include the doorstep.

[1] I have the right to "quiet enjoyment" of my flat and my landlord has absolutely no right to dictate my lifestyle. What next? No blacks, no Irish, no Jews, no fags <pun>?

[2] If somebody wants to kill themselves through ingestion of legal drugs, that is thier right, as long as they do not injure other people in theproces.

[3] You're right, it's hard to think of three.

But the doorstep is council property, which is the reason for this thread.

And I'm just pointing out that smoking around children is in the same category, child abuse-wise as the three examples I gave.

I fully agree that smoking around other people, be it kids or adults is wrong, but there are far more other examples of child abuse/neglect which can kill or damage kids in council houses than just smoking.

As far as ingrained smells are concerned, yes, smoking, if done in the main body of the house does taint the atmosphere. A regularly cleaned house however smells a lot less than a filthy one. A regularly used chip pan can make the house smell just as bad as smoking, and damage walls and ceilings. Do we therefore ban chip pans in council housing? If we did, wouldn't we be going somewhere towards stopping damage AND improving the health of the kids as well. There may even be less fires due to drunken idiots misusing them.

Unhealthy kids, damaged interiors and house fires. Its a toss-up really, isn't it. Chip pans or smoking.

Originally posted by markham
I think you'll find that's yobs and crime.
Shocking, now you're suggesting that they not only drink-drive and eat junk food but they are also criminals and/or yobs. :heyhey:

3 reasons to allow smoking in council houses:

1) We have a serious pension problem, we could do with less people living to old age.

2) It's reported that we're actually making a profit from the duty of tobacco products, therefore lets keep it flowing in.

3) If you didn't let the masses have some simple pleasures then we could open a whole new can of worms.

:thumbsup:

(T-in-C - please don't judge me :P )

Originally posted by Geoff
Shocking, now you're suggesting that they not only drink-drive and eat junk food but they are also criminals and/or yobs. :heyhey:

3 reasons to allow smoking in council houses:

1) We have a serious pension problem, we could do with less people living to old age.

2) It's reported that we're actually making a profit from the duty of tobacco products, therefore lets keep it flowing in.

3) If you didn't let the masses have some simple pleasures then we could open a whole new can of worms.

:thumbsup:

(T-in-C - please don't judge me :P )

Who said we need reasons to ALLOW smoking in council housing? Isn't it reasons to BAN it we're talking about? All I'm doing is pointing out the other things that cause the same problems.

And what's the comment about my mentioning the reason why council estates have a bad name, it being yobs and crime. Isn't that the reason? You certainly haven't read my post properly if you assume I'm refering to council tenants in general. I'm one of them, and I can categorically state that it's the yobs and the crime that get my estate a bad name. It certainly ain't because some people smoke in their houses now, is it!

I'm assuming of course that your post is a serious pop at me:suspect:

I see your smilies, but I ain't sure!

Originally posted by markham
Who said we need reasons to ALLOW smoking in council housing?

Well Nick did ask...

Originally posted by Nicholarse
I challenge you to give me 3 good reasons why it's a bad one.

I was therefore giving my reasons to allow (i.e. not ban) smoking in council houses.

As for my suggestion that you were labelling all people on council estates yobs (etc.) - that was merely me twisting your words and certainly was meant in jest, hence the whole tongue in cheek (t-in-c) thing.

I think you'll find that the post you were replying to there Nick wasn't actually serious.
As for your reasons, rather than giving you 3 reasons why they should be able to smoke i'll look at your 10 reasons why they shouldn't...

1/ I suspect that these people don't want our help and certainly not if banning smoking is what we offer as 'help'

2/valid

3/personal moral stance i presume.

4/linked to 3

5/why would it? I don't see the logic behind this.

6/and also remove the tax revenue having a -'ve effect overall.

7/in some cases possibly, but specific targetted laws would make more sense

8/sounds like interfeering to me.

9/evidence for this? were talking about smoking indoors where there are bins.

10/really stretching for that one right?

okay, a few reasons why it shouldn't be banned, maybe not 3.

1/civil liberty, the right of self determination for citizens.

Originally posted by Nicholarse
And what on earth is the "ethos" behind this dreadful bile?

How dare you suggest that people who live on council estates are unable to drive because they're always drunk on Super Tennants? You should be deeply ashamed of this prejudice. We weren't all born in an ivory tower like you mate! Disgusting.

And where exactly do you get off suggesting most people who live in council houses cook junk food? Just because people are down on their luck does not mean you can come along and spit this sort of prejudice on them. I'm amazed you've got the nerve to come out with such RUBBISH on this massive website. Do you know the number of people who log onto this place nowadays? What sort of an example is this to set?

Unbelievable!

As regards the title of the string I'm pleasantly surprised you're finally supporting a measure which would:

1/ Improve the standard of living for these people who need our help.

2/ Reduce the damage to houses which are often taken for granted and not looked after these days.

3/ Decrease the disgusting tobacco trade in this country.

4/ Bring us closer to a smoke free Britain.

5/ Dramatically improve the image most people (including I see yourself) have of council estates.

6/ Reduce the strain on the NHS which smokers cause.

7/ Stop council estate kids from having to breathe in the smoke of their parents.

8/ Improve the bank balances of people who live in council estates. Fags cost a fortune these days mainly due to VAT and so forth. It's a poll tax and it's wrong.

9/ Cut down the ammount of littering on council estates.

10/ Encourage other people who are friends with folk who live on council estates to stop smoking.

---

OK halfwits. There's ten solid reasons why this is a great idea. I challenge you to give me 3 good reasons why it's a bad one. That's right THREE. I'm so convinced this is a great idea that I actually feel sorry for you if you're thick enough to argue against it. So I'm helping you out here. THREE reasons. That's all. Go for it.

PS - Best case scenario this string now sinks like a rock... reason being no one can argue against common sense.

Originally posted by Nicholarse
And what on earth is the "ethos" behind this dreadful bile?

How dare you suggest that people who live on council estates are unable to drive because they're always drunk on Super Tennants? You should be deeply ashamed of this prejudice. We weren't all born in an ivory tower like you mate! Disgusting.

And where exactly do you get off suggesting most people who live in council houses cook junk food? Just because people are down on their luck does not mean you can come along and spit this sort of prejudice on them. I'm amazed you've got the nerve to come out with such RUBBISH on this massive website. Do you know the number of people who log onto this place nowadays? What sort of an example is this to set?

Unbelievable!


Irony bypass, anyone? Sheesh :o

[i]And where exactly do you get off suggesting most people who live in council houses cook junk food? Just because people are down on their luck does not mean you can come along and spit this sort of prejudice on them. [/B]

Living in a council house does not mean you are "down on your luck", some people actually choose to do it.

Originally posted by Nicholarse
And what on earth is the "ethos" behind this dreadful bile?

How dare you suggest that people who live on council estates are unable to ... I'm amazed you've got the nerve to come out with such RUBBISH on this massive website. Do you know the number of people who log onto this place nowadays? What sort of an example is this to set?
Glad to hear the bypass operation was a success!

As regards the title of the string I'm pleasantly surprised you're finally supporting a measure which would:

(10 halfwitted reasons omitted for clarity)

OK halfwits.

From the man you says that condoms are less humane than abortions, the word 'halfwit' is not one you should be using on other people, especially after an irony bypass.

There's ten solid reasons why this is a great idea. I challenge you to give me 3 good reasons why it's a bad one. That's right THREE. I'm so convinced this is a great idea that I actually feel sorry for you if you're thick enough to argue against it.

Well not so thick that we imagine condoms to somehow be morally reprehensible, but enforced abortions to be a humane way of avoiding unwanted children, but that's another story.

1. Enforcement. You can't do it, not effectively and not cost effectively.

2. It's witless, unless you extend the scheme to all housing (private, rented, leased, tied etc). Singling out council properties is nonsensical as most of the 'advantages' of your scheme are only borne out in a national context. Banning in Sheff would have no direct effect whatsoever.

3. Assuming for one yoctosecond that you can institute and enforce a ban, game theory tells you that smokers will find somewhere else to smoke, and if they can't then someone will provide it for them. In the short term at least, you can expect a lot more litter as people resort to smoking outside. In the long term, expect to create a closed culture of people smoking toabcco and a thousand and one ways of evading whatever half arsed inspection and enforcement routine you have in mind.

And one for luck

4.Assuming for one femtosecond that your ban is enforcable, The rest of the council tax paying non-council residents have to pay for the enforcement of something that they themselves are free to do - which will go down well in Ecclesall when they get their revised council tax bill.

I would think that people living in non-council houses who smoke will see their house insurance cost go up too once the insurance companies realise that there is an increased risk of fire.

Firstly may I say what a ridiculous idea.

What about private tennants? Are they allowed to smoke?

So.. if you can't afford to buy a house you don't gain the privilege of being able to smoke...?

Bonkers

Originally posted by Nicholarse
And what on earth is the "ethos" behind this dreadful bile?


And where exactly do you get off suggesting most people who live in council houses cook junk food? Just because people are down on their luck does not mean you can come along and spit this sort of prejudice on them.

Unbelievable!

As regards the title of the string I'm pleasantly surprised you're finally supporting a measure which would:

1/ Improve the standard of living for these people who need our help.

5/ Dramatically improve the image most people (including I see yourself) have of council estates.

8/ Improve the bank balances of people who live in council estates. Fags cost a fortune these days mainly due to VAT and so forth.

9/ Cut down the ammount of littering on council estates.

10/ Encourage other people who are friends with folk who live on council estates to stop smoking.

---

OK halfwits.

PS - Best case scenario this string now sinks like a rock... reason being no one can argue against common sense.

Are you barmy?

Your fifth reason is a parody of itself, while you also suggest that it is only people on Council/Housing Association owned properties suffer these or other difficulties.

You were correct I have to admit when you called it dreadful bile though. Only it should have been at the end of your post.

The rest of the council tax paying non-council residents have to pay for the enforcement of something that they themselves are free to do - which will go down well in Ecclesall when they get their revised council tax bill.
It's worse than that. Councils aren't allowed to use their tax income to fund their housing business. It has to be funded from the rents they charge, so enforcement of non-smoking would have to be paid out of higher rents.

Originally posted by Nicholarse
And what on earth is the "ethos" behind this dreadful bile?

How dare you suggest that people who live on council estates are unable to drive because they're always drunk on Super Tennants? You should be deeply ashamed of this prejudice. We weren't all born in an ivory tower like you mate! Disgusting.

And where exactly do you get off suggesting most people who live in council houses cook junk food? Just because people are down on their luck does not mean you can come along and spit this sort of prejudice on them. I'm amazed you've got the nerve to come out with such RUBBISH on this massive website. Do you know the number of people who log onto this place nowadays? What sort of an example is this to set?

Unbelievable!


Originally posted by Greenback
Irony bypass, anyone? Sheesh :o
You sure did bypass it, Greenback ;)

Originally posted by Geoff
You sure did bypass it, Greenback ;)

Well, forgive me if this 'Nicholarse' comes across as the kind of guy who just doesn't "do" irony. Seems I'm not alone in coming to this conclusion...

On the contrary sweetcheecks - I'm just admiring the irony of you exposing some of your unpleasant prejudices in your attempted satirical posting.

As regards all the other posts I'm still waiting for three good solid reasons why the council shouldn't agree to my idea.

Private landlords have this clause in their agreements all the time.

NM

Nicholarse wrote: 'Private landlords have this clause in their agreements all the time'

yeah, but that didn't stop me, my mates, our neighbours and just about every tenant renting a house in crookes from smoking in our houses.

and as for the smell, it's amazing what an open window can do.

what would the landlords say?!? ;)

Originally posted by Nicholarse
On the contrary sweetcheecks - I'm just admiring the irony of you exposing some of your unpleasant prejudices in your attempted satirical posting.

As regards all the other posts I'm still waiting for three good solid reasons why the council shouldn't agree to my idea.

Private landlords have this clause in their agreements all the time.

NM

My unpleasant prejudices? Your career's based on prejudice!

Phan already gave you plenty of reasons as to why your "idea" is so idiotic. But here's my twopenneth, anyway. It's based on the premise that a certain social class can't be trusted to look after itself, which is completely condescending and offensive. It's also completely unenforcable. Even if it was, it won't stop people going somewhere else to smoke.

If you'd have said "ban smoking", I'm sure the responses would have been much more lukewarm - but that's not exactly the reaction you're after, is it?

and we're still waiting for some good solid reasons why it should be banned.
The only two so far being the potential damage to the housing, which could be covered by an increased charge. And the right to a safe working environment for council staff, which just means not smoking for a few hours before they enter the premises.


Originally posted by Nicholarse
On the contrary sweetcheecks - I'm just admiring the irony of you exposing some of your unpleasant prejudices in your attempted satirical posting.

As regards all the other posts I'm still waiting for three good solid reasons why the council shouldn't agree to my idea.

Private landlords have this clause in their agreements all the time.

NM

Originally posted by Nicholarse
As regards all the other posts I'm still waiting for three good solid reasons why the council shouldn't agree to my idea.

1- talk show hosts are ardent self publicists throwing up half baked ideas in order to get cheap airtime from half baked reactions. In the cold light of a textual discussion, these ideas prove to be nothing more than flimsy, ill thought out and embarassingly simplistic schemes with no footing in the real world. Agreeing to their ideas is not a sound basis for a system of government.

no further reasons required - case closed.
:)

Originally posted by Greenback
My unpleasant prejudices? Your career's based on prejudice!

Phan already gave you plenty of reasons as to why your "idea" is so idiotic. But here's my twopenneth, anyway. It's based on the premise that a certain social class can't be trusted to look after itself, which is completely condescending and offensive. It's also completely unenforcable. Even if it was, it won't stop people going somewhere else to smoke.

If you'd have said "ban smoking", I'm sure the responses would have been much more lukewarm - but that's not exactly the reaction you're after, is it?

I can't understand this assumption that anyone that lives in a council house or flat is some kind of lower class moron/scumbag. Not everyone is obsessed with owning property or wants to be tied down by a huge mortgage. When I was single I was quite happy to rent a flat from the council, I was earning a good wage and as the rent was only £150 a month, I had a large percentage of it to spend on myself. If the council hadn't decided to demolish the flat I would still be there now, as would a lot of the other tennants.

I voted "yes" on account of the fact that, if you're in the financial position where you have to live in a council house as opposed to a privately-owned/rented one, then you really don't have the money to waste on fags.

Smoking is a f***ing vile, pointless habit that needs stamping out. Sorry to sound like a certain German chap called Adolf, but illness caused by smoking is a huge waste of NHS resources.

Originally posted by JonnyBoy
I voted "yes" on account of the fact that, if you're in the financial position where you have to live in a council house as opposed to a privately-owned/rented one, then you really don't have the money to waste on fags.


See what I mean ?

Perhaps we should start another thread, If you can afford to rent privately, should you be able to still rent a council house ;)

illness caused by smoking is a huge waste of NHS resources.


so are
climbers
certain women using abortion as a form of contreception
persons using ambulances as a taxi service
im sure theres a few other examples of of nhs resources been wasted:o :o :o

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Perhaps we should start another thread, If you can afford to rent privately, should you be able to still rent a council house ;)

In London council houses are very sought after, because they are so cheap, a couple of hundred quid a month compared to nearly a thousand renting privately.

If you have quite a bit of money and manage to get a council house somewhere nice (they do exist in every district of Sheffield), you've got it made. Low rent, free repairs, and after a few years you get to buy it for a ridiculously low price.

Originally posted by commie pig
what an idiotic idea.

but why stop there. no more than two pints a night (1.5 if you're female), a healthy diet with 3 veg a day, in bed by 10.30, no listening to music with 'parental advisory' stickers on, blah balh blah.

Smoking kills non-smokers. Why do you think the Roy Castle Fund was set up he got cancer from passive smoking. When I was looking for a flat some of them I didn't take becuase of the smell of smoke, as a non-smoker i am very sensitive to this.

With drinking and poor diet you can't hurt other people just by your actions, smoking you can. I can't drink your pint after you have or eat the food after you but i can breath your poninous smoke.

jubby

Has anyone thought to ask Gordon Brown what he thinks of the idea ? A ban on council tenants smoking would likely make a significant dent in his annual revenue. Perhaps it should be the other way round and council tenants who don't smoke should have to pay an additional tax to compensate for the tobacco duty and VAT they're not contributing to Mr. Brown's coffers ? ;)

And why should council staff enjoy a safer, legally enforcible, working environment than bar staff. Do bar staff have to sign a disclaimer that they accept the risks of other people smoking in their workplace ?

I think it's about time bar staff got together and thought about a class action against their employers. The drinks industry would be falling over themselves to ban smoking in their pubs and clubs.

Originally posted by jubby
Smoking kills non-smokers.
jubby

Perhaps....but so do other atmospheric pollutants. Vehicle exhaust fumes are another and more universal factor in respiratory disease, - and brain damage in children; but except in certain weather conditions they're mostly invisible to us. The only campaigning against car drivers we hear are on the grounds of traffic congestion, not pulmonary congestion.

And it doesn't matter whether you're a driver, a passenger on public transport, a cylist or pedestrian, - if you commute to work in slow moving traffic (what other kind is there ?) you're getting a daily overdose of killer emissions.

But I suppose as there is no opt-out it's OK to kill each other this way ? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Greybeard
Perhaps....but so do other atmospheric pollutants. Vehicle exhaust fumes are another and more universal factor in respiratory disease, - and brain damage in children; but except in certain weather conditions they're mostly invisible to us. The only campaigning against car drivers we hear are on the grounds of traffic congestion, not pulmonary congestion.

And it doesn't matter whether you're a driver, a passenger on public transport, a cylist or pedestrian, - if you commute to work in slow moving traffic (what other kind is there ?) you're getting a daily overdose of killer emissions.

But I suppose as there is no opt-out it's OK to kill each other this way ? :rolleyes:

Soem peopel have no choice but to use their cars. My family is one as I have three disabled children its the only way for us to get about.

You do not NEED to smoke ciggys!!!

Jubby

Originally posted by Greybeard
Has anyone thought to ask Gordon Brown what he thinks of the idea ? A ban on council tenants smoking would likely make a significant dent in his annual revenue. Perhaps it should be the other way round and council tenants who don't smoke should have to pay an additional tax to compensate for the tobacco duty and VAT they're not contributing to Mr. Brown's coffers ? ;)

And why should council staff enjoy a safer, legally enforcible, working environment than bar staff. Do bar staff have to sign a disclaimer that they accept the risks of other people smoking in their workplace ?

I think it's about time bar staff got together and thought about a class action against their employers. The drinks industry would be falling over themselves to ban smoking in their pubs and clubs.

Don't know abot recent times but when I worked in bars no you didn't sign a form accepting that you may die from working there.

When I worked there it was a choice I took same if I want to go to a night club I have to accept that my wife will need her Asthma spray at some point in the night becuase smokers. Lots of them.

There should be a non smoking enviroment in pubs and restruants, cafe's etc. Give the non smoker the choice.

The smoker always has the choice wheater to light up or the only choice a non-smoker has is wheter to stay in that outlet.

BTW the bus station in town is a lot better now the smoking ban is in place.

I remembered when i worked for Midland Mainline Customer Services. People complaining becuase it was all non smoking, there journey was 2 hours on aveage. If you can't last 2 hours without a fag then you have a serious problem.

Jubby

but getting back to the case in point, since you aren't forced into peoples homes at gun point (well not often i presume) whether they smoke inside their rented council accomodation will have no affect on your lungs... So what right have you to interfere in how they spend their disposable income?

Originally posted by jubby
Don't know abot recent times but when I worked in bars no you didn't sign a form accepting that you may die from working there.

When I worked there it was a choice I took same if I want to go to a night club I have to accept that my wife will need her Asthma spray at some point in the night becuase smokers. Lots of them.

There should be a non smoking enviroment in pubs and restruants, cafe's etc. Give the non smoker the choice.

The smoker always has the choice wheater to light up or the only choice a non-smoker has is wheter to stay in that outlet.

BTW the bus station in town is a lot better now the smoking ban is in place.

I remembered when i worked for Midland Mainline Customer Services. People complaining becuase it was all non smoking, there journey was 2 hours on aveage. If you can't last 2 hours without a fag then you have a serious problem.

Jubby

I think there should be smoking and non-smoking pubs and clubs (I'm all for banning smoking in all restaurants) if so many people want to go to non-smoking places (or so it would seem) then these places will thrive and eventually all the smoking places will go bankrupt.
But is that what will happen ?

Originally posted by Geoff
Here's an interesting concept, courtesy of Nick Margerrison* - should they ban smoking in council houses? This, as with the smoking ban on pubs in Ireland, would theoretically help reduce the number of people smoking. Many private landlords now request non-smokers due to the smell and increased fire-risk potential, so why shouldn't the council too?

Post your comments and be sure to vote on the poll above.


* You'll find Nick on Hallam FM 11-1am, Sun-Thurs ;) Just landed on this thread, Geof smoking in pubs in Ireland has only been banned in Dublin and the pubs I Went in,, Wicklow the smoking ban was un existant.
Just thought I'd correct you.:rant:

Originally posted by Cycleracer
Just landed on this thread, Geof smoking in pubs in Ireland has only been banned in Dublin and the pubs I Went in,, Wicklow the smoking ban was un existant.
Just thought I'd correct you.:rant:

The ban applies to all workplaces in Eire. If they don't observe the ban in particular pubs then they are breaking the law. There has been at least one successful prosecution in Wicklow:

Forest on line - the Irish smoking ban (http://www.forestonline.org.uk/output/Page129.asp)

I've given you ten great reasons why smoking in Council houses should be banned. The only reason people are arguing against this idea is because they do not care about the health of the working classes.

It's disgusting to see such horrible class hatred on this site. You should all be ashamed.

However it's good to see that most people are voting yes on the poll above.

NM

Come on now this is going too far,as a ex smoker I am all in favour of banning smoking in public places but what you do in your own home is not hurting anyone but yourself.
If you are going to ban it in your own home then where do the addicts go next?

Originally posted by royjames
Come on now this is going too far,as a ex smoker I am all in favour of banning smoking in public places but what you do in your own home is not hurting anyone but yourself.
If you are going to ban it in your own home then where do the addicts go next?


Smoking also damages the property, what will we do when all the immigrants and asylum seekers ask for it to be repainted.... oh my.... help:help:

Originally posted by Nicholarse


However it's good to see that most people are voting yes on the poll above.


Yes 25 38.46%
No 33 50.77%


Wouldn't quite class that as most.

anyways.....

How are we going to enforce this non-smoking council enviroment?
increased rents?

you say that "Cut down the ammount of littering on council estates." (for somebody who likes to spell correctly etc, it is amount. but let's not get in to that)
if people don't smoke in there houses, won't this increase the littering outside, as they are still allowed to smoke there, or are we just banning smoking in all council estates?

You also state "It's disgusting to see such horrible class hatred on this site. You should all be ashamed."
You're the one that is trying to make a divide between the people, with your idiotic views! Which i really don't think you agree with, it's just you try and get a reaction from people, it works, and for that reason you are good at your job in that respect,

Good luck with your "idea"

you gave us 10 half assed reasons is what you meant to say surely?
And class hate, please, you seem to be the one who has an axe to grind suggesting that we have the right to interfere in the lives of people living in council houses.

Originally posted by Nicholarse
I've given you ten great reasons why smoking in Council houses should be banned. The only reason people are arguing against this idea is because they do not care about the health of the working classes.

It's disgusting to see such horrible class hatred on this site. You should all be ashamed.

However it's good to see that most people are voting yes on the poll above.

NM

Originally posted by nick2
Out of interest, does treating smokers actually cost more than they contribute to the treasury as tax on cigarettes ?

And would the additional police cost sorting them out be less than the NHS cost of treatment? Not to mention the cost of supporting the homeless if everyone who smoked in a council house was evicted.

This thread is obviously an attempt to get peoples backs up so that an interesting 'debate' will ensue, but one with little more than a knee-jerk extremist rationale.

Originally posted by Robbie_Lovin
Yes 25 38.46%
No 33 50.77%

You're the one that is trying to make a divide between the people, with your idiotic views!

Nonsense! I'm trying to SAVE LIVES with this campaign. What are you doing? Defending civil liberties? Don't make me laugh.

NM

you must be already having a laugh right. You make some spurious claim to be aiming to save lives with a half baked idea and then dismiss the counter argument of civil liberties.
Why not go on a crusade to stop bungee jumping, rock climbing, crossing the road, eating too much, and any other number of risky activities whilst you're at it.
At the end of your campaign, when we are wrapped in cotton wool and have given up the right to do anything that the government don't approve of we'll all be better off right, right?

Originally posted by Nicholarse
Nonsense! I'm trying to SAVE LIVES with this campaign. What are you doing? Defending civil liberties? Don't make me laugh.

NM

Probably best not to let yourself get too wound up by the sort of talk radio host whose style of argument is the verbal equivalent of spitting into the wind...

You're but a wind-up merchant, NM, and certainly no Tommy Boyd :(

Originally posted by Cyclone

Why not go on a crusade to stop bungee jumping, rock climbing, crossing the road, eating too much, and any other number of risky activities whilst you're at it.


You could turn that argument the other way round... As you are trying to defend the "right" to inflict cancer on other people, why not go on a crusade to bring in the "right" to do other things that injure other people? After all, apparently everything dangerous should be legal until ALL dangerous things are made illegal! But surely you have to start somewhere?

you obviously haven't read any of the other threads on smoking, or even taken that much notice of this one.
We are talking about people smoking in their own home. If you take a look at the thread on banning smoking in public buildings then you'll find that i support it (as i don't smoke and hate the smell). So i'm defending the right for people to injure themselves in whatever way they like (especially when they more than pay for their own treatment) when it doesn't hurt anyone else, but I would oppose the right of people to potentially injure someone else.

Originally posted by Patchy
You could turn that argument the other way round... As you are trying to defend the "right" to inflict cancer on other people, why not go on a crusade to bring in the "right" to do other things that injure other people? After all, apparently everything dangerous should be legal until ALL dangerous things are made illegal! But surely you have to start somewhere?

Originally posted by Cyclone
We are talking about people smoking in their own home. If you take a look at the thread on banning smoking in public buildings then you'll find that i support it (as i don't smoke and hate the smell).

But it could be argued that smoking in council houses where children are present, as in a lot of council houses, is worse than smoking in public places where people can leave if someone lights up. Children are forced to live with their parent's smoke.

Originally posted by jubby
Soem peopel have no choice but to use their cars.

who?

Originally posted by Nicholarse
Nonsense! I'm trying to SAVE LIVES with this campaign. What are you doing? Defending civil liberties? Don't make me laugh.

NM

Where do i sign up for this campaign??

Or is there not actually A campaign to sign up for?

You bring up a silly idea, and nothing will be done about it.
Fair enough, i agree that smoking should not have to be endured by people who do not smoke!

I would love a smoke free world, but it's never going to happen.

I think Eire have done a good thing in banning smoking in public area's! But to say somebody can not do it in there own home is taking a bit far to be honest!

So with your "campaign" to save lives, why are you stopping at council homes and not going on to all homes?

After reading the thread and posts therein I have had a good laugh..
First of all! the whole concept of banning smoking in council houses is ridiculouse and would be impossible to police.
If someone is paying for rented accomodation....whether council or otherwise...they have a right to smoke if they so wish to.

To bring in a ban for health reasons is fair comment but where will it stop?
The banning of having alchohol at home, The banning of computers with CRT screens and televisions as they give out radiation......
As far as smoking making a home smell unclean!....what about spicy foods where the aroma tends to linger on for ages.
Onions, Garlic!

What next??? a dietition that goes to your home and tells you hat you can and cannot eat as it is unhealthy.

Fact.....Unhealthy eating and lifestyles has so far taken more lives through coronary heart disease than cancers caused directly from smoking....
Thats why there is a very big concern about obesity

Originally posted by DerekH
.........Garlic!


Garlic Bread.....!!??!! :suspect:

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
Garlic Bread.....!!??!! :suspect:
Well!... makes yer breath unhealthy to others!!!!lmao

Originally posted by Patchy
But it could be argued that smoking in council houses where children are present, as in a lot of council houses.

Because everyone knows the children of private home owners will be away at boarding school :0)

along with burberry, base-ball caps, ghetto gold and cheap nylon clothing!

Originally posted by nick2
Because everyone knows the children of private home owners will be away at boarding school :0)

No, not quite all of them! But many private landlords ban smoking, so it is just as reasonable to suggest the possibility of social landlords doing too.

I also think it should be made illegal to smoke in an enclosed place where children are present, including cars. Even if it isn't totally policeable, it should still be made illegal, just like other things that are not totally policeable such as kids buying cigarettes, and burglaries etc.

Originally posted by DerekH

If someone is paying for rented accomodation....whether council or otherwise...they have a right to smoke if they so wish to.


If someone is paying for rented accomodation, they have entered an agreement with the landlord. If the landlord forbids smoking inside the house (more and more common these days) then I'm afraid that no matter how much they wish to, they aren't allowed to smoke without risking the landlord coming round with a change of locks. Smoking is a privilege, not a right.

If it's that desparate get one with a window in the roof and smoke in the loft. It'll be just like a little chimney ;)

what are your thoughts on rented properties such as flats, where the smoke from chain-smoking neighbours can have adverse effects on the health of non-smokers and those with asthma?

Is it right the a smokers selfish behaviour should be inflicted on those not related and not living with them?

Why only Council houses ?
Surely when a smoker in a private house sends his "Mon Repos " up the swanee , the Fire Brigade are still called out , insurance costs are increased and people's lives are put at risk. Oh Dear.
And why stop at smoking ? Geoff , the Chip -pan Brigade don't pay much into the national coffers via the chip - pan but at least smokers do pay for their health treatment and lots of other people's too . Apart from all the other dangeous activities that have been mentioned on the thread , a nasty activity that could be banned could be D.I.Y and excess gardening.
Really it would be much better if they banned more or less everything and then the Great British Public could do what they've always secretly dreamed of doing-----sitting in a big fat chair , eating a big fat cream-cake and watching Des O'Connor on Daytime T.V . followed by repeats of Big Brother.

I expect DIY is not allowed in a council house, you can't randomly knock down walls in something you don't own and following the logic neither should you be able to stain the ceiling brown.
In your own house you pay your own insurance. You can do pretty much whatever you like including staining the ceiling or even painting it if you really want too.

Originally posted by Fareast
Why only Council houses ?
Surely when a smoker in a private house sends his "Mon Repos " up the swanee , the Fire Brigade are still called out , insurance costs are increased and people's lives are put at risk. Oh Dear.
And why stop at smoking ? Geoff , the Chip -pan Brigade don't pay much into the national coffers via the chip - pan but at least smokers do pay for their health treatment and lots of other people's too . Apart from all the other dangeous activities that have been mentioned on the thread , a nasty activity that could be banned could be D.I.Y and excess gardening.
Really it would be much better if they banned more or less everything and then the Great British Public could do what they've always secretly dreamed of doing-----sitting in a big fat chair , eating a big fat cream-cake and watching Des O'Connor on Daytime T.V . followed by repeats of Big Brother.

Originally posted by max

How do we police a ban such as this? Do we have sniffer dogs being taken round on a regular/random basis. What about the effect on these sniffer dogs?

Why not gate all the council estates, have them patrolled by sniffer dogs and wardens. Give them day passes if the have to leave to work and have one shop inside the perimeter where they can only buy things that are good for them!

Anyone caught smuggling contraband in can be brought before a jury of their peers before being stoned to death.

Nah! it would never work... we council house "scum" would rebel and take over the city. (oh forgot we already did!)
:hihi:

here's an idea......

for the smokers among us.... a brilliant new invention...

the smoke bubblomatic

basically you get a silicon fish bowl slightly bigger than human head sized with a vacuum hose attached, you put the lit cigarette into the hose and seal it up....place the bowl over your head and inhale to your hearts delight (or not)

then we wouldn't have to suffer the dreadful smell :gag: and secondary smoke inhalation and you could smoke all you like ;) sounds like a plan!


Can you tell I don't smoke? lol

and before the smart alecs chime in, i realise that plastics melt, it's in its infant stage of development.

it wouldn't be a policing matter, the same way tenants aren't arrested for not paying rent, it's also nothing to do with health, it's abour protecting the councils property.

Originally posted by fox20thc
Why not gate all the council estates, have them patrolled by sniffer dogs and wardens. Give them day passes if the have to leave to work and have one shop inside the perimeter where they can only buy things that are good for them!

Anyone caught smuggling contraband in can be brought before a jury of their peers before being stoned to death.

Nah! it would never work... we council house "scum" would rebel and take over the city. (oh forgot we already did!)
:hihi:

But everyone seems to smoke in c. houses so if you banned smoking there would me no more need for them as everyone could aford to buy a house with the money they saved on fags/dope - or perhaps not and they'd just have even more children instead.

The problem is at our house the next door neighbours dont just smoke tobacco:suspect: our house fills up with smoke .On summer days we can not even open the doors or windows as the smoke drifts in especially in the bedroom .As my wife suffers with asthma its no joke.(God knows what effect it has on their little five year old girl,we often hear her coughing like a 40 a day smoker.I know some people dont think it is a problem ,but when you experience it it is very unpleasant. I cannot very well go and tell them to stop smoking ..that is up to them and I dont want to be a killjoy ,but when their habbit affects other people it is not on.:rant: I wonder if any others have a smilar problem So when anyone passes it off as a "joke"just think on.....

I don't see a problem with this - as an ex-smoker I can see both sides of the argument but would agree to accept a complete ban in public buildings and property....why???

Well, I live in private housing but I chose not to smoke in my own home...mainly due to the passive smoking concerns to my children and hubby but also the nicotine/chemical particles stain walls, curtains everything they come into contact with...and of course there is the smell!! It didn't hurt to pop outside for 5 minutes!

Smoking is an addiction but you can program your mind to only smoke at certain times.....I used to be able to smoke at work then they announced it was to become a no smoking building...the smokers moaned/groaned at the time but now the smokers just accept it.

It is another step closer to a total ban but inevitably that day will come.... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Geoff
Here's an interesting concept, courtesy of Nick Margerrison* - should they ban smoking in council houses? This, as with the smoking ban on pubs in Ireland, would theoretically help reduce the number of people smoking. Many private landlords now request non-smokers due to the smell and increased fire-risk potential, so why shouldn't the council too?

Post your comments and be sure to vote on the poll above.


* You'll find Nick on Hallam FM 11-1am, Sun-Thurs ;)
good topic, i think they should ban after all they dont own houses. would seriously benefit peoples health, less likely to smoke infront of kids, would cut them down smokin as they get shoved on front step to smoke, would be less likely to have to visit hosp,doc and less likely to die. so yes, ban it
not sure about in clubs. bars though - maybe just better air conditioning or something

I think I'm right in saying that a lot of 'council' houses are now owned by private landlords/associations?

I suppose it is up to each landlord to dictate the requirements of renting out their accommodation.

Where the council are the landlords, they can (and do) have a range of terms and conditions as part of the tenancy agreement, just as they do for pets etc.

I don't see a problem with some accommodation being designated non-smoking - particularly flats where the fire risk to others is higher. Prospective tenants could then indicate their preference for smoking or non-smoking.

Having just spent 2 weeks in California which is notoriously anti-smoking I was surprised to find lots of large smoking/ashtray bins every couple of yards to accomodate the smokers who are not allowed to smoke inside or within 20ft of a public doorway. and was equally surprised how few people actually smoked - so the ban must have had some impact on reducing smoking.

If smoking is so bad for our health why don't the Government go the whole hog and make it illegal? Well, because they can't afford to for a start, but that's another topic.

Don't worry...Blair and his nanny state will probably get around to banning smoking in council houses sometime or later ...they want to regulate everything else - why not council homes?

NEWS FLASH------20-11-07
---------------------------------

Police today stormed a Sheffield Council house at dawn and arrested two pensioners who are believed to have been smoking cigarettes and for the possession of tobacco.Two police helicopters were on the scene but were not needed.
A neighbour , Mrs. Smugchops said , "It's time those two were locked away. Children have to pass that house and God knows how it has affected those little mites."
A police Spokesman said,
" As far as we're concerned , it's zero-tolerance for the Evil Smokers of Sheffield.Now that all hard drugs are legal , we can devote even more manpower to stamping out this wickedness in the midst of our society. On the other hand we are applying to the government for more funding now that pubs everywhere are open 24 hours a day. When people are being sick all over Fulwood , it's a sign that binge-drinking has got out of hand.
Yes , crimes of violence have increased by 10% every year but don't forget that we have issued more ASBO's and we are beginning to tackle this problem. Only last week we had a conference about this in Montego Bay ".
'

:clap: :hihi: well done Fareast u put a smile on my face. just the image of 2 old pensioner being attacked by a swat team seems to make me laugh :loopy:

I am slightly amazed at myself for giving this sort of tosh any attention whatsoever. And that such a suggestion can go to so many pages amazes me even more. It's nice to know that fascism is not yet dead.

I will post this regardless of the 'poll', as I wish.

Some of you goose-steppers really should get out more.

May the Dag be with you.

NEWS FLASH----20-18-07

----------------------------------
THE TWO PENSIONERS ARRESTED IN LASTWEEK'S POLICE RAID HAVE BOTH PLEADED , "NOT GUILTY "

Mrs. Emmeline Doorstop told the Court ,
" I am not guilty of assulting the coppers. How would you feel if you were sat on the lav at 6. a. m. and the police suddenly broke down your door. ? "
"My husband , Bert was having a quiet smoke when he heard all this noise. He didn't sling an ashtray at the coppers . He dropped it in shock. As for me being charged with using obscene language , well I think anyone is entitled to tell them to f **k off when they come running up your stairs with Kalashnikovs. "
A Police spokesperson said ,
" These people were potentionally dangerous. Smoke had been seen emanating from their premises. Children were at risk . We had no alternative but to storm the building ".

Originally posted by Geoff
Here's an interesting concept, courtesy of Nick Margerrison* - should they ban smoking in council houses? This, as with the smoking ban on pubs in Ireland, would theoretically help reduce the number of people smoking. Many private landlords now request non-smokers due to the smell and increased fire-risk potential, so why shouldn't the council too?

Post your comments and be sure to vote on the poll above.


* You'll find Nick on Hallam FM 11-1am, Sun-Thurs ;)

in private accomadation you get a choice of smoking or non-smoking depending on the landlords preference (but a lot dont like smokers anymore..)

So perhaps some council houses should be non-smoking. And some smoking. Just like the private sector.

Originally posted by Robbie_Lovin
W

I think Eire have done a good thing in banning smoking in public area's! But to say somebody can not do it in there own home is taking a bit far to be honest!



is it? As a society we have made it illegal to smoke/inject/ingest many substances int he privacy of your own home. Why is tobacco so special? (apart from all the tax Gordon gets from it of course...)

Originally posted by panda79
illness caused by smoking is a huge waste of NHS resources.


so are
climbers
certain women using abortion as a form of contreception
persons using ambulances as a taxi service
im sure theres a few other examples of of nhs resources been wasted:o :o :o

So are the morons that stagger into the A & E department every weekend after getting tanked up and throw bottles at each other.

Originally posted by Nicholarse
I've given you ten great reasons why smoking in Council houses should be banned. The only reason people are arguing against this idea is because they do not care about the health of the working classes.

It's disgusting to see such horrible class hatred on this site. You should all be ashamed.

However it's good to see that most people are voting yes on the poll above.

NM

Its a known fact that this forum thrives on hatred towards others,be it class where you live or the job you do.

Nicholarse to be honest I would worry for your health if you went round some of the estates in sheffield telling people they have to give up smoking or be evicted!

Potential problems:
Enforcement
Waste of police time/limited resources
Waste of court time
Cleaner air

Well , nightrider , yes , the tax does go to Gordon at first.
Then maybe 1/5 of it is spent on smoking -related illnesses and 4/5 on other things------and yet , you non-smokers don't appreciate how much us smokers are doing for this wonderful country of ours.
Everytime one of your neighbours goes for a hip-replacement thank that other neighbour of yours , the poor b*gger lighting his fag up in the garden because his wife wont let him light up in the house.
Who knows , one day they might be able to give out"tolerance "jabs , courtesy of Britains smoking martyrs. !

This thread has now made me think,I live in a council house and I work for a living,I dont steal things,dont take drugs,dont race my car (yes I do own one) round the streets,dont annoy my neighbours with loud music and verbal abuse.
I pay my rent and council tax as and when required and all my bills are paid on time.
My family are happy and I am Happy,but now this thread and many others like it,have made me realise Im obviously not living life to the full and Im missing out on so many great things that happen to us scummy council estate urchins,,,,,spare some change sir.

Just imagine if there were no council estates,what the hell would this forum talk about,so we are doing you a service just by being here.

You would have to resort to such major issues such as,please find a name for my kitten,Its sunday should we have pork or beef?,should I drink bitter or lager,Oh and not forgetting should we ban council house dwellers from this forum,due to the fact they shouldnt be allowed to own a pc as they are obviously undertaking some illegal activity to fund its use.

Yes you guessed it I dont give a toss if people smoke in council houses.

if you paid a private landlord for a house they'd be perfectly within their rights to tell you not to smoke.
Why is the council different, they own the house, not you.

Originally posted by tango2
This thread has now made me think,I live in a council house and I work for a living,I dont steal things,dont take drugs,dont race my car (yes I do own one) round the streets,dont annoy my neighbours with loud music and verbal abuse.
I pay my rent and council tax as and when required and all my bills are paid on time.
My family are happy and I am Happy,but now this thread and many others like it,have made me realise Im obviously not living life to the full and Im missing out on so many great things that happen to us scummy council estate urchins,,,,,spare some change sir.

Just imagine if there were no council estates,what the hell would this forum talk about,so we are doing you a service just by being here.

You would have to resort to such major issues such as,please find a name for my kitten,Its sunday should we have pork or beef?,should I drink bitter or lager,Oh and not forgetting should we ban council house dwellers from this forum,due to the fact they shouldnt be allowed to own a pc as they are obviously undertaking some illegal activity to fund its use.

Yes you guessed it I dont give a toss if people smoke in council houses.

Whether Cyclone's legal observation is correct or not , I think what he said just about sums up what is wrong in Britain today.
I'm sure millions of people suffer from the C.F.S.---Control Freak's Syndrome. They must have their fix of rules and regulations. They feel very uneasy if no-one is telling them what to do or if they , in turn , can't tell other people what to do.
Such people feel very insecure in a state of freedom and tend to gnash their teeth and froth at the mouth if they see people enjoying themselves------especially if that enjoyment could possibly cause any danger , whatsoever.Their dreams are filled with offices and desks and computers and statistics and officials continually dreaming up yet more legislation.This could all be down to potty training [in both senses of the word ] or the preponderance of women teachers who have mothered them for the last 30 years. Who knows how such disorders originate ?
As for the legal side , I must admit I'm not sure how it stands but the Council have never really had money of their own [as a private landlord does ] It is all derived from taxpayers , one way or another. So , it may be that they only "supervise" Council lets ; or maybe it's in their trust ?
In which case they would be on thin ice , legally , if they began telling their tenants how to run their lives.
Lastly , now that Europe is concerned with a lot of our legislation , the "human rights " issue may complicate the legal position. Legal expert needed!

"The Council" is essentially us - the citizen. The Council only manages our affairs for us, they employ the people to do the day to day work and we elect people to oversee that the work gets done in accordance with the ideals (manifesto) that were presented to the electorate annually by each party.

I know that probably seems like an over-simplification, but in essence that is what is actually happening. So I can't see "The Council" ever being in a position to implement a ban on smoking in council (private) homes, even the most zealous housing officer wouldn't get something like that past elected members, I'm sure.

btw I see we women are getting the blame again for some bloke's mad ideas (i.e. Nichelarse, some radio presenter or another) This time it's women teachers "mothering" people. Of course we all know that everything bad that happens anywhere, some woman is to blame for it :P

that's a good point, the council could be considered to 'own' the houses on trust from the populace.
And as with everything else that they handle and own for us, they have a duty to take care of it. That includes reasonable steps to protect housing from the tenants. I wouldn't let a house to a smoker, it damages the house. Neither would I give them permission to knock holes in walls or otherwise damage it.

I don't think this is issue is specifically about the habit, it's about damage to property that the tenants don't own.
They shouldn't be allowed a bonfire in the living room either, would you argue that it's a private house so it's up to them how they choose to keep warm?

I don't see how smoking a cigarette damages property. It might make the curtains smell or stain the ceiling a bit but strong aromatic cooking makes everything smell and people often have accidents and make stains. Can any organisation make provision to control the minutae of everyday life ? Well , I suppose the Control Freaks would say "yes" !
As for major structural changes and building fires in the front room-----well people have done crazy things in their own homes , privately rented property and council property and there are already laws in place concerning reckless criminal behaviour------but how on earth can anyone prevent it or predict who is going to set fire to their living room or do likewise ? You'd have to have a full-blown Mental Health report every time you rented or sold property ! Again . the Control Freaks would probably welcome this too.
Fires ? How many are caused by cooking misadventures , electrical faults or other non-smoking causes ?
Give the Coucil a break-----they can't even look after the basics properly in Sheffield , never mind spying on council tenants.

smoking leaves nicotine and tar staining every surface in the house.
Cooking is confined to the kitchen (which has none porous paint and thus can be washed clean).
Other accidental stains are to be expected, but there's a clear difference between something accidental and a habit which causes long term damage.

Rubydazzler:-

I do honestly think that society has become more feminised over the last 30 years and that this has obviously been due to the influence of women in various ways.
There are many , many more 1 parent families these days and the parent in charge of everyday life is usually the mother. Men teachers are very scarce on the ground in Primary education and one could argue that those years are the most important in forming a person's personality. More and more women have moved to important positions in the D.for E. & E.and thus influence decision making and then the rules at Primary level are in turn interpreted by a woman teacher.
I'm sure this has led to a more timid approach to life in general than used to be the case. Not that fathers are blameless ! Even the ones who are actually present have to a great extent abdicated their role as advisors and models for their children.Nowadays both parents are often too busy or slumped in front of the telly and don't even talk to their kids much , let alone go out with them or explain that life can be fun , adventurous ----and yes , sometimes dangerous. Instead of climbing trees , socialising or building dens and so on . a lot of kids are glued to the box or killing frogs or something on their computers.
All this has worked its way , gradually , through the system , until today we've got a Nanny State , filled with Control Freaks who are strangling the natural exuberance of all children. More and more petty , silly laws are passed and a sad imbalance has been created.
I'm sure women deserve equal pay with men and should be absolutely equal under the law but I wish they hadn't taken control of our social lives too !

Cyclone,

Your replies seem to get more desperate by the minute !
Have you ever actually visited a house where they cook ? Does everyone shut their kitchen doors when cooking ? What about studio flats and open -plan ?
When I visit a friend's house who smokes , yes , I can smell the smoke but I 've never seen tar round the place ! People do have ashtrays. I've lived in flats for years and truly never seen a ceiling really badly stained. In the pubs where that is evident , I'm sure it occurs where dozens of people have been smoking for years and years and the Landlord has never bothered cleaning the ceiling
The way you described a smoker's residence , you would think you'd visited a fiery dungeon.
You keep saying the Council "own " council houses. This doesn't appear to be the case at all. They manage them on behalf of the citizens and , you may not believe this but smokers are amongst those citizens and have actually paid , some of them , many times over the value of the property they rent----not to mention more than their fair share of the Health bill , via the tax on cigarettes .

I thought we were just discussing the issue. If you can't be bothered to carry on doing so in a civilised manner just say so.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and reply to your points this time.

Unsurprisingly I have seen houses where people cook. I actually live in one!!! You are right that we don't close the kitchen door, but we do use the extractor and obviously having a wall between the rooms restricts airflow even when the door is open. The hot air from cooking rises up to the ceiling which is at least a foot above the top of the doorway.
I've no idea what asktrays have to do with tar, tar is part of the smoke, not the ash.
My grandparents used to smoke, and i've seen the colour of the ceiling in comparison to white as it's repainted.

I've only stuck to the point about damaging the property because it's the only argument for it. If it really didn't cause a problem then I doubt you'd find many private landlords specifying non smoking tenants, but you do, at least according to earlier posts in this thread.

Maybe you ignored the post where I accepted your point about the council only owning on trust. I will continue to refer to owning though as it's far easier than saying holding the asset on trust to the citizens, is that okay with you?

Most people paying rent in time will have paid more than the value of the property, so what? If they didn't want to do that they should have bought somewhere and paid a mortgage instead.
The health bill is a completely seperate point, and I agree that they already pay their share (more than in fact) via the tax on cigarettes.

Well I'll try to cover the points made.
I should think a lot of council tenants ended up in council houses throuigh no choice of their own . Some were allocated the houses after slum clearance. Where else were they expected to live ? Also , not everyone is able to get a mortgage , for one reason or another and years ago , council houses were comparitavely cheap to pay for and there was nowhere nearly enough private housing stock to go round anyway. A lot of today's tenants have probably inherited their houses from parents.
Yes , I was wrong about tar and what I meant was when I go to someone's house who smokes , I'm not sort of overwhelmed with smells , fumes or whatever. Yes , there is a smell of smoke but I still maintain that not everybody is as fastidious about cooking smells as others may be. So , these days you are as likely to get "hit" by one as by the other.
Private landlords are sometimes reluctant , nowadays , to let to smokers , partly , I suppose because the insurance premiums go up . I'm not saying that smoking never carries any risks but there are all kinds of risks in the house. What about the drunk who falls asleep with a towel near an open fire ? The forgetful one who overloads an electrical socket ? Clumsy people ? Children ? It just seems to me in the realms of fantasy that anyone would want to ban these things in a house , let alone enforcing it !
Life is full of misadventures and potential accidents and I would maintain that it's absolutely impractical to legislate against danger , unless you create the ultimate Nanny State-----semolina and bed at 7 p.m.

I guess it all comes down to the perceived level of damage caused by 10 years of smoking in a house. (10 years is just an example).

Private landlords can and do refuse to take families and people with pets. I wouldn't expect or want the council to take a similar stance, that would be ridiculous.

I'm pretty much against state interference in the personal deliberate exposure to something risky. Afterall I take part in a risky activity twice a week. Yesterday I was cut by a live knife after blocking the arm of my attacker a little too hard, a useful learning experience.

The thing that makes this different is that the risk isn't to the individual, it's to property that they don't own.
If we disagree about the level of damage done then I think we should probably agree to disagree as that's what it all hinges on.

Well , I do admit to being a bit defensive about smoking.
I honestly feel that smokers are being bullied and that other social problems are winked at , ignored or sometimes even lauded !
I know that smoking does affect my health ----and pocket ---but I can truthfully say that I don't have any other major vices----too old , anyway. When I began smoking , it , too was glamourised in films and advertisements.
Now it seems that if there's one thing that a lot of people REALLY hate---it's smoking and , again , I honestly wonder sometimes if it's a Class thing----I suppose that made me doubly defensive about this particular topic !

Well,
I think you will all know where my sympathy's lie.
I live on a council estate, and I smoke profusely. I also drink quite often. I can look out of my window (Top Flat), and often see two or three blokes standing in their garden or patio, in the evening (Winter too) having a couple of fags.
I never know if it is their concience or their wives that prickles. As for council or benefit visitors, - - well I never invite them, so I drink and chain smoke to get rid of them. I never visit them, because I cannot stand sitting around in a disease ridden waiting room, and to go outside for a smoke is to lose your place in the never diminishing queue.
Thankfully, these days I can do most thing via the internet, so I don't have to suffer on the non smoking buses or trams. I can even obtain tobacco from the net (Cheap), though according to the latest government propogander I am releasing arsenic and other "Toxins" into the air.
I know a bit about HSE in the workplace, and it is the duty of the employer to equip their employees with PPE. (Personal Protective Equipment). Something like the anti-biological warfare suits the army got, or didn't get, in Iraq, would be appropriate. After all I was once visited by two ladies from the DSS - ON AN INVESTIGATION - They arrived unannounced at 08-30am - - both dressed in long black leather coats, both very anti-male (If you get my drift). I have been interrogated by security forces in Tchad, Dar es salaam, Egypt, Saudi, Oman, Libya, and Algeria in my time, and that was kid gloves stuff against these two. They were both very concerned when I proceeded to chain smoke, and get so squiffy I couldn't read or sign the statement they had drafted without my permission. Each to their own methods! Mine worked - they never came back
By the way - - I'm quite poor, but all my bills are paid and I cook like a top flight chef, so neither the nicotine - toxins - or booze has got to my faculties yet.
An Englishmans home is his castle (I said home)
I harm no one. I live alone - and any welcome visitors know my habits.
The previous occupants of my flat were druggies, as patches over previous holes in the walls, and the disasterous state of the kitchen when I moved in were still evident.
By the way, before the ever present teeny boppers jump in - - I have a degree in Land Survey - Geophysics - and Seismology
Cheers
Sheffco

Originally posted by Fareast
I do honestly think that society has become more feminised over the last 30 years and that this has obviously been due to the influence of women in various ways.
(edited this extremely long post for brevity)
I'm sure this has led to a more timid approach to life in general than used to be the case. .... until today we've got a Nanny State , filled with Control Freaks who are strangling the natural exuberance of all children. More and more petty , silly laws are passed and a sad imbalance has been created.
I'm sure women deserve equal pay with men and should be absolutely equal under the law but I wish they hadn't taken control of our social lives too !

you've made me laugh now .... do you actually know any women, Fareast ... I mean real ones!
So what you're trying to tell us is that all civil servant's mothers (and their teachers in prep school) are to blame for the laws that all these men think up? interesting theory .... Go and have a fag and stop blathering .... :D

no, sill idea. We live in a democracy and that would be like saying "so you are poor. You have to do what the government (or Geoff0 tell you.

Maybe we should ban extramarital pr pre-marital sex in council houses as well? :heyhey:

You lot make me laugh
Been nowhere - done nothing - and a lot of you never will do.
What is all the cr-p about council houses? and the deprived society?
I was born in a council house on the arbourthorn - - went on to work my ar-e off in the steel works and tinsley wire - - joined the army to get out of the rut, and never looked back.
Have lived on millionaires row in South Africa - stayed at the George V in Paris - and countless hiltons and sheratons around airports. Earned more than the prime minister at one time, and been broke more than a few times (Divorce is expensive).
Here we are talkingabout the ethics of depriving the "Poor" of one of the few pleasures left to man. TOBACCO - John Reid - the labour bleater for health, admitted that his poor old mum enjoyed a smoke - - snuff too no doubt. I'm sure her ceiling will be re-decorated.
You snivellers out there should get you values right.
When you have earned it, you have the right to complain.
I intend staying in my tobacco ridden flat til they carry me out.
The last smoke - - crematorium chimney mates.
Ive done my bit - payed for my habit - criticsise me when youve done your bit.

Originally posted by sheffco
You lot make me laugh
Been nowhere - done nothing - and a lot of you never will do.
What is all the cr-p about council houses? and the deprived society?
I was born in a council house on the arbourthorn - - went on to work my ar-e off in the steel works and tinsley wire - - joined the army to get out of the rut, and never looked back.
Have lived on millionaires row in South Africa - stayed at the George V in Paris - and countless hiltons and sheratons around airports. Earned more than the prime minister at one time, and been broke more than a few times (Divorce is expensive).
Here we are talkingabout the ethics of depriving the "Poor" of one of the few pleasures left to man. TOBACCO - John Reid - the labour bleater for health, admitted that his poor old mum enjoyed a smoke - - snuff too no doubt. I'm sure her ceiling will be re-decorated.
You snivellers out there should get you values right.
When you have earned it, you have the right to complain.
I intend staying in my tobacco ridden flat til they carry me out.
The last smoke - - crematorium chimney mates.
Ive done my bit - payed for my habit - criticsise me when youve done your bit.

Well said that man :D

If you did that virtually all of the housing stock would be empty, how many families consist constantly and entirely of non smokers?

I Do think anything which helps people stop is good, better still stops them starting in the first place. Whats it got to do with their housing though? They pay for decorating and furniture anyway and as for fire risks, there must be lots of those, altho we should ask the firefighters really, theyre the only ones who'd know.

Besides why council house tenants? The fire service is not run by the council is it? And it doesnt serve people according to their housing status either? Surely it should be a question of not allowing smoking in houses. And that would be getting a bit silly.

Maybe all smokers should be firefighters so they are always at the station, where the fire can be put out immediately and someone is always on guard to spot it. The rest of us would be REALLY safe then as there'd be sooo many firefighters sitting about smoking and waiting for a fire to put out!

Time I went to bed, brain is turning to jelly now.

heres a great solution. a total ban on smoking everywhere in the entire country. anyone wanting to smoke can go and live in iraq. i think that would make most people give up.

Rubydazzler , well , you've simplified what I said so much , you've changed the meaning .
The point I made was that in the past 30 years there has been much more of a feminine influence in our society. Men have become much less masculine in the sense that a lot of them don't play the role of a father and have become in a lot of cases , second mothers-----shopping , pottering about the house.....etc....In lots of households now there IS only a mother. Our Primary schools are dominated by women.
I said that all this had seeped through society and it was the cause of the softening-up of society.
Obviously not all women are nest-builders and not all men spend their leisure time trailing after their wives in D.I.Yourself stores -----but more of them do and I 'm sure it's all contributed to the Nanny State.You're correct in saying a lot of men are Nanny-State regulation freaks-----but who influenced them ?

Originally posted by robbie
no, sill idea. We live in a democracy and that would be like saying "so you are poor. You have to do what the government (or Geoff0 tell you.

Maybe we should ban extramarital pr pre-marital sex in council houses as well? :heyhey:

does pre marital sex damage houses?

I wonder how much the council has to pay to redecorate a house when a family with smokers in it moves out. I'm pretty sure they don't redecorate just before they leave.

The council don't re-decorate council houses. Whe I moved into mine I actually thought the gloss work was magnolia, nah it was fag stains. But hey.. never mind, I needed to put my stamp on the place anyway.

The council inspect properties when tenants leave and bill ex tenant for every little thing they do. My brother (an electrician) upated the plug sockets in his kitchen (changed them all to doubles) they billed him for putting it back.

He put an ariel extension in his bedroom to watch tv, they billed him to remove it.

A neighbour installed a brick fireplace in his living room, they moved out , the council went in an demolished it, sending him the bill.

Our local tenants association are moving premises to free up a large property to be let out. It has laminate flooring and brand new carpeting throughout, they will rip it all out and skip it before they put the house in the property shop.

WORK THAT ONE OUT!

Originally posted by fergal
heres a great solution. a total ban on smoking everywhere in the entire country. anyone wanting to smoke can go and live in iraq. i think that would make most people give up.

Good idea.....and fags are much cheaper in Iraq ;)

But it would leave a big black hole in Gordy Brown's budget.

Originally posted by fox20thc


Our local tenants association are moving premises to free up a large property to be let out. It has laminate flooring and brand new carpeting throughout, they will rip it all out and skip it before they put the house in the property shop.

WORK THAT ONE OUT!

Yep, completely bonkers, but hey I just love being first to find the skip afterwards, sometimes you get brand new stuff! And it sooo good when a good carpet comes out and it fits your house exactly. But then again arent we paying for this nonsense? Spose they have to be sure its all safe etc as landlords, but what a waste.

being a smoker my instincs tell me no, but my common sense tells me yes.
im a smoker, but would be less inclined to smoke knowing that i had to go outside every time to spark up.
just my 2cents :)

[i]How about surveillance vans which have sensitive sniffing capabilities? Do we give the operators enhanced health benefits to counter the greater risk of passive smoking?
. [/B]

There are some interesting issues here……private landlords can insist on non-smokers. But banning smoking in council houses?????....at this time it may be step too far…….but just look just at few years ago smoking was allowed throughout the Town Hall…it was only a few people who stood their ground and insisted that there should be no smoking in council meetings…..then no smoking was allowed in the general work place…so when the smokers needed a fag they left their desk and went outside… meanwhile the non-smokers carried on working.

If the current trend keeps up……the smoking issue will be minimised. Even today’s smokers are aware of what their addicted can do.

Stopping people smoking in their council house is too early….but now it has been broached………..

I wish people would stop using the 'cost to the NHS' argument, it doesn't stand up.

It costs the NHS around £1.5bn a year, but the government takes £9.3bn a year in tobacco duty alone.

So okay, stop everybody smoking and reduce the NHS budget by £1.5bn, and the governments income by £9.3bn. Watch everybody get taxed to death instead (as if we're not already taxed to death).

Then it'll be "cost to NHS of tax related deaths.."

Let people do what the hell they like in their own home so long as it's not illegal.

Smoking tobacco is an addiction - - True
It's an addiction that never leaves you - - True
That's why the most fanatical anti-smokers are people who are struggling to kick the habit, and the rest are just "Holier than thou", killjoys.
Rather the council stopped giving out houses and flats to real drug addicts. These dwellings soon become a focus for all that is bad. They are the focal point for crime in the area.
Do you read about tobacco addicts mugging old ladies for the price of a couple of cigarettes?
Do they prowl the neighbourhood trying to sell shoplifted goods?
Do they stagger around making a disgusting spectacle of themselves, when the only ones they can impress are the 12 to 14 year old kids, who soon join them.
All you well intentioned "Do Gooders" would do better to address yourselves to the real problems on council estates. Thankfully, they don't last long - - evicted for non payment of rent after six months or so - - an expensive re-fit for the property - then a new load of 16 to 20 year olds are moved in.
How do you set a cost on that? NHS, the community, the crime, the courts and policing, the re-hab treatment.
Just leave the poor old guys like me to their simple pleasures.
Tobacco - - a couple of drinks - - and the TV, in my own home.
Non smoking visitors are welcome. Personally, I don't go into non smoking premises.:thumbsup:

Well said , Sheffco !

There are millions of people like you [ I should really say "and me"] who just want to live normal , quiet lives , without bothering a soul.But to hear the anti-smoking brigade , sometimes , you would think we were all mass murderers. O.K. , none of us are perfect in our habits and lifestyles but smokers are vilified and picked upon , it seems to me , much more than any other group.
Meanwhile the real thugs , psychopaths and bone-heads , who make everyone's life a misery , seem to lead charmed lives.I bet if you persistently smoked in an unauthorised place , the authorities would come down on you like a ton of bricks , quickly ! However , car-thieves , thieves in general , vandals and such seem to go to court time after time after time , given bail and finally "punished " by being put into a glorified holiday camp.

Maybe not just Council houses, but the houses of any low income family.

Ludicrous!

crackers, just about impossible to police or enforce or are they going to install cctv in every house and have a grass a smoler up telephone number (freephone of course) :loopy:

When this thread first started back in 1989 it did indeed seem a ludicrous idea. In the current climate you can bet the government would give it serious consideration.....

When this thread first started back in 1989 it did indeed seem a ludicrous idea. In the current climate you can bet the government would give it serious consideration.....

Some employers in the USA make it a requirement that you don't smoke in your own home.

What an absurd idea!!!!!!!
People smoke- get over it
People drink alcohol- get over it
People pee in the shower- get over it

I havent read the full discussion, but as a council tenant (and a non smoker) we have received letters telling us that smoking is not permitted in the houses when any kind of council worker is present in the house.

Never heard owt so stupid to be honest oh hang on over the last 5 years or so i keep hearing stupid nanny pc everyday

why do all the higher classes/middle classes think they have the right to tell the working class whether they can smoke in ther own home, how much they can drink, what they should eat etc

complete lunacy

i bet the same hypocrites are driving round in them 4x4's and flying all over the world each year

People should be allowed to do what they want in their own houses. I do think that long term smokers should have to pay to be treated for related illnesses on the NHS though

everyone should be banned from smoking though? Not just counsil tennants.. everyone, everywhere. banned.



I agree totally! there wouldnt be as many arguments on here either by my reading! To most of the other people on here.... You argue over anyhting! ing. WTF! sort it lo/ !


BAN SMOKING FULL STOP! END OF CHAT LOL x

Well said that man :D


OH MY GOD ive just witnessed somebody agreeing with another person!


WELL DONE RALLY FOR AGREEING WITH sheffco
HARMONY!!!

everyone should be banned from smoking though? Not just counsil tennants.. everyone, everywhere. banned.

Why?

It's their body, let them do what they want with it, you can't have a legal or moral argument against people having self determination.

Follow the banning route and soon you'll be banning dangerous sports, drinking, eating the wrong things and so on.

Do deep fat fryers (etc.) kill as many people or cost as much to the NHS to treat as smoking currently does? Next :rolleyes:


depends on what you think the affect of obesity has on the nhs:hihi::hihi: