Article: Smokers' rights limited

The Supreme Court of Appeal found on Wednesday that the health hazards of smoking outweigh the interests of smokers as a group.

The SCA dismissed an appeal against an order by the North Gauteng High Court brought by British American Tobacco of South Africa (Batsa).

The appeal concerned the proper interpretation of section 3(1) (a) of the Tobacco Products Control Act, as amended by the Tobacco Products Amendment Act, which relates to a prohibition on the promotion and advertising of tobacco products.
 
The article talks about the limitation of the advertising of cigarettes, not the smokers themselves.

Unless you mean the right to view such adverts, but then they are infringing on my rights as well, even though I don't smoke.
 
We are becoming a robot/communist society that is no longer ALLOWED to think for itself.
 
Nah, it's a good thing. You advertise to create a demand. They just allowed to do less manipulation than they would normally do. People will still smoke. They'll just save money not having to have an advertising team here. Win Win.
 
Mach III said:
Nah, it's a good thing. You advertise to create a demand. They just allowed to do less manipulation than they would normally do. People will still smoke. They'll just save money not having to have an advertising team here. Win Win.
Click to expand...

True story ;)
 
rpm said:
The Supreme Court of Appeal found on Wednesday that the health hazards of smoking outweigh the interests of smokers as a group.

The SCA dismissed an appeal against an order by the North Gauteng High Court brought by British American Tobacco of South Africa (Batsa).

The appeal concerned the proper interpretation of section 3(1) (a) of the Tobacco Products Control Act, as amended by the Tobacco Products Amendment Act, which relates to a prohibition on the promotion and advertising of tobacco products.
Click to expand...

probably the most sensible outcome
 
I smoke, but don't care that I don't get advertisements in my face.

This is BAT just wanting to get more scope to rope more people in.

I'm ok with this judgement.
 
Shake&Bake said:
I smoke, but don't care that I don't get advertisements in my face.

This is BAT just wanting to get more scope to rope more people in.

I'm ok with this judgement.
Click to expand...

I don't particularly like advertising in general and don't feel as if this detracts from my rights as a smoker, but I do think this is more nanny state interference from government.
 
Nick333 said:
I don't particularly like advertising in general and don't feel as if this detracts from my rights as a smoker, but I do think this is more nanny state interference from government.
Click to expand...

Seems like the independent judiciary agrees though...

Judge is probably a non-smoker :p
 
Shake&Bake said:
I smoke, but don't care that I don't get advertisements in my face.

This is BAT just wanting to get more scope to rope more people in.

I'm ok with this judgement.
Click to expand...

Agree. I dont mind going outside for a smoke. Prefer it...hate a place that is hazy with smoke and it smells. When you start coming with this BS of not allowed to smoke withing a meter of a entrance...then you pissing me off. I am already outside...what more do you frekking WANT????
 
ocleroux said:
Agree. I dont mind going outside for a smoke. Prefer it...hate a place that is hazy with smoke and it smells. When you start coming with this BS of not allowed to smoke withing a meter of a entrance...then you pissing me off. I am already outside...what more do you frekking WANT????
Click to expand...

Well, I would really like you to smoke in a place I am not forced to walk through. Having to weave through 10 or 15 smokers trying to leave or enter a place really annoys me.

Smokers have a right to smoke, but I also have a right to control my exposure to that smoke.
 
Madman88 said:
Well, I would really like you to smoke in a place I am not forced to walk through. Having to weave through 10 or 15 smokers trying to leave or enter a place really annoys me.

Smokers have a right to smoke, but I also have a right to control my exposure to that smoke.
Click to expand...

I dont smoke in the door of a mall. That would just be stupid. Besides....in cities like Joburg...trust me...my smoke is the least of your worries..specially in winter!
 
ocleroux said:
Agree. I dont mind going outside for a smoke. Prefer it...hate a place that is hazy with smoke and it smells. When you start coming with this BS of not allowed to smoke withing a meter of a entrance...then you pissing me off. I am already outside...what more do you frekking WANT????
Click to expand...

Ja, I'm not the biggest fans of smoking areas.
Even when eating out, I get myself seated in non-smoking areas. I can do without a cig while eating out.

At a pub, its a different story.
Either its a smokers pub or there's a large enough area to pop out for a smoke.
 
Shake&Bake said:
Ja, I'm not the biggest fans of smoking areas.
Even when eating out, I get myself seated in non-smoking areas. I can do without a cig while eating out.

At a pub, its a different story.
Either its a smokers pub or there's a large enough area to pop out for a smoke.
Click to expand...

Restaurants' non-smoking areas are mosly empty, it seems even smokers don't want to eat there. What a waste of space. Prime example, Ocean Basket Glengarry. Massive smoking area, and that is the part of the restaurant with the nicest views and a fireplace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X