Wyzcrak

But here's what I can't get past...

Why does Will have a right to smoke a cigarette? Because it's legal? Because it's effects have never been restricted before?

The EPA regulates the public's exposure to asbestos, and you don't see a thread about that. You wouldn't defend the right of Bob to "choose" insulation on his private property that gives his patrons cancer. I'm no law expert, but at some point the government is expected to preserve the public health, right? Isn't that reasonable?

Cigarette smoking harms everyone in the vicinity. It only makes good sense that something like that would be banned if it serves no purpose (meets no need) in society.

Wyzcrak

CingularDuality

Ah, then candy, fatty foods, sex outside of marriage, computer games and rap music should all be banned?

They've all been blamed for killing people and they meet no societal need...

Restricting freedom is something that needs to be carefully considered. Is there a need for legislation that takes away some people's freedom? Is there a way to accomplish the same thing with less restrictions on personal freedoms?

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Benny_

Isn't this remarkably obvious. If you own a bar, you want to allow people to smoke, that's your choice. If they smoke outside on the street then the government can intervene, but in your property/business that is your choice?

I''ve been looking for the aeroplane (Etymology: alteration of aeroplane and have odds and sods, but I want present it all in one if I can find it. From the bits I've read, essentially when smoking was allowed the entire air system was refreshed after a certain period. Now, 50% of the air is recycled as it saves $80-$500 (depending on the source) per hour of flight (less drag, less fuel etc). I'll find a decent source so hold fire Mr Wolf.

Wolfie

Eh, haven't bared the fangs yet Mr BillyGoat :P

Besides, I know what you are talking about and will see if I can find a decent source for ya

Wolfie

Not to go off topic, but only a small percentage of asbestos caused cancer and it normally only occured to those that smoked several cigarette packs a day.

Wyzcrak

Flag on the play. These don't physically harm those around you, with the radical exception of loud music, which is regulated. You don't see a thread asking for decibel ordinances to be repealed. Why not?

I still don't understand what right anyone has to smoke a cigarette near me if it's harming me physically.

Wyzcrak

leejo

This is all shouting into the wind. After 8 pages of this thread, the pro smokers want to drag music and candy into the discussion. If that isn't a sign to bail on your position I don't know what is. Good luck with that approach.

Peace out.

leejo

jex

Perhaps it just shows that nobody can agree lol. Freedom of choice works both ways here. If I want a cigarette, who are you to stop me, even if it does harm you. Is it not my right as a human being to make my own decisions?

But then is it my right to take that cigarette out of your mouth because I am inhaling your smoke, because, as a human being it is my right not to put up with that.

So are we all correct? Or do we not have freedom of choice. Where I live there are no non-smoking bars, so that gives me no choice at all if I was someone who didn't want to be in a smoking bar (yes they have non-smoking areas but I'm gonna make this example anal and have my fictional non-smoker not want smoke at all). His right to choice is just as important to everyone else's is it not.

So now it gets really complicated because we take 10,000 people and everyone wants something. It's like some mad soup with lots of ingredients floating around it. But it can't go on because nobody can agree. That is today's society and it is up to government to sort out the soup and make it into a roast dinner.

But what if the president smokes?

LOL

I'm bailing on this one guys - I don't think we'll ever find the answers here but it's been an interesting debate. Thank you all

Jex.

Wolfie

Freedom of choice means that someone can not force you to do something.

It doesn't mean that the choices available to you are what you want. There are no guarantees to that.

Freedom of choice for the non-smoker is to either A) go to a bar where there is smoking and put up with it or B) not go to said bar.

However in today's society, people incorrectly believe there is a C choice, to force the bar owner to cater to your desires.

What I am finding amusing by anti-smoke/pro-ban crowd is that they are forcing their lifestyle choice onto others. "No, you can not open a bar and allow people to smoke in it." "No, we are going to take away smoking at the bar you go to."

If you are so concern about second hand smoke, then don't go to the bar that allows smoking. It is as simple as that. But stop forcing your lifestyle onto others.

Wolfie

For some people, smoking calms their nerves. For some people, they enjoy smoking even if it is dangerous for them.

As it should be also noted, nobody is forcing you to go to the bar and stand around breathing in second hand smoke so how is it a threat to society?

Spectre

This thread seems to of MORE than run it's course.

Lets get another subject.

Wyzcrak

When Will lights up in my presense, he is forcing his lifestyle on me and physically harming me in the process. When two lifestyles are so diametric, someone has to give. If that's true, how can it not make sense that the person performing the harmful act is made to do it in a manner that will prevent others from being harmed?

I'm trying to think of something legal that *I* do which the government could ban and get me to see things from the viewpoint of a smoker involved in this debate, but I can't think of one. I can't think of anything legal I do that physically harms those around me, imposes my way of living on non-consenting inviduals, and which I would protest the regulation of.

Government regulation (ban/ventilation/whatever) makes perfect sense to me. :? People around Will are being harmed as a direct result of happening to be in the area when he decided to light a cigarette.

Wyzcrak

Wolfie

Why are you in the bar that allows smoking then? Seems to me your choice is what is harming you, not Will's choice to smoke in a bar that allows it.....

verbose

It is also easily said that smokers are forcing their lifestyle on non-smokers. Do not the smokers have the option to step outside? It's only because smoking is so entrenched in our society that we accept the collateral damage of second-hand smoke. If it was any other similarly harmful behavior, it would not be tolerated in a public place. Pardon me while I play with my vial of mercury salts on the bar.

Guess how many non-smoking bars there are in my town of 200,000+. One. Exactly one. If I want to have a few at the pub, but I'm concerned about the impacts of second-hand smoke, I have a single place to choose from. I imagine most places are this way. Why? Bar owners, despite their personal views on smoking, allow it because otherwise they'll turn away business. Sure, you can call that "free market", but my belief is that one of the roles of government and a civilized society is to look out for the health of everyone. Do what you want to yourself, but it should not be legal to harm others.

Trained bartenders are forced to work in smoking environments. They have no choice, because there are so few bars that ban smoking. Same with waiters and waitresses. The number of completely non-smoking restaurants are few, and I doubt it'd go over well applying for a waiting job, but stating "I'll only work here if I don't have to serve the smoking section." Manager chooses candidate B, who doesn't care about the smoke, so the health-conscious worker gets shorted.

Employees and non-smokers are getting shafted on all counts. All the problems can be cured by a minor inconvenience to the smokers: take it outside, away from the main doors. If you want to suck up the carcinogens, go ahead, but don't force it on everyone else who just wants to visit the same establishment.

The places that have already banned smoking in public, enclosed spaces don't seem to be doing too bad, and I don't hear the smokers there crying bloody murder...

Wyzcrak

Well said, verbose.

My choice was to enjoy dinner. Enjoying dinner does not harm me. When I arrived, no one was smoking. Now I'm half-way through my meal, and Will sits down next to me and lights up. Now I'm being harmed. If (edit: my) harm is to be avoided, someone's lifestyle has to change. If neither party will budge, and an acceptable and agreeable role of the government is to protect the public health, then Will must be regulated by the law to perform his harmful act in such a way as to harm only himself.

I don't understand how anyone can argue that logic.

Wyzcrak