Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums: Heated Discussions and Debates » smoking ban in uk...

Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » smoking ban in uk...

Show: Today's Messages :: Polls :: Message Navigator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261461 is a reply to message #260906]

Mon, 28 May 2007 09:05

Memphis
Messages: 227
Registered: January 2005

Karma: 0

Recruit

This freedom discussion is really tiresome as it doesn't has the same ring to it that it does over the pond. Yes in theory it does affect my freedom to take up a habbit to damage my health but I simply do not care. Smokers can still smoke in places that have been made nice for them (sitting outside with heaters to keep them comfortable is hardly severe alienation). It is against the law NOT to wear a seatbelt while driving a car here so are you saying that is affecting someones freedom if they didn't want to wear a safely belt?.

You also have to think that if someone wants to smoke at the moment when at work in most cases they already step outside regardless. Some establishments have specially built rooms but at the end of the day why should a business have to pay for something like that anyway?

The place where people will really feel it is in the pubs and clubs where they will have to go outside. You could say in really smoky pubs that smokers there are affecting the freedom of non smokers who would like to go there for a drink or something to eat but simply can't be in that smoke healthily. I feel that this whole thing is a double-edged sword but if it is going to save lives and stop people taking up a completely pointless habbit that can't be bad.

Report message to a moderator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261463 is a reply to message #261461]

Mon, 28 May 2007 09:15

cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan

Karma: 0

General (5 Stars)

Memphis

It is against the law NOT to wear a seatbelt while driving a car here so are you saying that is affecting someones freedom if they didn't want to wear a safely belt?

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

Memphis

You also have to think that if someone wants to smoke at the moment when at work in most cases they already step outside regardless. Some establishments have specially built rooms but at the end of the day why should a business have to pay for something like that anyway?

They don't HAVE to. They choose to.

Memphis

You could say in really smoky pubs that smokers there are affecting the freedom of non smokers who would like to go there for a drink or something to eat but simply can't be in that smoke healthily.

The non-smokers consciously walk into a smoky pub knowing that there's going to be a smoky environment. They make the conscious decision to do that, and if the pub wants to allow for smokers, who are you, me, or the government to tell them they can't?

Memphis

I feel that this whole thing is a double-edged sword but if it is going to save lives and stop people taking up a completely pointless habbit that can't be bad.

Again, as I've said to already... IT'S CALLED PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. It's not the government's job (or the peoples' job to force regulation to be passed) to prevent people from doing what's harmful to them. It's our job as a community to help our neighbors be informed, but not to the point of having legislation be passed restricting the rights of others.

whoa.

Report message to a moderator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261466 is a reply to message #261448]

Mon, 28 May 2007 10:19

warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada

Karma: 0

General (2 Stars)

j_ball430 wrote on Mon, 28 May 2007 09:21

YOU don't own the business.

That's nice, neither do the smokers.

Quote:

There's a thing called private property. Maybe you've heard of it? Again, YOU don't own the business.

Oh I've heard of it. Too bad it doesn't apply to a PUBLIC building. This is why businesses have to adhere to regulations that allow for disabled people to enter, can't run a gambling area without a permit, can't serve alcohol to minor's ect. Shows that it is not completely a private property, there is that nasty little public aspect to it as well.

Quote:

I also mentioned the freedom of the business, too... this would be the third time doing so while replying to your post.

Businesses have no freedoms. They are not people. Oh, wait... you mean the people running it? They basically have no freedom's themselves. The government dictates what they can and can not sell and who they can and can not sell said items to. This is why you will never find a shop that sells Cocaine to white people only.

Quote:

Smokers aren't passing legislation against non-smokers and forcing businesses to bide by their wishes.

Point being? You are the one that is effectively saying "Screw the right to good health that non-smokers want. The "right" of people to smoke is more important!"

Quote:

Again, smokers didn't pass legislation forcing businesses to allow smoking, did they? Wink

Wink

That's nice, now please show me how that negates my comment?

Report message to a moderator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261471 is a reply to message #260906]

Mon, 28 May 2007 10:48

jnz
Messages: 3396
Registered: July 2006
Location: 30th century

Karma: 0

General (3 Stars)

One thing to think about is both sides of the argument. It seems a bit biased.

Smokers want the freedom to be able to smoke their cigarettes anywhere.
Non-smokers want the freedom to not passive smoke.

Then, look at the motives, the smokers want to smoke to fuel their addiction.
Non-smokers don't want to passive smoke to stay healthy.

Which one is more important? To have total freedom, or help others stay healthy?

Report message to a moderator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261534 is a reply to message #261471]

Mon, 28 May 2007 16:12

Renerage
Messages: 1223
Registered: May 2005
Location: Hamilton ON, Canada

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

I totally agree with this law.
If they wanna smoke so much, go outside. Its completly rude to smell smoke while your eating.
You have the choice to eat in that restaurant, Most of the owners dont really care all that much.
Pubs with smoking- The owner thinks this will defer his business.
Pubs without smoking- The owner doesnt really care, since it was never a topic of interest.

Why are smokers so determined to ruin the lives of non-smokers? And smoke in areas where non-smokers dont wanna be in.

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/9876/cheekaysig9xv.jpg

A pissed off noob Once said:
I DESLIKE YOU!

Report message to a moderator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261548 is a reply to message #260906]

Mon, 28 May 2007 17:23

warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada

Karma: 0

General (2 Stars)

Quote:

Again, as I've said to already... IT'S CALLED PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. It's not the government's job (or the peoples' job to force regulation to be passed) to prevent people from doing what's harmful to them. It's our job as a community to help our neighbors be informed, but not to the point of having legislation be passed restricting the rights of others.

Something came to mind about this.

I highly doubt that if a friend or family member were threatening suicide, you'd come up with this argument as to why they should be allowed to kill themselves.

Report message to a moderator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261570 is a reply to message #261548]

Mon, 28 May 2007 18:13

cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan

Karma: 0

General (5 Stars)

warranto wrote on Mon, 28 May 2007 20:23

Quote:

Again, as I've said to already... IT'S CALLED PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. It's not the government's job (or the peoples' job to force regulation to be passed) to prevent people from doing what's harmful to them. It's our job as a community to help our neighbors be informed, but not to the point of having legislation be passed restricting the rights of others.

Something came to mind about this.

I highly doubt that if a friend or family member were threatening suicide, you'd come up with this argument as to why they should be allowed to kill themselves.

How can you pass legislation to make it illegal for one to kill themselves? If you hang yourself inside of your home, there's nothing the government can do.

However, it's the family and friends' responsibility to intervene. So, yes, I would come up with the same argument that the government has no place to say this or that. It's the people's responsibility to see that their community thrives.

gamemodding

Which one is more important? To have total freedom, or help others stay healthy?

Total freedom. Like, for instance, gun control in America. I'd rather die from someone shooting me on the street and know that I had the ability to defend myself, and the rest of the people do, than to live my life in fear. Why be paranoid? We're all going to die, and we can't control it.

------------------------------

My whole argument had been summed up by Java earlier in this thread, but nobody ever seems to listen to common sense. I'll say it again...

If the restaurant wants to allow smoking, they should be allowed to. It's their business, and they have every right to run it as they see fit (within food regulations).

If a smoker wants to go into a pub with smoking allowed, they should be allowed to do so. The non-smokers are not being forced to walk into the pub to drink, are they? No. If smokers were complaining that they can't smoke in smoke-free pubs, I'd say the same thing about them. Too bad. It's not their business to run.

Also, if we ban everything that's potentially dangerous, we couldn't function as a society. Knives/sharp objects would be banned, automobiles would be banned, fast food would be banned, alcohol would be banned, smoking would be banned, etc...

I trust that if people are FORCED (by having no other choice, not through legislation) to be responsible for themselves and their community (without having to pass regulation to do so), this wouldn't be an issue, but people are on their high horses and are too self-important to be responsible for themselves. It's about time that we stop running to our government to fix issues that need to be addressed by the communities, not by the government. If you don't want smoking to be allowed in pubs, start up interest groups (or join existing ones) and petition that pubs help make their businesses more non-smoker friendly. Things work better when you work together as a community rather than whine and moan to politicians to get legislation passed restricting the rights of others because you feel that it's your right to be self-important.

whoa.

[Updated on: Mon, 28 May 2007 18:25]

Report message to a moderator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261583 is a reply to message #261570]

Mon, 28 May 2007 19:12

Renerage
Messages: 1223
Registered: May 2005
Location: Hamilton ON, Canada

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

j_ball430 wrote on Mon, 28 May 2007 21:13

warranto wrote on Mon, 28 May 2007 20:23

Quote:

Again, as I've said to already... IT'S CALLED PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. It's not the government's job (or the peoples' job to force regulation to be passed) to prevent people from doing what's harmful to them. It's our job as a community to help our neighbors be informed, but not to the point of having legislation be passed restricting the rights of others.

Something came to mind about this.

I highly doubt that if a friend or family member were threatening suicide, you'd come up with this argument as to why they should be allowed to kill themselves.

How can you pass legislation to make it illegal for one to kill themselves? If you hang yourself inside of your home, there's nothing the government can do.

However, it's the family and friends' responsibility to intervene. So, yes, I would come up with the same argument that the government has no place to say this or that. It's the people's responsibility to see that their community thrives.

gamemodding

Which one is more important? To have total freedom, or help others stay healthy?

Total freedom. Like, for instance, gun control in America. I'd rather die from someone shooting me on the street and know that I had the ability to defend myself, and the rest of the people do, than to live my life in fear. Why be paranoid? We're all going to die, and we can't control it.

------------------------------

My whole argument had been summed up by Java earlier in this thread, but nobody ever seems to listen to common sense. I'll say it again...

If the restaurant wants to allow smoking, they should be allowed to. It's their business, and they have every right to run it as they see fit (within food regulations).

If a smoker wants to go into a pub with smoking allowed, they should be allowed to do so. The non-smokers are not being forced to walk into the pub to drink, are they? No. If smokers were complaining that they can't smoke in smoke-free pubs, I'd say the same thing about them. Too bad. It's not their business to run.

Also, if we ban everything that's potentially dangerous, we couldn't function as a society. Knives/sharp objects would be banned, automobiles would be banned, fast food would be banned, alcohol would be banned, smoking would be banned, etc...

I trust that if people are FORCED (by having no other choice, not through legislation) to be responsible for themselves and their community (without having to pass regulation to do so), this wouldn't be an issue, but people are on their high horses and are too self-important to be responsible for themselves. It's about time that we stop running to our government to fix issues that need to be addressed by the communities, not by the government. If you don't want smoking to be allowed in pubs, start up interest groups (or join existing ones) and petition that pubs help make their businesses more non-smoker friendly. Things work better when you work together as a community rather than whine and moan to politicians to get legislation passed restricting the rights of others because you feel that it's your right to be self-important.

I think they controlled this one Sarcasm

Sarcasm

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/9876/cheekaysig9xv.jpg

A pissed off noob Once said:
I DESLIKE YOU!

Report message to a moderator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261653 is a reply to message #260906]

Tue, 29 May 2007 04:56

3663Nixon
Messages: 47
Registered: October 2006

Karma: 0

Recruit

I must admit I am not looking forward to the ban. I went into a non-smoking club once. Sure the air was smoke free but that place stank of sour sweat and crap perfume/aftershave. It was like hugging a chav.

I am also looking forward to some other pleasant effects:

Workers in company cars who can't smoke, and get stuck on the M6 in heavy traffic. Incoming road rage.
The piles of smoking shelters that get fly-tipped as they now count as "enclosed spaces".
People who live near pubs that now have to put up with even more noise (As more people will be outside on the street).
More drunken brawls - at least where I go out the streets are fairly quiet although the bars are rammed. If loads of people are smoking outside, there's more opportunity for drunkards fighting.
Drinking on the street might happen more. After all, if you're having a ciggie outside, you'll usually want a beer too.
Nice arguments with club/bar bouncers after someone goes out for a fag, then tries to get back in.
The litter on the streets from smoking material will increase.

Whilst I appreciate that some people will be healthier, the cost implications of shoving smokers outside could be considerable.

I think maybe the smoking and non-smoking approach would be better (i.e. different types of establishments).

n00bstories marketing team member

http://www.n00bstories.com/image.fetch.php?id=1344496898

n00bstories radio

[Updated on: Tue, 29 May 2007 04:57]

Report message to a moderator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261657 is a reply to message #260906]

Tue, 29 May 2007 05:45

warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada

Karma: 0

General (2 Stars)

regardless, I still find it enjoyable to see people argue about these made-up rights, just so they can make themselves look, well, "right".

I have to admit I'm a bit ignorant on American rights, but after looking through your Constitution and Bill of Rights, I couldn't find anything relating to this "right" you say exists. Perhaps I missed it though...

Report message to a moderator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261664 is a reply to message #260906]

Tue, 29 May 2007 06:14

3663Nixon
Messages: 47
Registered: October 2006

Karma: 0

Recruit

Ours (in the UK) are in the Health Act 2006, chapter 28

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060028_en.pdf

Its really easy to read :/

n00bstories marketing team member

http://www.n00bstories.com/image.fetch.php?id=1344496898

n00bstories radio

Report message to a moderator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261689 is a reply to message #260906]

Tue, 29 May 2007 08:25

AoBfrost
Messages: 1248
Registered: March 2007

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

The state I live in in the USA bans smoking in all buildings, but allows it outside/in your car, I dont smoke, but hwere I work...just about everyone does and I stay away from them for 15 minutes or so so the smokey smell wears off, I'm allergic to smoke only, not fire smoke, but the fragrance from ciggerette smoke, just has that strong sharp scent that makes me sneeze non stop. I'm happy it's banned inside buildings, people cant say were taking away their freedom, they took away my freedom for all these years by not allowing me to have peace when I go out to eat, go shopping, everywhere, and now I do.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y133/FMAROCKS/godotsig.gif

Scrin wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 12:19

''whoa im the photoshop''

KANE LIVES!!!

Report message to a moderator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261696 is a reply to message #260906]

Tue, 29 May 2007 09:20

warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada

Karma: 0

General (2 Stars)

Heh, and I thought I was the only one.

Though you got off easy. I almost stop breathing if I get too much.

Coughing leads to gasping. Given enough smoke I throw up and can't breath, it's only gotten that close once. Someone was smoking outside a building and exhaled as soon as I stepped outside. I was on the ground after that.

Report message to a moderator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261697 is a reply to message #261657]

Tue, 29 May 2007 09:23

cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan

Karma: 0

General (5 Stars)

warranto wrote on Tue, 29 May 2007 08:45

regardless, I still find it enjoyable to see people argue about these made-up rights, just so they can make themselves look, well, "right".

I have to admit I'm a bit ignorant on American rights, but after looking through your Constitution and Bill of Rights, I couldn't find anything relating to this "right" you say exists. Perhaps I missed it though...

What "made up" rights? My right to live my life as I see fit? Ninth Amendment.

As for you people who still argue that it's against your rights for people to smoke in buildings where you are present (especially the Americans)... GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEADS: YOU ARE NOT BEING FORCED TO GO INTO THOSE ESTABLISHMENTS. THEREFORE, YOU ARE CONSCIOUSLY GOING THERE KNOWING THAT IT IS A SMOKY ENVIRONMENT. IN DOING SO, YOU TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS.

How hard is it understand that if you're not forced to go somewhere that is "unhealthy", but you choose to anyway, you're at fault for any health complications that arise?

I'm not being an advocate for smokers. I think it's a horrible habit to get into, but it's not a decision I am to make for individuals or businesses. I understand that there are differences in countries and governments, but I feel that the right to live your life the way you see fit as long as you don't impede on the rights of others should be an inalienable right. However, the rights of others are only under protection when they're on their own, private property or on government-owned property (streets, government buildings, state/national parks, etc...).

whoa.

[Updated on: Tue, 29 May 2007 09:25]

Report message to a moderator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261700 is a reply to message #261697]

Tue, 29 May 2007 09:33

CarrierII
Messages: 3804
Registered: February 2006
Location: England

Karma: 0

General (3 Stars)

j_ball430 wrote on Tue, 29 May 2007 11:23

As for you people who still argue that it's against your rights for people to smoke in buildings where you are present (especially the Americans)... GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEADS: YOU ARE NOT BEING FORCED TO GO INTO THOSE ESTABLISHMENTS. THEREFORE, YOU ARE CONSCIOUSLY GOING THERE KNOWING THAT IT IS A SMOKY ENVIRONMENT. IN DOING SO, YOU TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS.

I don't choose to stand at the bus stop, I have to, the bus won't stop elsewhere. (People smoke there)

Renguard is a wonderful initiative

[Updated on: Tue, 29 May 2007 09:33]

Report message to a moderator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261705 is a reply to message #261697]

Tue, 29 May 2007 09:39

cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan

Karma: 0

General (5 Stars)

j_ball430 wrote on Tue, 29 May 2007 12:23

However, the rights of others are only under protection when they're on their own, private property or on government-owned property (streets, government buildings, state/national parks, etc...).

I agree with you, then. You're on government property, using a public service, so you shouldn't have to deal with smoking, as it has been proving to have adverse effects to your health, which would be impeding on your rights.

whoa.

Report message to a moderator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261718 is a reply to message #260906]

Tue, 29 May 2007 10:45

warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada

Karma: 0

General (2 Stars)

You mean this one?

Quote:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

So we shall go to the Constitution:

Quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare (health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being - warranto), and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Perhaps you could be a little more specific?

Report message to a moderator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261725 is a reply to message #261718]

Tue, 29 May 2007 11:02

cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan

Karma: 0

General (5 Stars)

warranto wrote on Tue, 29 May 2007 13:45

You mean this one?

Quote:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

So we shall go to the Constitution:

Quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare (health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being - warranto), and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Perhaps you could be a little more specific?

Keyword is "promote":

1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further.

Encouraging the people to go one way doesn't mean to regulate it. They didn't say "ensure" the general Welfare or anything else relating to legislation.

whoa.

Report message to a moderator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261758 is a reply to message #260906]

Tue, 29 May 2007 12:52

warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada

Karma: 0

General (2 Stars)

True, but to act against that by allowing innately bad substances to be tolerated does nothing to promote health.

And before you bring up that fast food, alcohol, etc. stuff being bad for you, I said INNATELY bad substances. There is no benefit for smoking as even one cigarette begins the process of poor health whereas fast food and alcohol are not innately bad for you. Only in excess do they become that way (hence the reason trans fat is currently in the process of being eliminated).

Report message to a moderator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261766 is a reply to message #261758]

Tue, 29 May 2007 13:14

cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan

Karma: 0

General (5 Stars)

warranto wrote on Tue, 29 May 2007 15:52

True, but to act against that by allowing innately bad substances to be tolerated does nothing to promote health.

And before you bring up that fast food, alcohol, etc. stuff being bad for you, I said INNATELY bad substances. There is no benefit for smoking as even one cigarette begins the process of poor health whereas fast food and alcohol are not innately bad for you. Only in excess do they become that way (hence the reason trans fat is currently in the process of being eliminated).

Who says the government has to be partial smoking, either? I mean, I want Gay Marriage to be legal. That doesn't mean I'm promoting Homosexuality, but outrightly banning it hasn't solved anything... Allowing for Gay Marriage to be legal doesn't mean that the government is against heterosexual marriages, either. Just supporting the right of the people to love and marry who they wish, whether or not it's what the politicians support for their own, personal morals.

whoa.

[Updated on: Tue, 29 May 2007 13:15]

Report message to a moderator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261770 is a reply to message #261758]

Tue, 29 May 2007 13:34

MexPirate
Messages: 883
Registered: March 2006
Location: UK

Karma: 0

Colonel

warranto wrote on Tue, 29 May 2007 14:52

And before you bring up that fast food, alcohol, etc. stuff being bad for you, I said INNATELY bad substances. There is no benefit for smoking as even one cigarette begins the process of poor health whereas fast food and alcohol are not innately bad for you. Only in excess do they become that way (hence the reason trans fat is currently in the process of being eliminated).

Bullshit, alcohol is a poison and eating shitty food is not good for you. Eat one burger, drink one drink, smoke one cigarette and you will never notice any long term affect, drink lots, eat lots or smoke lots and you will.

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e255/Cloudx16/Newer%20Stuff/03f9b76a.png

It's a mexican pirate .... F*ck a dog by Blink 182

Report message to a moderator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261776 is a reply to message #260906]

Tue, 29 May 2007 13:50

warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada

Karma: 0

General (2 Stars)

Alcohol, in small doses, provides health benefits such as a decrease in the risk of heart disease.

Fast food contains all the things regular food does and is a valid source of "stuff" the body uses.

Excess of either is what causes the harmful effect you are relating them to.

From http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0876/is_2002_Fall/ai_95147896

Quote:

Smoking just one cigarette can affect your heart - Brief Article
Nutrition Health Review, Fall, 2002
Smoking a single cigarette can significantly and abruptly change the performance of the heart in young adults, a new study shows. The research, released by the American Society of Echocardiography, suggests that nicotine alone is not the trigger for this change in cardiac performance, since researchers did not see similar cardiac responses in participants who simply chewed nicotine gum.

Quote:

Allowing for Gay Marriage to be legal doesn't mean that the government is against heterosexual marriages,

Pick a more relevant comparison and we'll talk. As it is now, that comparison is ridiculous. When two choices can exist at the same time, of course there is no reason to side with one or the other. However, smoking or not smoking does not fall under this category as one must be limited in some way (even simply setting a separate room for one group qualifies as not existing at the same time as they are now separate).

Report message to a moderator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261780 is a reply to message #261776]

Tue, 29 May 2007 13:59

cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan

Karma: 0

General (5 Stars)

warranto wrote on Tue, 29 May 2007 16:50

Pick a more relevant comparison and we'll talk. As it is now, that comparison is ridiculous. When two choices can exist at the same time, of course there is no reason to side with one or the other. However, smoking or not smoking does not fall under this category as one must be limited in some way (even simply setting a separate room for one group qualifies as not existing at the same time as they are now separate).

How must one be limited? Because some pompous, self-important assholes want businesses and individuals to be regulated because they can't handle having to actively avoid a smoky environment? Boo-hoo.

whoa.

Report message to a moderator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261785 is a reply to message #260906]

Tue, 29 May 2007 14:40

warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada

Karma: 0

General (2 Stars)

By allowing smoking indoors, you exclude those who do not wish to be around it (they are unable to be in the same place - personal choice or not- as the smokers). By not allowing it you exclude those who wish to smoke indoors.

Of course, I can always play the democracy card (as a fake argument, don't take this seriously unless you really want to)

Ultimately, though, you elected the person to represent your interests. Don't like it, elect someone who won't enforce it.

Report message to a moderator

Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261787 is a reply to message #260906]

Tue, 29 May 2007 14:47

CarrierII
Messages: 3804
Registered: February 2006
Location: England

Karma: 0

General (3 Stars)

Why should a non-smoker be forced to actively avoid a health risk? Surely the person wanting to make a choice (Smoking) should take responsibility (You like that word) for thier decision and be responsible for the health risk -they- pose, and negate it for others, who do not want to experience it?

Renguard is a wonderful initiative

Report message to a moderator

Pages (5): [ « ‹ 1 2 3 4 5 › »]

Previous Topic:	Real ID Act and the Threat of a Police State
Next Topic:	The draft!

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

PDF

]

Current Time: Tue Sep 17 14:18:30 MST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01531 seconds