Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » smoking ban in uk...
Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261814 is a reply to message #261787] |
Tue, 29 May 2007 17:03 |
|
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507 Registered: March 2003 Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
warranto | 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.
|
How many times to I have to state PRIVATE PROPERTY? Shall I give an example, since the concept seems to escape you?
Say you DO smoke. You invite some friends over who don't smoke, and they absolutely hate the fact that your house is smoky. However, regardless of the fact that they know you smoke and they hate it, they choose to visit you. Upon doing so, they're so overwhelmed with the smoke that they then manage to get legislation passed saying that even though it's your house, you are forced to install new ventilation in your house if you have non-smoker friends, and you're also forced to smoke outside. You wouldn't like the government telling you what to do, would you? I understand, as a friend, you would avoid smoking and make sure you air out the house before your friends came over, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. Whether or not you accommodate your friends should be YOUR decision to make (just like the business'), not the government and not your friends.
CarrierII wrote on Tue, 29 May 2007 17:47 | 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?
|
Sure, they could be courteous, but they're not the ones complaining about the environment in the restaurant, are they? If the business wants to allow their habit inside of their doors, why does the government get a say?
I'm not saying smokers shouldn't be courteous and not smoke when around non-smokers. I'm saying that they shouldn't be forced to. It should be a conscious decision that they make to avoid non-smokers. If a business wants to allow smoking within its doors, then I see no reason why the government should have a say otherwise.
Are you going to tell me that if you want to go to the beach, but the closest is a nude beach, that you're going to force regulation on that nude beach stating that they have to force their visitors to clothed because you don't want to see or your children to see naked people because you don't want to have to travel farther to a beach with no allowed nudity? If you can say "yes" to this and not see how I'm calling that self-importance, then there's no hope for you. If you'd say no, then the only difference between this scenario and the smoking is that there is a health risk involved which has no weight on the principle that I'm arguing.
whoa.
[Updated on: Tue, 29 May 2007 17:05] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261924 is a reply to message #261814] |
Wed, 30 May 2007 05:27 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584 Registered: February 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
j_ball430 wrote on Tue, 29 May 2007 18:03 |
warranto | 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.
|
How many times to I have to state PRIVATE PROPERTY? Shall I give an example, since the concept seems to escape you?
Say you DO smoke. You invite some friends over who don't smoke, and they absolutely hate the fact that your house is smoky. However, regardless of the fact that they know you smoke and they hate it, they choose to visit you. Upon doing so, they're so overwhelmed with the smoke that they then manage to get legislation passed saying that even though it's your house, you are forced to install new ventilation in your house if you have non-smoker friends, and you're also forced to smoke outside. You wouldn't like the government telling you what to do, would you? I understand, as a friend, you would avoid smoking and make sure you air out the house before your friends came over, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. Whether or not you accommodate your friends should be YOUR decision to make (just like the business'), not the government and not your friends.
|
And how many times do I have to say PUBLIC AREA. There is a REASON businesses MUST serve people regardless of religion, colour, sex, etc.
There is a reason you do not have to do the same thing when letting people into your house. It is not a PUBLIC AREA.
|
|
|
Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #261931 is a reply to message #261924] |
Wed, 30 May 2007 06:35 |
|
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507 Registered: March 2003 Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
warranto wrote on Wed, 30 May 2007 08:27 |
j_ball430 wrote on Tue, 29 May 2007 18:03 |
warranto | 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.
|
How many times to I have to state PRIVATE PROPERTY? Shall I give an example, since the concept seems to escape you?
Say you DO smoke. You invite some friends over who don't smoke, and they absolutely hate the fact that your house is smoky. However, regardless of the fact that they know you smoke and they hate it, they choose to visit you. Upon doing so, they're so overwhelmed with the smoke that they then manage to get legislation passed saying that even though it's your house, you are forced to install new ventilation in your house if you have non-smoker friends, and you're also forced to smoke outside. You wouldn't like the government telling you what to do, would you? I understand, as a friend, you would avoid smoking and make sure you air out the house before your friends came over, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. Whether or not you accommodate your friends should be YOUR decision to make (just like the business'), not the government and not your friends.
|
And how many times do I have to say PUBLIC AREA. There is a REASON businesses MUST serve people regardless of religion, colour, sex, etc.
There is a reason you do not have to do the same thing when letting people into your house. It is not a PUBLIC AREA.
|
Yes, well... stupid over-bearing federal government can lay off.
whoa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #265111 is a reply to message #262092] |
Sun, 10 June 2007 23:06 |
|
z310 wrote on Wed, 30 May 2007 21:00 |
j_ball430 wrote on Wed, 30 May 2007 09:35 | Yes, well... stupid over-bearing federal government can lay off.
|
|
You always know what to say.
... Or not.
FUCK
|
|
|
|
|
Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #270941 is a reply to message #260906] |
Thu, 05 July 2007 09:49 |
Jamie or NuneGa
Messages: 954 Registered: June 2007
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
i went down pub on the sunday, it was weird, on first impressions empty pub almost...
20 people outside... had pool table just for me and my bro.
I like it... happy freaking days
Jamie is a guys name in Europe...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #271073 is a reply to message #271033] |
Thu, 05 July 2007 21:02 |
|
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507 Registered: March 2003 Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
Nightma12 wrote on Thu, 05 July 2007 21:18 |
Quote: | A smoker should have the freedom to go eat or drink somewhere and enjoy a good smoke in a business that allows smoking and shouldn't be discriminated against because you think its bad for them.
|
a drug addict should have the freedom to go eat or drink somewhere and enjoy a good smoke of crack/herroin in a business that allows drugs and shouldn't be discrimated against because you think its bad for them
|
Bingo.
Edit: I'm serious, too. I'm all for that.
whoa.
[Updated on: Thu, 05 July 2007 21:02] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #271079 is a reply to message #271076] |
Thu, 05 July 2007 21:27 |
|
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507 Registered: March 2003 Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
RoShamBo wrote on Fri, 06 July 2007 00:19 | Yes, sorry, i should of posted more on my opinion. I completely agree, however, if it's a public place that everyone has to go to then i think the health of everyone there should be accommodated. In pubs and such then i would leave it, i don't think the government has any right messing with someone's business.
|
Right, as I and Java said towards the beginning of the thread, if it's a public place (as in, government-owned), it shouldn't be allowed. If it's a business or a house, the government should have no say.
Why some people think that they should be able to control businesses' policies, I have no idea. It's just pointless high-horsery.
whoa.
|
|
|
Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #271179 is a reply to message #271079] |
Fri, 06 July 2007 07:32 |
Jamie or NuneGa
Messages: 954 Registered: June 2007
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Why some people think that they should be able to control businesses' policies, I have no idea. It's just pointless high-horsery.[/quote]
it is owned by a person, therefore surely they can allow smoking if they want...
Jamie is a guys name in Europe...
|
|
|
|
Re: smoking ban in uk... [message #271428 is a reply to message #271181] |
Sat, 07 July 2007 10:43 |
Jamie or NuneGa
Messages: 954 Registered: June 2007
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
cheesesoda wrote on Fri, 06 July 2007 09:51 |
NuNeGa wrote on Fri, 06 July 2007 10:32 |
cheesesoda | Why some people think that they should be able to control businesses' policies, I have no idea. It's just pointless high-horsery.
|
it is owned by a person, therefore surely they can allow smoking if they want...
|
That's what I just said. In fact, that's what I've been saying this entire thread...
|
good, btw im not gonna read all the way so somethings prob will be repeated
Jamie is a guys name in Europe...
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Sep 17 13:59:16 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01348 seconds
|