Ban on smoking in public places + high cigarette tax
197 replies, posted
It's the [I]restaurant[/I] that gets to decide whether or not they want to be the sort of establishment that welcomes smokers or not, not you... Lots of people don't give a shit about smoking and would rather eat at a restaurant that welcomes it. You're given the capacity to eat at someone's restaurant at their discretion; they should get to decide exactly what kind of establishment they want to run.
[QUOTE=viperfan7;36446995]Again, time to use the same argument you use, you volunteered to start a disgusting habit that no one wants to be around, you can suffer the consequences and not be welcome in places where people eat. Buy an E-Cig if you want to smoke indoors, same effects, without the smoke.
[/QUOTE]
Or it could be up to the establishment and have places where that disgusting habit is allowed along with places where it is not.
it really fucks me off that you can't smoke in pool halls in England anymore, back when my dad was doing coke and gambling on pool games those places were filled to the brim with people, ever since the English smoking bans have come in they've all cleared out like fuck
[QUOTE=MachiniOs;36447082]So by your logic we should bubble wrap every staff member and patron of the restaurant?[/QUOTE]
no, by my logic you shouldn't allow smoking in a restaurant
also, this is Mass Debate, and this post is clearly not debating.
[QUOTE=viperfan7;36447224]no, by my logic you shouldn't allow smoking in a restaurant[/QUOTE]
Why? Why should we have to protect anyone by being so coercive and restrictive? Isn't it enough to just be honest and state your smoking policy at the door, and if you don't like it, go somewhere else..? It's a business; if it's that damaging to your business model, you'd go smoke-free anyway. But we shouldn't be so quick to go around threatening people with prison sentences and fines, just because they want to give people the liberty to enjoy their food and smoke a fucking cigarette.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36447267]Why? Why should we have to protect anyone by being so coercive and restrictive? Isn't it enough to just be honest and state your smoking policy at the door, and if you don't like it, go somewhere else..? It's a business; if it's that damaging to your business model, you'd go smoke-free anyway. But we shouldn't be so quick to go around threatening people with prison sentences and fines, just because they want to give people the liberty to enjoy their food and smoke a fucking cigarette.[/QUOTE]
Give people liberty by taking liberty away from others.
I don't understand, clarify?
[QUOTE=viperfan7;36447224]no, by my logic you shouldn't allow smoking in a restaurant
also, this is Mass Debate, and this post is clearly not debating.[/QUOTE]
Repeating the same comparison isn't good debate either. You can't call this sub-forum a proper debate anyway as people rarely use sources to back their points up.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36447327]I don't understand, clarify?[/QUOTE]
I have the right to eat where I want without someone making it hard to breath, its the exact same argument your using to support it.
[editline]22nd June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=MachiniOs;36447378]Repeating the same comparison isn't good debate either. You can't call this sub-forum a proper debate anyway as people rarely use sources to back their points up.[/QUOTE]
You're post was you trying to insult me.
[QUOTE=viperfan7;36447380]
You're post was you trying to insult me.[/QUOTE]
Well I assure you that my post was in no way aimed as an insult.
how about this, if you don't want smoking indoors, you're not allowed to drive any car that isn't electric, because when I lived in London I assure you I had a lot more negative health from exhaust fumes than cigarettes, not to mention the overall damage it does to the environment. You don't want smoking you don't get to drive
[QUOTE=MachiniOs;36447431]Well I assure you that my post was in no way aimed as an insult.[/QUOTE]
Also this is mass debate, and this thread has degraded from debate into argument, your last 2 post have had nothing to do with the topic of this thread. While the one before them was just insulting.
[QUOTE=viperfan7;36447380]I have the right to eat where I want without someone making it hard to breath, its the exact same argument your using to support it.[/QUOTE]
Actually you only have the right to eat in a restaurant at the staff's discretion... It's not the exact same argument [I]whatsoever.[/I] My argument is trying to argue that it's their business, and they should be allowed to run it however they want, as long as it's not coercive (coercion just being somebody forcing their will on you).
Nobody's forcing you to go to the restaurant. Nobody's forcing you to breathe in second hand smoke. If you don't like it, don't go there and give them your money. Go somewhere else, that prohibits smoking (to be determined by the restaurant, not you, nor customers overall). As long as somebody's lifestyle isn't coercive in any way, I see absolutely no reason to make any prohibitions.
dude he's not insulted you once, calm down
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;36447460]how about this, if you don't want smoking indoors, you're not allowed to drive any car that isn't electric, because when I lived in London I assure you I had a lot more negative health from exhaust fumes than cigarettes, not to mention the overall damage it does to the environment. You don't want smoking you don't get to drive[/QUOTE]
Actually, modern cars give out fewer emissions then a lawnmower, and cigarette smoke, although there is much less of it, is far more unhealthy when compared to the same amount of a cars emissions, proof of this [URL]http://www.thumperd.com/Exhaust/EIN-TobaccoCarExhaust.pdf[/URL]
[QUOTE=viperfan7;36447536]Actually, modern cars give out fewer emissions then a lawnmower, and cigarette smoke, although there is much less of it, is far more unhealthy when compared to the same amount of a cars emissions[/QUOTE]
[I]A car's emissions[/I]
I'm talking about a whole city full of cars, and a lot of them aren't modern, a lot of them are shitty bangers from the late 80s which spit out black smog into the faces of small children
[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]
there are so many worse things that you're exposed to every day that no one talks about than cigarettes
[QUOTE=Marbalo;36447760]The fact that there's fewer emissions doesn't detract from the point that there are [I]still [/I]emissions that are bad for you regardless of number.
You should not be allowed to drive any car that isn't 100% electronic because your emissions are a potential risk to my health. That is exactly what you are saying about cigarettes.
(Dont use the shitty strawman of assuming Im comparing cigarettes to car emissions, I am not)[/QUOTE]
this is exactly my point, if we're going to nerf the world we shouldn't only nerf it to suit certain people, it would have to be nerfed across the board. Which is ridiculous
[QUOTE=Marbalo;36447760]The fact that there's fewer emissions doesn't detract from the point that there are [I]still [/I]emissions that are bad for you regardless of number.
You should not be allowed to drive any car that isn't 100% electronic because your emissions are a potential risk to my health. That is exactly what you are saying about cigarettes.
(Dont use the shitty strawman of assuming Im comparing cigarettes to car emissions, I am not)[/QUOTE]
But I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to, just not indoors in a place that is not your own home, restaurants my be privately owned, but that does not mean they are not public access, hospitals are also privately owned in the USA, can't smoke in there. If your out on the street and smoking ok, I don't like it, but I wont complain about it, if you want to eat and smoke, do it outside or in your own home.
There are plenty of places that have either severely decreased the amount of smoking areas or have banned smoking altogether without any sort of state ban. One obvious place are casinos. They used to be bastions of smoking, but now all have fairly large non-smoking areas simply because it gets them more customers. Many casinos even use large non-smoking areas as a selling point in advertisements.
[QUOTE=viperfan7;36445955]I'd rather have to walk through it where I can hold my breath[/QUOTE]
What if I don't want to hold my breath each time I pass the swarm of smokers, or what if an elderly person who can't hold their breath for longer than 1 second has to pass? What if a baby passes? They wouldn't realise to hold in their breath.
[QUOTE=viperfan7;36445955]instead of needing to sit in it,[/QUOTE]
Again, they have separate sections for smokers and non smokers. It's not hard to say "Smoke free area please"
[QUOTE=viperfan7;36445955]and do you know what happens when you have an asthma attack, your throat closes up similar to some allergic reactions, one thing that will trigger really severe asthma attacks is cigarette smoke,[/QUOTE]
So will a lot of type of smoke, do you want to ban them all? I am allergic to pollen, I demand all grass and flowers to be removed from restaurants and public places at once!
[QUOTE=viperfan7;36445955]out side the smoke can disperse into the air and is carried off by the wind, inside, it sits around.[/QUOTE]
Inside they have well ventilated areas, this isn't 1950s anymore. There's usually a seal such as a door or something that cuts off the smoke from reaching the non smoke area. For example almost every pub I go to has a smokers and non smokers area and the smokers area is usually upstairs sealed off with a door and you can in no way feel the smoke downstairs or on the other side of the door.
Have you ever been at a restaurant?
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;36447460]how about this, if you don't want smoking indoors, you're not allowed to drive any car that isn't electric, because when I lived in London I assure you I had a lot more negative health from exhaust fumes than cigarettes, not to mention the overall damage it does to the environment. You don't want smoking you don't get to drive[/QUOTE]
Yeah and what about all this pollen. For example now I'm sitting here coughing ,sore eyes and whatnot, I want all types of flowers to be gone from my city.
You're not really debating it. You're just saying it would be nice for you if it was prohibited in restaurants. I don't see how them being public access really makes a difference; it's still ultimately the restaurant's decision as to what kind of establishment it wants to be; if it wants to serve excessively fatty food, so be it. If it wants to entitle people to lighting up and giving themselves cancer, so be it. As long as they're honest and completely transparent. Restaurants aren't public places. They're providing a service for you; they should be entitled to letting people smoke if that's the sort of place they want to run. It's damaging to your autonomy and freedom, therefor your happiness, to restrict people in such a grossly parental, I-know-best way. Just don't go to the fucking smoking restaurants if you don't like smoke.
[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]
@vipertan7
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36448154]You're not really debating it. You're just saying it would be nice for you if it was prohibited in restaurants. I don't see how them being public access really makes a difference; it's still ultimately the restaurant's decision as to what kind of establishment it wants to be; if it wants to serve excessively fatty food, so be it. If it wants to entitle people to lighting up and giving themselves cancer, so be it. As long as they're honest and completely transparent. Restaurants aren't public places. They're providing a service for you; they should be entitled to letting people smoke if that's the sort of place they want to run. It's damaging to your autonomy and freedom, therefor your happiness, to restrict people in such a grossly parental, I-know-best way. Just don't go to the fucking smoking restaurants if you don't like smoke.
[editline]23rd June 2012[/editline]
@vipertan7[/QUOTE]
Well, I'm quite a bit happier that it is banned, so there goes one of your points, also, for your "You should be entitled to letting people smoke" argument, using the same logic I should be allowed to say your allowed to kill people you don't like on my property. Or your allowed to keep slaves on my property. This is in its root not an issue about freedom and such, its a public health issue. And instead of saying things such as "You're not debating", actually debate it.
[QUOTE=viperfan7;36448680]Well, I'm quite a bit happier that it is banned, so there goes one of your points, also, for your "You should be entitled to letting people smoke" argument, using the same logic I should be allowed to say your allowed to kill people you don't like on my property. Or your allowed to keep slaves on my property. This is in its root not an issue about freedom and such, its a public health issue. And instead of saying things such as "You're not debating", actually debate it.[/QUOTE]
Are you being serious? You're not giving any points other than that it would be convenient for you as a person with asthma. Then you decide to compare slavery and murder to sitting in a restaurant that allows people to smoke (usually in areas designed for people to smoke and then non smoke areas).
Here in Italy you can't smoke in public places that are indoor like, bars, pubs, discos, train stations and so on, unless there is a room for smokers (but that is an extravagance that not every public place has) SO smokers got to go outside to smoke. I appreciate this, since I'm not into smoking and I don't like the smell. You are still free to smoke in outdoor public places like parks and squares, as you're free to do it in the privacy of your belongings. Packs of cigarettes are getting more and more expensive but it's not due to any tax but to the market inflation, like any other good. 'Malboro red' got to cost more than 5€ per pack.
[QUOTE=viperfan7;36448680]Well, I'm quite a bit happier that it is banned, so there goes one of your points, also, for your "You should be entitled to letting people smoke" argument, using the same logic I should be allowed to say your allowed to kill people you don't like on my property. Or your allowed to keep slaves on my property. This is in its root not an issue about freedom and such, its a public health issue. And instead of saying things such as "You're not debating", actually debate it.[/QUOTE]
Your example might work if he was arguing that store owners could force you to smoke, but as it is the store owner isn't taking any rights away from people by allowing smoking in his establishment.
[QUOTE=viperfan7;36448680]Well, I'm quite a bit happier that it is banned, so there goes one of your points, also, for your "You should be entitled to letting people smoke" argument, using the same logic I should be allowed to say your allowed to kill people you don't like on my property. Or your allowed to keep slaves on my property. This is in its root not an issue about freedom and such, its a public health issue. And instead of saying things such as "You're not debating", actually debate it.[/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about your happiness; I'm talking about the happiness of people who's autonomy is being denied.
Slavery/homicide/violence is denying somebody their freedom and autonomy at a disgusting level; letting customers smoke and informing them this is the case before they enter isn't. You just don't understand the logic at play here, clearly. People nkow smoke is harmful. Let them decide if they want to eat at a restaurant that lets you smoke. Nobody is being forced to do [I]anything[/I] so what is the problem? Trying to protect people against their consent is deeply damaging to your chances at fulfilling yourself. It's not damaging at all if there's a few less restaurants you enjoy eating in.
Quite honestly they should just stop producing cigarettes. People can handle being grumpy for a few weeks.
just like they should stop producing meth, heroin, cocaine, etc?
[QUOTE=Magmacow358;36464863]Quite honestly they should just stop producing cigarettes. People can handle being grumpy for a few weeks.[/QUOTE]
That isn't your decision to make.
I'm all for the ban of smoking in public places. If you want to fuck up your lungs it's your business but please don't fuck up mine as well.
When I was in highschool, inbetween lessons a ton of people were running outside to have a smoke. If you ever had to go in or out of the highschool you had to go through a massive cloud of at least 10 different kinds of cigarettes. Not only was it really inconvenient, but that shit's also very dangerous, since some people who are allergic to cigarette smoke couldn't even think of leaving or entering the place in between lessons, they'd have to wait for people to stop smoking and go back to their classes if they didn't want to face immediate suffocation due to their allergy.
So yeah, I think banning smoking in public places is a good idea. This example above is a bit particular since you very rarely find such a big concentration of smokers in so little room, but it shows well what public smoking causes. Cigarettes are harmful not only for the smoker but for everyone around, and this has to be kept in mind.
As for high taxes, I don't think it's the solution. It's mostly an excuse for the government to make more money and it doesn't solve anything : smoking is an addiction and a raise of price won't stop people from getting what they physically need to feel better. As for the new smokers, they very rarely start by compulsively going to the local store and buying a bunch of cigs, so once again the raise of price is useless there too.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.