Why we shouldn't ban smoking

[Fuschia]

I think its sensible that if you don't want to work in a smoke filled bar, that you don't.

I was just about to say that.

I think it would be more sensible if they defined the law as public places (i.e., things like bus stops, not pubs), and workplaces. This means that the vast majority of pubs still have smoking banned, as it's an issue of employment health - but people are still free to open up a smoking bar which they run self-employed. I think that's where the law goes too far. It's private property, there are no workers, and people choose to enter it (and there'd be plenty of non-smoking pubs for them to go to instead), so I don't see why they should be illegal.

It is still a person's decision on whether or not to work there. That the government thinks it is protecting the rights of workers by infringing upon private property rights is as absurd as it is counter-productive.

 

[mdwh]

Well yes that's a matter for debate (although are you therefore against all workers' rights, because "they have a choice" and it "infringes on property rights"?) - all I'm saying is that _at the least_, they could have phrased the law that way, because as I'm sure we agree, outlawing a smoking bar that doesn't even employ anyone is too far.

Perhaps another way to tackle the employment issue is to require licences for smoking (as we do for alcohol), so it can be ensured there are a signficant number of smoking and non-smoking pubs etc, so that way a bar worker does have a realistic choice, not just a hypothetical one.

 

[Merkinball]

They always had a realistic choice...

Even as it is, most restaurants are smoke free. Even in states where smoking is still legal. Most bars are NOT gonna be smoke free.

It's not like there is a shortage of options for busboys, waitresses, and hostesses when it comes to finding a place to work.

 

[Fuschia]

Well yes that's a matter for debate (although are you therefore against all workers' rights, because "they have a choice" and it "infringes on property rights"?) - all I'm saying is that _at the least_, they could have phrased the law that way, because as I'm sure we agree, outlawing a smoking bar that doesn't even employ anyone is too far.

I happen to be against any government involvement in worker's rights, although I am a strong supporter of the union system.

Perhaps another way to tackle the employment issue is to require licences for smoking (as we do for alcohol), so it can be ensured there are a signficant number of smoking and non-smoking pubs etc, so that way a bar worker does have a realistic choice, not just a hypothetical one.

I suppose so, but, if you ask me, its just more unnecessary government regulation.

 

[useless]

so we shoudn't ban what is literally a cancer stick?

 

[Fuschia]

so we shoudn't ban what is literally a cancer stick?

That's right. We shouldn't have the ability to tell people what they can and cannot light and inhale the smoke of or, for that matter, what they can snort or what they can inject into their blood. Its all a matter of something I like to call freedom.

 

[useless]

yeah. freedom to get cancer from some ass smoking.

 

[warpus]

It is still a person's decision on whether or not to work there. That the government thinks it is protecting the rights of workers by infringing upon private property rights is as absurd as it is counter-productive.

People are going to go to bars whether or not they are filled with breathable air, nicotine, or methane. People love going to bars! It's not gonna change.

By banning the smoking at establishments like that, you lower healthcare costs, and thus lower taxes for the rest of us. It's done for the good of society.

Let's look at what smoking really is - an addiction. If you want to indulge in it, you have every right to - just do it in your own private space, where it doesn't affect the rest of us.

 

[rhawn]

yeah. freedom to get cancer from some ass smoking.

You are not going to get cancer from inhaling one whiff of second hand smoke from a guy smoking on a corner. And you bringing up the issue makes you the ass.

 

[warpus]

You are not going to get cancer from inhaling one whiff of second hand smoke from a guy smoking on a corner. And you bringing up the issue makes you the ass.

A punch in the face doesn't kill you either. Maybe I'll stand on the street corner and punch passers-by in the face.

 

[useless]

qft warpus. you can get cancer from smokies thus you shoudn't smoke near people.

 

[Fuschia]

yeah. freedom to get cancer from some ass smoking.

Exactly. And you also have the freedom to do something I call walking, which tends to put you out of the reach of people who are smoking.

People are going to go to bars whether or not they are filled with breathable air, nicotine, or methane. People love going to bars! It's not gonna change.

And, as such, bar owners will realize that people are more likely to go to bars where simply being there wont choke the life out of you and ban it on their own. And others will realize that their is a market for bars where people can smoke and they will make sure that they allow it in their bars.
And thus does the free market solve a problem!

By banning the smoking at establishments like that, you lower healthcare costs, and thus lower taxes for the rest of us. It's done for the good of society.

The first and only good argument for banning smoking!

Let's look at what smoking really is - an addiction. If you want to indulge in it, you have every right to - just do it in your own private space, where it doesn't affect the rest of us.

How is a bar you own not your private space? Or a restaurant? It does not matter who else is there, you own it and should be able to decide if you, or anyone else, has the right to smoke there or not.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Yes, it should be banned.

i just don't like the smell of smoke.

 

[z_step18]

yeah. freedom to get cancer from some ass smoking.

Dude, you have to be around smoke constantly. You're not going to get cancer from small whiffs of smoke from people on the street. The damage done is probably no more than the fumes you inhale from someones car pipe.

 

[mdwh]

By banning the smoking at establishments like that, you lower healthcare costs, and thus lower taxes for the rest of us. It's done for the good of society.

I don't disagree with your post generally, but remember that those smokers pay a load of tax - so less smoking also raises tax for the rest of us.

 

[mdwh]

Dude, you have to be around smoke constantly. You're not going to get cancer from small whiffs of smoke from people on the street. The damage done is probably no more than the fumes you inhale from someones car pipe.

Running a car engine in an enclosed public space probably isn't legal either?

 

[The Tollan]

I have gradually become more receptive to restricting smoking after observing annoying behaviors. I would not necessarily press for a complete smoking ban in all places though (it is possible to smoke away from others). However nor would I mourn over the passing of a smoking ban.

People who smoke should stay far away from gates/doorways/entry points/etc where it is almost impossible to avoid their noxious fumes without ceasing normal activity. And rain is no excuse to smoke near entry points to buildings or other places (forunately this seems to be becoming less common). The offensive group of smokers should not be suprised if many other people start getting quite annoyed at their lack of concern for where those fumes are going.

Another nuisance is people who smoke on narrow walkways where there is no way to get away from their smoke. Yes, the exposure is brief, however most people have no desire to inhale that garbage.

 

[z_step18]

Running a car engine in an enclosed public space probably isn't legal either?

I was talking about walking by someone whose smoking a cigarette and walking by someone is starting their old crappy car.

 

[warpus]

And, as such, bar owners will realize that people are more likely to go to bars where simply being there wont choke the life out of you and ban it on their own.

No they won't. People are sheep and will put up with nicotine in the air if they have to.

I am usually against nanny-state type things, but this is you putting your addiction in my face, and I will not have it. Go smoke somewhere where other people aren't affected.

When I smoke my weed I do it around people who love having that stuff in their lungs - and I would feel like a jackass if my smoke ended up in the lungs of people who do not want it there.

How is a bar you own not your private space? Or a restaurant? It does not matter who else is there, you own it and should be able to decide if you, or anyone else, has the right to smoke there or not.

If you own the bar? You are promoting a smoking atmosphere and driving up healthcare costs, like I mentioned earlier.

I don't disagree with your post generally, but remember that those smokers pay a load of tax - so less smoking also raises tax for the rest of us.

Something that would be off-set by a healthier society that smokes less! Besides, I'm not talking about banning cigarettes outright; feel free to light up in your own house, or in your backyard.

People who smoke should stay far away from gates/doorways/entry points/etc where it is almost impossible to avoid their noxious fumes.

That's the problem.. in a decently sized city, there is almost no way to find a place like that. You will always be in somebody's way.

 

[useless]

Exactly. And you also have the freedom to do something I call walking, which tends to put you out of the reach of people who are smoking.



And, as such, bar owners will realize that people are more likely to go to bars where simply being there wont choke the life out of you and ban it on their own. And others will realize that their is a market for bars where people can smoke and they will make sure that they allow it in their bars.
And thus does the free market solve a problem!



The first and only good argument for banning smoking!



How is a bar you own not your private space? Or a restaurant? It does not matter who else is there, you own it and should be able to decide if you, or anyone else, has the right to smoke there or not.

the situation where people passive smoke is mainly in crowded/tight places.