Alcohol harms yourself and other people but I don't hear anything about banning Alcohol from bars. It is stupid to say that one destructive behavior in a bar is not allowed but another is.
Alcohol harms yourself and other people but I don't hear anything about banning Alcohol from bars. It is stupid to say that one destructive behavior in a bar is not allowed but another is.
How does drinking alcohol harm other people? I don´t get intoxinated when the next person on the bar drinks his whisky. Harming (=hitting, harassing, ect.) other people when drunk is already forbidden and covered by law.
Imo Personal freedom ends where other poeple are harmed, and regulation is neccessary for such situations. Besides that i find it extremely funny how heavily addicted persons try to give lectures about personal freedom.
I am for banning smoking where other people are affected -> public places including bars (which is public and a workingplace). Smoking indoors at home should also be regulated in some form when children/ non-smoking spouses live there. I am against a total ban.
Regarding First Reason , nicotine itself denies personal freedom as it forces humans to consume cigarets in the future. Regardless of that Smoking itself even if it didn't cause addiction should be prohibited as it is directly harmful for others while other people have no freedom of choice regarding on to how to avoid it. That is what happens when smoking it's not heavily regulated.
Regarding Smoker's opinion , all Smokers belonging in the same age group believe that they should stop smoking but they can't. That means smoke usage can decline by the right methods due to the community's commitment in such methods which is extremely important. Alcohol is a completly different story.
The conclusion is that personal Freedom of Humans as it's Health is elevated by regulating Heavily smoking in the same way that the Personal Freedom of Humans is elevated by the right guidance of a parent. Thankfully The usage of that toxic piece of . .. .. .. . will slowly decline.
Is != Ought. I know you're a libertarian, but that's the way our society works; the idea that the government regulates harmful behavior is a mainstream one, and fully accepted in classical liberalism before John Stuart Mills.
I know it is, and was. Doesn't mean I agree with the idea.
We allow car fumes inside buildings?
Dude, we regulate all of the stuff that you mentioned. You'll break the law if buildings don't have proper protections against the pollution you mentioned.
Alcohol harms yourself and other people but I don't hear anything about banning Alcohol from bars. It is stupid to say that one destructive behavior in a bar is not allowed but another is.
If an _inherent_ part of drinking meant that some of the drink got sprayed over the pub so that everyone's clothes stuck of alcohol, then I suspect people would want to ban that in public too.
OTOH, there is perhaps a valid point in there - supposing alcohol was like that - since the primary purpose of pubs/bars is to drink alcohol, banning alcohol would have far more of an economic effect, and probably have more opposition. Would alcohol really be banned in public in such a case? Supposing instead of just bars, there were also lots of "smoking bars" which had been set up specifically for smoking rather than drinking - would we be shutting them all down?
Alcohol harms yourself and other people but I don't hear anything about banning Alcohol from bars. It is stupid to say that one destructive behavior in a bar is not allowed but another is.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.