smoking bans

[Gamma Male]

What do you think about smoking? Does the government have the right to tell people they can't smoke in certain privately owned places? Should it be banned in public? In apartment buildings? Should it be illegal completely?


I think most smoking bans are really fucking stupid, and don't actually accomplish anything worthwile. If the government wants to stop people from smoking it should educate the public about the dangers of smoking and let people make the decision for themselves, not force people to stop and tell them what they can and can't do with their own bodies.

[Harry Smith]

I support a smoking ban in pubs or restaurants, if I'm sitting inside in winter I don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke which can greatly damage my lungs

[Gamma Male]

I support a smoking ban in pubs or restaurants, if I'm sitting inside in winter I don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke which can greatly damage my lungs

If a private business or institution wants to implement a smoking ban, that's fine. They have every right to. But it's when the government forcefully tells owners of private businesses that people aren't allowed to smoke that it's a problem. If you don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke, fine. Go to restaurant with it's own smoking ban. But don't tell restaurants that don't want to institute smoking bans that they have to to accommodate you. It's a privately owned business, and if they want to allow people to smoke inside that's their choice.

[Stronk Serb]

In most restauraunts smoking is prohibited, in pubs not really. Here it's up to the business to decide whether or not people will smoke. I usually frequent the non smoker pubs and restauraunts so it's a major bummer I can't light a cigar, but the ban is there to protect other people from my smoke. State issued bans make no differemce really. The only way people will quit smoking is with higher tobacco tax and educating people about smoking.

[Vlerchan]

What do you think about smoking?
It's an incredibly boring way to waste your time.

Does the government have the right to tell people they can't smoke in certain privately owned places?
Certain places.

It also has the right to do whatever the people empower it with the right to do within the confines of the constitution.

Should it be banned in public?
I don't see a press need for this: car exhaust fumes do as much harm as the limited exposure to second-hand smoke that one encounters on the street.

[Should it be banned] In apartment buildings?
Not if they have permission to smoke inside the apartment by the private-property owner.

Exceptions should be made for apartments and other dwellings of which children under the age of 5 reside in.

---

It should be illegal inside private buildings in which a) employs people and b) the general public have regular access to.

Should it be illegal completely?
No. That's a stupidly unworkable idea.

I think most smoking bans are really fucking stupid, and don't actually accomplish anything worthwile.
You're going to need to define 'worthwhile' here.

I certainly consider efforts made to limit exposure to second-hand smoke by governments 'worthwhile'.

If the government wants to stop people from smoking it should educate the public about the dangers of smoking and let people make the decision for themselves, not force people to stop and tell them what they can and can't do with their own bodies.
You're acting like smoking doesn't have negative externalities that effects other people. It does.

I also might not be allowed to tell you what you can and can't do with your body but you smoking around me - an accidentally blowing smoke into my airways - certainly contravenes my own right to full bodily autonomy. I also have a hard time imagining entering the building as 'consent' to this.

---

But it's when the government forcefully tells owners of private businesses that people aren't allowed to smoke that it's a problem.
Why?

[Harry Smith]

If a private business or institution wants to implement a smoking ban, that's fine. They have every right to. But it's when the government forcefully tells owners of private businesses that people aren't allowed to smoke that it's a problem. If you don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke, fine. Go to restaurant with it's own smoking ban. But don't tell restaurants that don't want to institute smoking bans that they have to to accommodate you. It's a privately owned business, and if they want to allow people to smoke inside that's their choice.

No, that's not fair at all. I shouldn't be forced to leave a restaurant in order to avoid toxic fumes.

Do you accept that second hand smoke is toxic and deadly over a long period?

You can't just say 'government shouldn't do x or y'' and expect that to be an argument, I want a government that protects its citizens

[Southside]

I think it should be up to the private business to decide on whether to allow smoking or not but in public places ( park, near a school, train station) I don't see a problem with the government prohibiting smoking. I actually wouldn't have a problem with smoking at a pub or bar but at a family restaurant it should be prohibited. I don't think anyone would want their 5 year old sibling or child to be exposed to second hand smoke while enjoying chicken fingers at a restaurant.

I personally hate cigarette smoke, makes me sick to my stomach.

[CosmicNoodle]

We have a semi ban in the UK, people are allowed to smoke but only in certian places like out in the street, and not inside public buildings. I think it works well enough here.

[Southside]

If a private business or institution wants to implement a smoking ban, that's fine. They have every right to. But it's when the government forcefully tells owners of private businesses that people aren't allowed to smoke that it's a problem. If you don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke, fine. Go to restaurant with it's own smoking ban. But don't tell restaurants that don't want to institute smoking bans that they have to to accommodate you. It's a privately owned business, and if they want to allow people to smoke inside that's their choice.

So I should have to inconvenience myself and go to another restaurant just because I don't want to be exposed toxic cigarette smoke?

[Typhlosion]

But what we really want to do is reduce the amount of smokers, not increase the number. They were a great addition towards anti-smoking campaigns and increased public health.

The only smoking ban I disagree on, and is probably what you're try to say, is, as glorious Wikipedia words it, "Smoking bans exempting adult-only venues". Smoker-oriented places for adults are understandeable.

[Gamma Male]

It's an incredibly boring way to waste your time.
I agree. It's also incredibly dangerous, and imo disgusting, which is why I plan on never smoking.

It also has the right to do whatever the people empower it with the right to do within the confines of the constitution.I'm not denying that the government has the legal right to institute smoking bans. I don't dispute that.


Not if they have permission to smoke inside the apartment by the private-property owner.

Exceptions should be made for apartments and other dwellings of which children under the age of 5 reside in.I agree. My main concern is in forceful smoking bans which target bars and restaurants, and other places full consenting adults who could choose to leave at any time.


It should be illegal inside private buildings in which a) employs people and b) the general public have regular access to.This would mean no smoking in bars, restaurants, strip clubs, smoking lounges, and pretty much all businesses. Lot's of people have to work, but I would argue that workplaces in which you would be regularly exposed to second hand smoke are rare enough that most wage slaves could easily choose to work somewhere with no smoking if that's what they want. I don't think the government should be telling them they can't choose to work in a place with secondhand smoke. I think that's their decision.


You're going to need to define 'worthwhile' here.

I certainly consider efforts made to limit exposure to second-hand smoke by governments 'worthwhile'. I support government smoking bans in hospitals, places where children are regularly present, and other such locations where second hand smoke effects people who don't consent to being around it and who's health is at risk.


You're acting like smoking doesn't have negative externalities that effects other people. It does.

I also might not be allowed to tell you what you can and can't do with your body but you smoking around me - an accidentally blowing smoke into my airways - certainly contravenes my own right to full bodily autonomy. I also have a hard time imagining entering the building as 'consent' to this.Smoking is very harmful. Second hand smoke is also very harmful. But if you enter a private business such as a restaurant or bar, you are consenting to be exposed to second hand smoke so long as there are no private smoking bans. It's ultimately their business, and if they want to be host activities that are dangerous to their patrons health they have every right so so long as everyone knows what's going on and everyone consents


Why?Because if people want to harm their own health in a privately owned establishment and everyone in that establishment knows what's going on, that's none of the governments business.
No, that's not fair at all. I shouldn't be forced to leave a restaurant in order to avoid toxic fumes.
You're really twisting things around here. With smoking bans, they're the ones being forced to accommodate you. There are plenty of restaurants that choose to implement their own smoking bans, and that's fine. But a lot of them don't want to, and that's their decision, because it's their restaurant. You shouldn't be able to tell them how to run their own restaurant because they allow something you don't want to be exposed to.

Do you accept that second hand smoke is toxic and deadly over a long period?Yes, of course.

You can't just say 'government shouldn't do x or y'' and expect that to be an argument, I want a government that protects its citizensThat would be making assertions without any reasoning to back them up. I didn't do that. I made my reasoning very clear.

I want a government that protects it's citizens from nonconsensual harm, and lets people who know full well what they're doing and hurting anyone other than themselves do as they please. You don't have to be exposed to second hand smoke if you don't want to be. Just go to places with their own private smoking bans, there are plenty of them out there.

So I should have to inconvenience myself and go to another restaurant just because I don't want to be exposed toxic cigarette smoke?

Yes, because it isn't your restaurant, and you have no right to force the owner to institute a smoking ban because you don't want to be around smoking. If you own a restaurant, you can institute all the smoking bans you want. But it isn't yours. And you have no right to tell them what they can and can't allow as long as everyone consents by not walking out and knowing that people may be smoking there.

Merged. ~Typhlosion

[Southside]

If a private business or institution wants to implement a smoking ban, that's fine. They have every right to. But it's when the government forcefully tells owners of private businesses that people aren't allowed to smoke that it's a problem. If you don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke, fine. Go to restaurant with it's own smoking ban. But don't tell restaurants that don't want to institute smoking bans that they have to to accommodate you. It's a privately owned business, and if they want to allow people to smoke inside that's their choice.


Ok you just stated in your response that you support smoking bans in places where children are regularly present, children aren't regularly present at your local diner or Applebee's? By your logic would it be necessary for a child to be left at home because they aren't able to consent to being exposed to second hand smoke?

[Vlerchan]

My main concern is in forceful smoking bans which target bars and restaurants, and other places full consenting adults who could choose to leave at any time.
You'll find that both bars and restaurants sometimes have children in them. Most children can no choose to "leave an any time".

I'd be more sympathetic to letting night-club owners, etc. allow people smoke in-doors.

Lot's of people have to work, but I would argue that workplaces in which you would be regularly exposed to second hand smoke are rare enough that most wage slaves could easily choose to work somewhere with no smoking if that's what they want.
You greatly over-estimate the occupational mobility of non-skilled workers, especially in the current economic climate.

I personally don't like the idea of working-class people having the life-expectancy shortened because their economic circumstances forced them into a freedom-loving bar.

I don't think the government should be telling them they can't choose to work in a place with secondhand smoke.
The government is not telling employees they can't work in places which allow people smoke inside them.

The government is telling people that want to smoke inside employees workplaces that they are not allowed smoke inside them.

I think that's their decision.
In Ireland Trade Unions were some of the strongest supporters of the smoking ban.

Actually, the "you can't be free to hurt the health of Jack who's in my Trade Union" argument was the turning point of the debate.

But if you enter a private business such as a restaurant or bar, you are consenting to be exposed to second hand smoke so long as there are no private smoking bans.
By Libertarian logic, yes.

I think we can agree that the children that might find themselves in these establishments don't though?

... that's none of the governments business.
But why is it none of the governments business?

---

You shouldn't be able to tell them how to run their own restaurant because they allow something you don't want to be exposed to.
I support mandatory minimum safety standards and other regulations besides that in restaurants and other establishments.

I'm pretty sure you do, too. Which is why I'm wondering why you seem to what to make this seem like a totally separate issue.

You don't have to be exposed to second hand smoke if you don't want to be.
Libertarian doublespeak means that whilst you don't you sorta do too at the same time.

[Miserabilia]

Reasons to not-smoke and encourage people to stop (and never start with) smoking;

- addictive
- very bad for you
- very bad for others around you

Reasons to prohibit smoking in certain places;

- Extremely high fire risks
- Air polluting
- Bad for nearby people, especialy children

How to educate people about smoking;

- Warning on packages
- Education about it in school

^Note;

- I think the warnings on packs of cigarettes as they are now are ridiculous, some of them show aborted feutuses in ashtrays. It's not even about warning anymore, and it also causes smokers to feel like smoking when they see gorey pictures....

^^ Note;

- I think warnings should also be present on alchohol and certain food products

[Philleeep]

I personally agree with the ban. Even private businesses are still public. They still have visitors and other people who don't want to be near smoke. The government will never fully stamp out smoking because they generate way too much money from the tax that they have on it. They may spend millions on smoking related illness' through the NHS but they earn and pocket way more by allowing people to smoke at all. I support bans in every public space that is covered to be honest and I hope that the ban on smoking on cars comes through too, especially in cars where there are children. I have asthma now which has come on from a combination of things including second hand smoking when I was little, spending a lot of time in my grandparents car while they smoke.

[Gamma Male]

Ok you just stated in your response that you support smoking bans in places where children are regularly present, children aren't regularly present at your local diner or Applebee's? By your logic would it be necessary for a child to be left at home because they aren't able to consent to being exposed to second hand smoke?
It is the responsibly of parents, not business owners, to ensure that their children's health isn't being harmed.
You'll find that both bars and restaurants sometimes have children in them. Most children can no choose to "leave an any time".

I'd be more sympathetic to letting night-club owners, etc. allow people smoke in-doors.
Again, it is the parents responsibly to not bring their children to places where they'll be exposed to second hand smoke. Business owners shouldn't be forced to accommodate children.


You greatly over-estimate the occupational mobility of non-skilled workers, especially in the current economic climate.

I personally don't like the idea of working-class people having the life-expectancy shortened because their economic circumstances forced them into a freedom-loving bar.
There are plenty of jobs available where employees will not get exposed to secondhand smoke. As long as the employees know they may be exposed to cigarette smoke beforehand I don't see the problem.

By Libertarian logic, yes.

I think we can agree that the children that might find themselves in these establishments don't though?
And I maintain that it is the parents responsibility to ensure that their children aren't exposed to harmful smoke, not the business owner. Restaurants should not be forced to accommodate children if they don't want to. There are and will always be plenty of restaurants that choose to institute their own smoking bans.


But why is it none of the governments business?
Because businesses should be able to choose to allow smoking as long as everyone knows smoking is present in the establishment and consents by staying.


I support mandatory minimum safety standards and other regulations besides that in restaurants and other establishments.

I'm pretty sure you do, too. Which is why I'm wondering why you seem to what to make this seem like a totally separate issue.
Because most of the harm done by poor safety and cleanliness in restaurants is nonconsensual. People who eat food expect that the food they eat won't make them sick. I would actually be fine with not applying safety standards if the restaurants were to warn everyone who came in that by eating there they're risking getting food poisoning and that the food they're eating was made in kitchen full of rats and cockroaches. Though, I doubt that business would stay open for long. :lol:


Libertarian doublespeak means that whilst you don't you sorta do too at the same time.

I don't understand. Are you trying to say it's hypocritical of me to support the right of businesses to allow smoking while not wishing to be exposed to smoking myself? Because. it isn't. That's absurd.

[Vlerchan]

It is the responsibly of parents, not business owners, to ensure that their children's health isn't being harmed.
Okay.

I'm not going to support the non-consensual poisoning of children so that Libertarians can feel consistent.

There are plenty of jobs available where employees will not get exposed to secondhand smoke.
I still believe that you are overestimating the occupational mobility of people within the current economic climate.

As long as the employees know they may be exposed to cigarette smoke beforehand I don't see the problem.
What if the employee is made aware that the pressure cooker may be somewhat faulty and may blow up and kill him?

It seems that as long as the employer can list every common risk relating to that occupation on a contract then it's fine. Is that correct?

Because businesses should be able to choose to allow smoking as long as everyone knows smoking is present in the establishment and consents by staying.
That's not an answer to my question. You're just repeating your position.

Why should a business be allowed to do this? And why should the business right to do this trump its duty to protect its patrons.

It also does have a duty to protect its patrons or we wouldn't have regulation in regards to safety.

Because most of the harm done by poor safety and cleanliness in restaurants is nonconsensual.
But if an individual enters an establishment hasn't she just readily accepted all the health risks that go along with that decision?

And if we don't have the right to enforce against harm caused by cigarette smoke then why should we have the right to enforce against anything else? It's all done on the same premise.

People who eat food expect that the food they eat won't make them sick.
You also do realise that safety regulations go beyond this right?

I would actually be fine with not applying safety standards if the restaurants were to warn everyone who came in that by eating there they're risking getting food poisoning and that the food they're eating was made in kitchen full of rats and cockroaches.
You're not arguing that a sign be put up at the door of each establishment stating that people are smoking inside.

Are you trying to say it's hypocritical of me to support the right of businesses to allow smoking while not wishing to be exposed to smoking myself?
I'm saying that even if an individual enters a premise she still may not want to encounter smoke.

[Harry Smith]

It is the responsibly of parents, not business owners, to ensure that their children's health isn't being harmed.



That's a lie, if someone is with their kids and their kids slip on the floor (with no markings) the parent has every right to sue the business and the business would be responsible under health and safety laws

[thatcountrykid]

in resuraunts yes. in bars and saloons no.

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

I may be a little biased on the topic of smoking considering I think it's a waste of a perfectly good pair of lungs, that goes for tobacco, marijuana, crack cocaine, meth, heroin and anything else you can think to smoke.
However, I believe that the government should be able to tell people they can't smoke in places like grocery stores, school, restaurants and the like, just for the fact that secondhand smoke gross and unhealthy, and noone should be forced to be exposed to it because of someone else's ignorance, insensitivity or apathy.
However, people should be allowed to smoke in either private establishments that allow it, out in the open or in their own homes.

Maybe we can replace tobacco with marijuana.

[thatcountrykid]

I may be a little biased on the topic of smoking considering I think it's a waste of a perfectly good pair of lungs, that goes for tobacco, marijuana, crack cocaine, meth, heroin and anything else you can think to smoke.
However, I believe that the government should be able to tell people they can't smoke in places like grocery stores, school, restaurants and the like, just for the fact that secondhand smoke gross and unhealthy, and noone should be forced to be exposed to it because of someone else's ignorance, insensitivity or apathy.
However, people should be allowed to smoke in either private establishments that allow it, out in the open or in their own homes.

Maybe we can replace tobacco with marijuana.

weed smells alot worse and impairs alot more

[Lovelife090994]

As an asthmatic I'd like smoking to be banned in restaurants and libraries. I don't care if you smoke in public outside but not in a park with children. Here in Houston we have passed smoking bans in parks. Also, you can't smoke in airports unless at the smoke lounges, I don't think everyone wants to smell smoke just when they go to the store or to a café.

[Apollo.]

It would be pretty cool to be able to smoke in clubs instead of having to bail to the smoking area every half hour tbh. I do get why it's banned though, other people shouldn't have to avoid a place just to avoid smoke. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong in my opinion. Look at drink driving laws as an extreme example, the government say you can't drink and drive just for public safety no other reason you can drink alcohol when it won't endanger others, you can drive when it won't endanger others but both at the same time is illegal, nobody complains, same with smoking by all means smoke, by all means be inside in a public place but don't do both together because it will harm other people.

[rtw1997]

I have mixed feelings about this. While there is the issue of second-hand smoke, which is provably very harmful, I am sometimes inclined to think that a business owner should have the right to decide for himself if smoking is allowed in his establishment. My state did not ban smoking in restaurants until very recently, and I have enjoyed not having to be asked "smoking or non-smoking" before being seated at every restaurant and not smelling the smoke. I was in Europe recently and visited a couple countries without smoking bans, and it was such a shock to be re-exposed to that after a year or so. Perhaps a compromise solution can be reached. For example, smoking can be permitted so long as the business owner provides a separate, adequately ventilated non-smoking section.

[Miserabilia]

I have mixed feelings about this. While there is the issue of second-hand smoke, which is provably very harmful, I am sometimes inclined to think that a business owner should have the right to decide for himself if smoking is allowed in his establishment. My state did not ban smoking in restaurants until very recently, and I have enjoyed not having to be asked "smoking or non-smoking" before being seated at every restaurant and not smelling the smoke. I was in Europe recently and visited a couple countries without smoking bans, and it was such a shock to be re-exposed to that after a year or so. Perhaps a compromise solution can be reached. For example, smoking can be permitted so long as the business owner provides a separate, adequately ventilated non-smoking section.

Smoking directly harms people around the smoker, so it would make the most sense to make it illegal to publicly smoke in the first place, but for now it's just in certain public places.

[Vlerchan]

... so it would make the most sense to make it illegal to publicly smoke in the first place ...
I don't believe that the amount of smoke that the average persona is exposed to on the street justifies banning smoking in public.

I've never seen comparative studies done but it's doubtful that it does more harm that exhaust fumes from cars (http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/14639/1/Dangers-of-Exhaust-Fumes.html).

[Svan]

I smoke like a train. However, I think that smoking bans are totally fine because smoking is disgusting and pollutes the air. (And harms people near the smoke)

[Miserabilia]

I don't believe that the amount of smoke that the average persona is exposed to on the street justifies banning smoking in public.

I've never seen comparative studies done but it's doubtful that it does more harm that exhaust fumes from cars (http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/14639/1/Dangers-of-Exhaust-Fumes.html).

Which is why I think there should be much and much less cars, (cars are a huge problem! Carpooling and public transport and more trees in city as well as less open areas next to roads without anything in between them, etc.), but still no smoking;
I wouldn't think, well, there's so many fumes in the air that it can't hurt to throw more in there.
Not to mention, cars cause pollution at large scale, groups of houses ; cigarettes cause polution at small scale, in small groups of people, like groups of people where one was smoking.
This wouldn't really be a problem if we all walked alone and at a large distance but we don't.

[justarandomteen]

What do you think about smoking? Does the government have the right to tell people they can't smoke in certain privately owned places? Should it be banned in public? In apartment buildings? Should it be illegal completely?


I think most smoking bans are really fucking stupid, and don't actually accomplish anything worthwile. If the government wants to stop people from smoking it should educate the public about the dangers of smoking and let people make the decision for themselves, not force people to stop and tell them what they can and can't do with their own bodies.

I agree, although, private companies and properties should be able to choose whether or not smoking is allowed. Smoking should not be allowed only in public areas such as schools, hospitals, etc.

[Charleigh]

I smoke; however I agree with smoking bans in public places.

You say 'it's our bodies', not if we are smoking around other people and around children, people have atshma and just don't like the smell of it, so I agree with it. If I didn't smoke and someones smoke was going in my face I'd make them fucking eat it.

Therre are other people to consider.

[Miserabilia]

I smoke; however I agree with smoking bans in public places.

You say 'it's our bodies', not if we are smoking around other people and around children, people have atshma and just don't like the smell of it, so I agree with it. If I didn't smoke and someones smoke was going in my face I'd make them fucking eat it.

Therre are other people to consider.

Restored my faith in smokers :')

[Charleigh]

Restored my faith in smokers :')

Haha glad I could be of service! ;)

[micheal951]

I do not smoke (yes I know I am only 13) and I never ever will. But to deny it from other people is wrong, if they so chose to then who are we to say they can't? Like in pubs, the ban is stupidly ridiculous, people go into a pub knowing full well people smoke, so if you do not like it do not go to a pub, simple as. Losing out? Tough, you know what happens at pubs, so why moan when you CHOSE to go to them, yet people do not understand why smokers are moaning when they can NOT chose to smoke in them. All not allowing people to smoke inside pubs do, is make them smoke outside, where it looks horrible AND then the government has the cheek to moan when there is litter all over the place? Well YOU stopped people smoking INSIDE so do not moan when they smoke OUTSIDE and make a mess....You make the law...You work with the consequence.

[Vlerchan]

... why moan when you CHOSE to go to them ...
I made an argument earlier about how workers and children don't 'choose'.

Feel free to respond to that argument.

yet people do not understand why smokers are moaning when they can NOT chose to smoke in them.
I completely understand - I have a number of friends who smoke - but I just don't care.

then the government has the cheek to moan when there is litter all over the place.
Smoking Related Litter (SRL) is a very small issue.

It seems though that it can be combated by placing more bins for general rubbish bins on the streets.

[Miserabilia]

I made an argument earlier about how workers and children don't 'choose'.

Feel free to respond to that argument.


I completely understand - I have a number of friends who smoke - but I just don't care.


Smoking Related Litter (SRL) is a very small issue.

It seems though that it can be combated by placing more bins for general rubbish bins on the streets.

On this subject, I was in a theme park earlier, and wherever you walk, in grass fields and on paths, there are cigarrettes every where, despite ash trays and trashcans.
I was standing in line somewhere, a line which consists for children under the age of 6 for about 40% (atleats), and some guy in front of me just starts heavily smoking, with the wind blowing it all in the children's faces and I don't know it just kind of disgusts me,
my body really can't take it either I get astmaticy or whatever it is, I can't breath and I choke and I cough etc etc, they see it but they continue, and they put it out by throwing it on the (themed) floor.

[micheal951]

I made an argument earlier about how workers and children don't 'choose'.

Feel free to respond to that argument.

Well in to be fair, that then is in the responsibility of the parents, not the government, I am not saying it is right that children should be exposed to it, but why should one group of people lose out on something for the sake of others. I know that sounds selfish, but smokers chose to smoke, just as people chose to go to places where people smoke. If people do not want to be exposed to smoke, simply do not go to said places. But then the argument of "Why should none smokers lose out on going to them places just because there are smokers there." Simply it is just a catch 22, and the only way to solve it, would be to have separate places for smokers and none smokers, e.g. none smoking pubs and smoking pubs, but then there is the cost of running two separate establishments, and then that again brings the argument of why should one or the other party be segregated from others? There is no real solution to the problem that will not leave one or both parties at a loss.


I completely understand - I have a number of friends who smoke - but I just don't care.


Smoking Related Litter (SRL) is a very small issue.

It seems though that it can be combated by placing more bins for general rubbish bins on the streets.

Where I live smoke related litter is a nightmare, I live over the road from a large and very active call centre, and at all hours of the day, there is anything from 3-50+ people stood outside smoking, but it is not just the litter from their cigarettes, it's the general litter on top of that, if they were able to smoke in doors, they would be force to use some kind of disposal system rather than the floor, and yes, there are several bins located outside of and around the building, but they still choose to use the floor, and the same goes for outside of pubs. It detracts value from the area, if drunk people are slumped outside a pub smoking with a glass of lager in their hand.

It just should not be up to the government to decide where, when or how people can smoke, it is up to the people who either choose to smoke, or go to said places people smoke. And if the government is dead set on the ban idea....Then provide smokers with better facilities to do so.

[Vlerchan]

Well in to be fair, that then is in the responsibility of the parents, not the government, I am not saying it is right that children should be exposed to it, but why should one group of people lose out on something for the sake of others.
One group does not possess the freedom of choice in regards to the issue.

I know that sounds selfish, but smokers chose to smoke, just as people chose to go to places where people smoke.
Again, I'm arguing that some people do not get this 'choice'. Please refer back to my posts on the first page of this thread.

I know that sounds selfish, but smokers chose to smoke, just as people chose to go to places where people smoke.
Again, I don't care about leaving the people who choose to smoke at loss.

Where I live smoke related litter is a nightmare, I live over the road from a large and very active call centre, and at all hours of the day, there is anything from 3-50+ people stood outside smoking, but it is not just the litter from their cigarettes, it's the general litter on top of that, if they were able to smoke in doors, they would be force to use some kind of disposal system rather than the floor, and yes, there are several bins located outside of and around the building, but they still choose to use the floor.
There's mechanisms in place for you to complain to a) the call-center-in-question or b) your local council about the issue.

It should also be noted that workplaces generally forced people to stand outside to smoke before the ban came into effect anyway. It would probably still occur with or without the ban.

It detracts value from the area, if drunk people are slumped outside a pub smoking with a glass of lager in their hand.
I find you being occasionally repulsed by drunk people to be an acceptable consequence in regards to what I believe the ban achieves.

Unless you're talking about financial value, in which case I'm going to want to see evidence which places the loss at a anyway significant level (let's say >1% loss).

It just should not be up to the government to decide where.
I went through this with Gamma Male:

You'll also have to explain how it's not the governments business. It regularly regulates against harm occurring to third-parties: why not in this case?

And if the government is dead set on the ban idea....Then provide smokers with better facilities to do so.
I've never gone to a pub or nightclub that didn't have a smoking area out-back (read: not on the street).

I'm surprised this isn't the case beyond that.

[micheal951]

One group does not possess the freedom of choice in regards to the issue.


Again, I'm arguing that some people do not get this 'choice'. Please refer back to my posts on the first page of this thread.


Again, I don't care about leaving the people who choose to smoke at loss.


There's mechanisms in place for you to complain to a) the call-center-in-question or b) your local council about the issue.

It should also be noted that workplaces generally forced people to stand outside to smoke before the ban came into effect anyway. It would probably still occur with or without the ban.


I find you being occasionally repulsed by drunk people to be an acceptable consequence in regards to what I believe the ban achieves.

Unless you're talking about financial value, in which case I'm going to want to see evidence which places the loss at a anyway significant level (let's say >1% loss).


I went through this with Gamma Male:

You'll also have to explain how it's not the governments business. It regularly regulates against harm occurring to third-parties: why not in this case?


I've never gone to a pub or nightclub that didn't have a smoking area out-back (read: not on the street).

I'm surprised this isn't the case beyond that.

All parties have the choice, you either choose to or not to go to the places, no one forces you into them situations, yet the government is forcing smokers out of smoking in public places. And why should the government get involved? It is OUR lives to live not theirs, I understand that important laws need considering, murder, theft ect...But smoking....Not really an important issue the government needs to butt into, it is up to the people who do or do not smoke to chose whether to go to them places or not.
As for the drunk people, yes it is them I am talking about, not only does it look horrible, I often feel intimidated to walk through certain areas at any time of the day, as I know more often than not, there is drunk people stood outside smoking.
And as I am only 13 I have not been in many pubs myself, but the ones I have been in with family, only one ever had a designated area to smoke, the rest was just stand where ever and smoke to your hearts content. I could not care less for the money side of what places lose, I just do not like how my city looks when smokers are forced outside.
My parents have rung the local council many times over the issue, and the call centre itself, but so far it has all been useless.

I also might not be allowed to tell you what you can and can't do with your body but you smoking around me - an accidentally blowing smoke into my airways - certainly contravenes my own right to full bodily autonomy. I also have a hard time imagining entering the building as 'consent' to this.

Of course anyone who goes into a place where smoking is allowed, is 'consenting' to it, in a sense. If you did not, why go into the place? I know the response to that would be why should I be force not to go there, but why should the smokers then, be force not to smoke there, are they any less than none smokers? Do smokers not deserve the same rights as everyone else? Fair enough the smoke being blown in your face statement, I myself get angry if I am even outside and someone does it, accidental or not, that is why I have a tenancy to mention it to them. Simple solution, do not stand near the smokers.

I think we can agree that the children that might find themselves in these establishments don't though?

Fair enough, the children themselves (depending on age) may not have the choice themselves whether they go somewhere where smokers are present, but their parents do, it is the parents responsibility and choice to talk that child somewhere where there is smokers. Why should the smokers lose out do to the parents choice?

[Vlerchan]

I'm going to leave the topic of your discomfort around certain people becausen I believe it is a price worth paying, as said.

All parties have the choice, you either choose to or not to go to the places, no one forces you into them situations, yet the government is forcing smokers out of smoking in public places. And why should the government get involved?
My argument rests on the idea that you are impacting on people who do not have a choice in the issue.

Do smokers not deserve the same rights as everyone else?
I find the 'no smoking indoors' rule impacts on everyone equally.

Everyone can potentially make the choice to smoke.

Fair enough, the children themselves (depending on age) may not have the choice themselves whether they go somewhere where smokers are present, but their parents do, it is the parents responsibility and choice to talk that child somewhere where there is smokers. Why should the smokers lose out do to the parents choice?
Why should children, the party without a choice, lose out of both their parents choice and the smokers choice?

---

You also missed out my argument about workers.

[micheal951]

I'm going to leave the topic of your discomfort around certain people becausen I believe it is a price worth paying, as said.


My argument rests on the idea that you are impacting on people who do not have a choice in the issue.


I find the 'no smoking indoors' rule impacts on everyone equally.

Everyone can potentially make the choice to smoke.


Why should children, the party without a choice, lose out of both their parents choice and the smokers choice?

---

You also missed out my argument about workers.

To put it in the most simple possible manner, why should anyone be able to tell another what they can or can not do?

[Vlerchan]

To put it in the most simple possible manner, why should anyone be able to tell another what they can or can not do?
You'll find that all rights are socially constructed:

You're right to act in a certain way only exists by the tacit consent of the community, a community that is given up the right not be bothered by the action-in-question (re: for individual freedoms to exists societal freedoms must be curtailed - and vice-versa), and you're right to act in that certain way only exists so long as the community consents. Nobody has an inherited (natural) right to do anything. It's not the question of 'why should you have the right to stop me?' but rather 'why do I have the right to do this in the first place?'.

---

The problem we have between us here is that you hold to liberalisms narrow view of 'man' and so believe him an entirely abstract construct; detached from his origins, his environment, the context in which he lives and where he exercise his choices, and everything else that makes him who he is. You literally pretend that society does not exist in order to formulate these views in regards to your abstraction of the universal man but the thing is: individualism has never been the sole foundation for social behaviour and never will be, so why we pretend it is when we're discussing how society should be constructed is frankly beyond me.

Further, I doubt you actually hold these views - 'I should have the right to do whatever I want: fuck everyone else' - because they go beyond anarchism.

[micheal951]

You'll find that all rights are socially constructed:

You're right to act in a certain way only exists by the tacit consent of the community, a community that is given up the right not be bothered by the action-in-question (re: for individual freedoms to exists societal freedoms must be curtailed - and vice-versa), and you're right to act in that certain way only exists so long as the community consents. Nobody has an inherited (natural) right to do anything. It's not the question of 'why should you have the right to stop me?' but rather 'why do I have the right to do this in the first place?'.

---

The problem we have between us here is that you hold to liberalisms narrow view of 'man' and so believe him an entirely abstract construct; detached from his origins, his environment, the context in which he lives and where he exercise his choices, and everything else that makes him who he is. You literally pretend that society does not exist in order to formulate these views in regards to your abstraction of the universal man but the thing is: individualism has never been the sole foundation for social behaviour and never will be, so why we pretend it is when we're discussing how society should be constructed is frankly beyond me.

Further, I doubt you actually hold these views - 'I should have the right to do whatever I want: fuck everyone else' - because they go beyond anarchism.

In all honesty, I believe in anarchism, to an extent, I am a person and will not allow someone to tell me what I can and can not do, hence me being moved to my 5 school in as many years. But I understand the reason for some laws/rules ect, but on a scale such as smoking....So damned what if they smoke, do not like it, do not go there, simple as. It is not rocket science to say that smoking happens somewhere so avoid it if you do not like it. I would understand if it was not possible to avoid it, but where action by people themselves can avoid such a situation, then people can not really moan if they are subjected to smoking in public places. But I do not hold the "I can do what the fuck I want" view, but to an extent, I can do what I want. It is my life and I will live it how I want not how someone or some entity tells me how to. I honestly could not care if someone hates being around smokers, just as much as I do not care if other people are bothered by the fact I dislike it, but I sure as hell will not tell someone to do or not to do something. "And why do I have the right TO do this?" 'Because it is my life, do not like it then go away and spend your time where such thing one does, does not affect you.'

[Vlerchan]

In all honesty, I believe in anarchism, to an extent, I am a person and will not allow someone to tell me what I can and can not do, hence me being moved to my 5 school in as many years.
I was saying that wanting a society of 'no rules' is not (political) anarchy.

But I understand the reason for some laws/rules ect, but on a scale such as smoking....So damned what if they smoke, do not like it, do not go there, simple as.
I already explained how some individuals do not have the choice you pretend they have.

It is my life and I will live it how I want not how someone or some entity tells me how to.
Good luck, I suppose.

But society is structured in a way in which this sort of attitude is not going to get you far and/or last long.

"And why do I have the right TO do this?" 'Because it is my life, do not like it then go away and spend your time where such thing one does, does not affect you.'
It's like you didn't even read my criticism of liberal individualism at all.

Let's try another approach: where do you believe your rights come from?

[tovaris]

Yes, smoking should be baned in public! In the streets, squares beeches....
It should also be baned in places such as resturants and bars (bars could be alowed to have special ventialted closed rooms for smokers.