Smoking rooms?
-
Smokers only represent approx. 30% of the population and majorities rule. BTW, I am a smoker
-
I gave up a 3 pack a day habit over 20 years ago, when it was still affordable in the US. I still remember the pleasure that smoking brought, but I wouldn't do it again. Maybe on my death bed, I will light up a Cuban. It's also clear that smoking cigarettes will eventually kill most that do. That it adversely affects non-smokers, so they should be protected from those that do. But, I think that if someone wants to smoke, they should be allowed to, as long as non smokers are protected.
-
Same for Cars versus Bikers, Parfums versus Asthmatics, ....
In Bavaria after a referendum on Smoking Pubs, they didn't allow any Pubs just for smokers. Although nobody was forced
to enter such a place. I think no smoker has voted and not expected such a result. -
I didn't post this just to start talking about the bad habit of smoking.
I stopped smoking actually, but when I read "smoking is dangerous... blah blah" I say, what about all these poisons in food market? etc. Better smoking than eating all these.
But when a man like Hockney complains because society doesn't accept his bohemian way of acting and living, then I say, the loss of democracy, the loss of of this sweet word "individual" is close. Democracy is not about what majority says, its more about what an individual person means. You don't believe it? Good luck. I can't live in a boring society. The most difficult for a greek language speaking (and thinking) person is to understand expressions like "politically correct" and "think positive". We are maybe poor in greece, but someone should try to explain these new values of civilization
Try to explain these to Hockney.
BTW A drawing of Hockney illustrating Kavafi's poems.
-
yes, it is about to rule, to make standards of living, for the purpose of controll, how to be , how to behave, etc.
Global rules. No personal identity allowed anymore. So sad.
@michaliszissiou said:Democracy is not about what majority says, its more about what an individual person means.
-
@burkhard said:
Same for Cars versus Bikers, ............
Yeah, but if a car hits a bike, he (the car driver) goes to jail, in the US at least. Hmmm....if a bike hits a car, guess he (the biker) goes to heaven.>_<.
-
When they banned 'smoking rooms' in bars & restaurants here it wasn't about majority rule. The main argument against was for the health of the employees "forced" to work in the establishments. Around here a person is lucky to have a job. Their aren't enough jobs to go around. In our society, we consider it unfair discrimination for an employer to hire/fire on the basis of a person's willingness to work in smokey environment. The reality was that businesses with smoking rooms had waiters & waitresses (both smokers & non-smokers) working in unhealthy conditions. All employers are expected to have as healthy a work environment for their staff as possible.
-
Michael and Juan, cheer up.
I know that neither of you believe that having a cigarette is a sign of an individual. Individualism is always in danger due to peoples' desire to conform. Smoking is probably most often adopted by young people to conform to their own group. Looking cool usually involves copying. I don't think you find much true originality in people, especially not expressed in things like smoking.
There have always been laws on public behavior and (fortunately) since ancient times increasing laws for public health. On the other other hand we have more freedom today where it counts, in personal expression. It is more due to the individual's laziness and desire to conform that we do not have more original thinkers and individualism.
You may feel lucky smoking is not banned altogether like other less harmful drugs. These current laws are really to protect employees and children who have no choice, not those who wish to kill themselves with smokes (and add health and insurance costs we all pay for).
So it's not about some totalitarian takeover of our consciousness IMO. Juan, if we want to go back to the times when smoking was OK everywhere... I think a guy named Franco was calling the shots in your country. Was it better then? Things remain the same, but I think it is actually freer today in general.
-
It's not so much about whether or not smoking is bad for you or those around you [it certainly is 'bad']... but where all of this 'political correctness' and the imbalance of perceived risk is taking us in general...
Smoking is obviously bad... but it's probably on a par with drinking beer, riding a motor-bike or mountain-climbing - in terms of 'general risk' and 'poor outcome'...
We 'as a society' can decide upon what is 'acceptable' to us - slavery was a clear no-no - but the foray into 'prohibition' in the 20's shows how wrong we can get it... then the downside and longterm affects far outweighed the 'benefits'...
-
@tig said:
Smoking is obviously bad... but it's probably on a par with drinking beer, riding a motor-bike or mountain-climbing - in terms of 'general risk' and 'poor outcome'...
All poor analogies in my opinion. When riding a motor bike and climbing the risk is controllable to a large extent, where as with smoking no matter what you do it isn't good for your health.
Obviously drinking is slightly different, but then drinking isnt addictive (for the vast majority of people.)
-
@remus said:
@tig said:
Smoking is obviously bad... but it's probably on a par with drinking beer, riding a motor-bike or mountain-climbing - in terms of 'general risk' and 'poor outcome'...
All poor analogies in my opinion. When riding a motor bike and climbing the risk is controllable to a large extent, where as with smoking no matter what you do it isn't good for your health.
Obviously drinking is slightly different, but then drinking isn't addictive (for the vast majority of people.)Drinking and gambling are as addictive as smoking and probably as harmful to the user and those around them.
Riding a motor-bike is far more dangerous than using a car or bus - and 'hurting yourself' isn't the full story as 'society' has to take care of you afterwards... if you climb a mountain and are hurt many risk their safety to save you and again it 'costs' - all forms of transport produce pollution affecting all ? So why are some things allowable and some not ?
There is no clear logic to most of it. . . -
well pbacot,
I consider smoking a personal choice, so in that sense is a sign of individual. Same to not smoking.
People in power tell us that smoking is a killing weapon and forbid us smokers to use it because we kill people around us. And they are acting angrily against us, smokers.
People in power do not act angrily against pollution in the cities. Why ? is not a killing weapon as well ?
People in power tell us their truth about health and they act angrily as well.
I believe health is another of the common sense facts that we are being kidnapped from.
Soon the people in power will decide who is sane and who is not. Look at the vaccines for instance.
Health and love are common sense understandings, that we are fastly unlearning in this Enlightened Society which forgets all that does not fit in its creed.fancy a ciggi ?
-
Juan,
I agree these things should be decided by common sense and enlightenment (I consider "science" to be in there somewhere). As TIG says the factors need to be weighed, and I think this should be case by case (smoking, alchohol, slavery etc.). I cannot see a downside to the smoking taxes and regulations in our state at least, and so that affects my vote. But the rights of the minority should also be supported, so it should not just be "majority rules". It is critical that a democracy has laws to protect the minority. So how are the rights of workers protected? This is tending towards politics, I suppose, and I don't want to start an argument. I am for worker's rights to a safe work environment, but I support where a law allows an owner to run their own smoking bar. (Did you see the pic of the bar where they stick their heads out a hole in the wall to smoke?)
You may be wrong about urban pollution. Air quality has been improved over the last 50 years, by laws that many people and corporations opposed. Not perfect yet, certainly. I had the impression that Europe is even more regulated regarding pollution. You are right people in power should not act out of anger. Not a good way to behave.
Regards,
Peter
-
Yes, Air quality has been improved over the last 50 years,
I put it as an example of how people in power behave; we could talk about how they act in other fields, polluting the planet. There are so many things to improve yet.
Honestly I think that talking about the danger of smoking is like taking into account a little piece of sand in the huge desert.
Kind regards Peter -
@tig said:
Drinking and gambling are as addictive as smoking and probably as harmful to the user and those around them.
Riding a motor-bike is far more dangerous than using a car or bus - and 'hurting yourself' isn't the full story as 'society' has to take care of you afterwards... if you climb a mountain and are hurt many risk their safety to save you and again it 'costs' - all forms of transport produce pollution affecting all ? So why are some things allowable and some not ?
There is no clear logic to most of it. . .http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4753
Alcohol and gambling are not inherently addictive, although some people are addicted to them. That is not the case with smoking.
I'd argue that climbing, motor biking etc. should be allowable as they are all controlled risk. It is up to the person doing it how much risk they incur. For example, i could go out climbing every day for 50 years and not have a single accident if i wanted to (although it would probably get pretty boring.) This is not the case with smoking. It is always detrimental to a persons health, and furthermore it is addictive and will keep damaging a persons health until they make a large and concious effort to stop smoking.
-
Another point: activities such as climbing and motor biking can significantly enhance someone's life in the long term. This is likely to be quite the opposite for smoking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco#Health_effects
-
I say if a person wants to open a restaurant or pub and allow smoking then let him, it's his business after-all, as long as he has a sign that reads 'smokers welcome' then the non smoking public can choose to enter or not, if the majority choose not to and the business fails then the owner learned a lesson, if the place is jam packed and makes a fortune then he made the right choice and the people inside entered at their own risk. How simple is this? so why must we regulate smoking when a simple sign will do and everyone keeps their rights.
-
@solo said:
...and everyone keeps their rights.
Everyone except the employees. When it worked the way Solo proposes practically every restaurant & bar allowed open smoking. Non-smoking premises were rare. Those working in that service industry had no choice but to work in the conditions, quit, or be fired if they complained.
-
As Ross expresses, perhaps the only way smokers only works, if it is a new establishment that hires smoking employees only. Would that be a civil rights problem? S*%t, am I too old that this seems to be a issue?
-
While the principle of the government not interfering with our lives might seem attractive - it doesn't work.
Let's say safety in mines was not regulated. A mine owner could run his mine as he sees fit. The arguement would be that if conditions were really dangerous then nobody would work for him. Of course in the real world people will even work in an unsafe mine if they have no other way to support their families.
Advertisement