Smoking rooms?
-
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.
-
@ross macintosh said:
@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.
Agreed. I'm a smoker, but I'm most certainly in favour of smoking bans. It makes sense not to force others to inhale your secondhand smoke. Also, I believe that, in the long run, anti smoking laws will effectively marginalize smoking - thus making it less attractive to most.
-
@unknownuser said:
practically every restaurant & bar allowed open smoking
Why so?
Its not about majorities and minorities here
Its not even about health
Its about "we can't accept others behavior" we can't accept an individual person, a 'boem' as Hockney states.
But this is the heart of democracy. To be individual. To understand that today we live next day we pass away. Nobody is immortal. This is what counts. As individuals we may vote. As individuals we may belong to a majority or minority. As individuals we obey to laws.And something shocking. From peloponnesian wars, Thukydides
Pericles speaks about what democracy is:"Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighbouring states; we are
rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration
favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a
democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in
their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public
life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being
allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if
a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of
his condition. The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also
to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance
over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our
neighbour for doing what he likes, or even to indulge in those injurious
looks which cannot fail to be offensive, although they inflict no
positive penalty. But all this ease in our private relations does not
make us lawless as citizens. Against this fear is our chief safeguard,
teaching us to obey the magistrates and the laws, particularly such as
regard the protection of the injured, whether they are actually on the
statute book, or belong to that code which, although unwritten, yet
cannot be broken without acknowledged disgrace." -
Don't know if this is for real, but it IS funny: http://www.break.com/longtail-content/smoker-owned-by-coworker.html
-
@michaliszissiou said:
Its about "we can't accept others behavior" we can't accept an individual person...
Where do you draw the line about is non-acceptable behaviour? If I think driving my car 240 kilometres/hour through residential neighbourhoods expresses my "individuality" is that okay? Murder - is that okay? (Serial killers are individuals too).
-
@unknownuser said:
Where do you draw the line about is non-acceptable behaviour?
I don't draw lines. I can't. Can you? Do you believe that our civilization will keep existing after a 100 years? You don't now this either. Did you ever believed that USSR could stop existing after one year? Do you think that you are immortal? About the last one this right moment I believe I am. It seems eternity exists this moment only.
We had a homeless old dog in our neighborhood, everybody loved him (a dingo like, where did this came from?), everybody was trying to bring him home. A nice clever and friendly dog. Until one day. The good citizens had to do something. As individuals they already had done a lot, they loved him. Dog is dead now, where are these lines Ross? Even a dog is individual IMO.
Please, this about serial killers is at least idiotic. Idiot, from idiota (latin) from idiotis (greek)= the man who's interesting for his own goods only. (thucydides). Another synonym of individual. LOL . OK Ross this wasn't an offense (BTW you were offensive enough*), I didn't really call you or others idiots of course, just an advanced meaning of this word, the athenian citizen and the roman emperor where both individuals. What a difference. One of them was 'idiot'.- to mean that a smoker is a serial killer is too much. Isn't? Its an offense to my logical system.
** I also think that most architects are serial killers lately. I have my reasons
- to mean that a smoker is a serial killer is too much. Isn't? Its an offense to my logical system.
-
@michaliszissiou said:
** I also think that most architects are serial killers lately. I have my reasons
you think we are smokers no ?
-
Interesting variety of opinions. I'll add my own logic FWIW.
-
Smoking kills. Slowly and expensively. So does alcohol, but when your friend drinks and you don't, you don't go home reeking of booze, your chances of developing cirrhosis or colon cancer don't increase, and if you're a woman you don't have to worry about your unborn child. If you hang out in a smoking environment, your chances of smoking related diseases statistically rises even if you don't smoke. It is about health.
-
Smoking costs a lot in lost productivity. Smokers were granted plenty of smoke breaks, that's lost time to the employer. Of course businesses focus very tightly on the bottom line, so they are not going to want to continue that.
-
It isn't about individuality IMO. There are thousands of ways to express individuality that don't involve #1.
-
Reduction in smoking "freedoms" is not a slippery slope to totalitarian regime, though I think there are other things that the government has sunk its claws too deeply into our private lives. When they say you cannot smoke in your own home - there I draw the line.
-
I enjoy a rare cigar. I do not force, nor would I consider making anyone around me that does not enjoy tobacco to enjoy it with me second hand. IMO to insist on the ability to smoke in the presence of others who dislike it is selfish and inconsiderate.
-
Smoking in itself is not a right.
JMO.
-
-
not having read your post, just stopped in the first assertion :
@unknownuser said:
**":3gbbubx8]1. Smoking kills.
I have had enough for the moment unable to argue this point, for that assertion implies that you know that TRUTH
truth for me means certainty
.and i am not OBEYING but for myself and maybe I will die of cancer of lung as my uncle did as the doctors said he had died off.Death is the end and nobody knows.
Or you know ? On the other hand, if that assertion was to be TRUTH then it means that I had chosen my way of dying and as everyone has to die of something then everyone is going to die of .... ---- .... cancer of mamma, of skin, of what have you choosed to die off ??
Not an easy viewing for living, is not it ?
and i stop know (better that I have not read the rest of your post as you may guess for my long answers
) -
You are correct. You could trip walking out your front door and that could kill you - but again, this isn't likely to cause injury to anyone else. Sure, there may be a few people that escape the detrimental effects of smoking. A very, very lucky few. Are you gambling on being one of them? Yes, the tired argument of "...you have to die of something." Read 1, 5 and 6 of my post that you didn't read, it isn't only about you. Peer reviewed science says that smoking will shorten your lifespan and has said so for decades, it will likely cause or accelerate the disease that brings about your demise. If one elects to deny or ignore this in the face of the evidence (whether or not you call it "truth") by simply denying it on the basis of personal opinion, there's nothing to discuss.
-
You are correct. You could trip walking out your front door and that could kill you - but again, this isn't likely to cause injury to anyone else. Sure, there may be a few people that escape the detrimental effects of smoking. A very, very lucky few. Are you gambling on being one of them? Yes, the tired argument of "...you have to die of something." Read 1, 5 and 6 of my post that you didn't read, it isn't only about you. Peer reviewed science says that smoking will shorten your lifespan and has said so for decades, it will likely cause or accelerate the disease that brings about your demise. If one elects to deny or ignore this in the face of the evidence (whether or not you call it "truth") by simply denying it on the basis of personal opinion, this discussion is moot.
-
My point wasn't that smoking is un-harmful to the smokers and those around them [it most certainly is very harmful all round], but rather that politicians and others have decided to jump upon all tobacco use as a particular kind of wickedness that gets disproportionate attention and counter-legislation.
But almost everything that we do has some affect on others - even your simple example of you carelessly tripping and injuring yourself has affects many other - money from others would probably go to help treat you when it could have gone elsewhere had you not tripped etc etc. The ambulance-crew is exposed to a danger whilst whisking you to the ER that they wouldn't have been exposed to otherwise. The troubled ER staff-member has that extra bit of stress because you turn up that tips them over the edge into their nervous-breakdown. Next you mother is so upset she has an angina attack etc etc. Your father kicks the dog...
These are often relatively minor affects but they will happen.
My point was that like the US's prohibition of alcohol almost a century ago it won't work in proportion to the effort and expense lavished on it and that is inherently unfair in a 'free-society'. Why should tobacco be so demonized while other things proved to be 'harmful' like alcohol, gambling, dangerous-sports, speeding, air-travel with a big carbon-footprint etc etc are treated disproportionately less seriously? I think that smoking in 'public places' should be banned BUT some sensible lines need drawing in many other walks of life too... -
When I started this thread, I thought we could talk about these 'lines'. It gives me courage that most of you speak about these lines.
IMO we shouldn't expect from a government or even from a pure democracy to give us the meaning of life or so. To be free, we have to be and deeply understand what individual means. Then democracy will prevail, only then.
Smoking issue is a fine subject because its indeed bad for health. But remember, these 'governments' had a completely different opinion on smoking some years ago. This makes the whole discussion interesting to me. It isn't that some courts made a decision in US. Its something else, we aren't fools, are we?
About all these workers in smoking environment:
What is this? A joke? Go tell this to people who are working in mines, in industry, in hospitals. Tell it to policemen, to firemen, to professional soldiers, to non professional solders. To seamen. Tell it to yourself anyway. To fight for living harms your health, in a way or another. Its sad, I know. Liars they are, pure liars. Poverty kills, and they do nothing about it. Do we live in a startrek community? I can imagine Mr Spok telling that smoke is killing. This, I can accept. Only this.
Advertisement